Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Municipal—Utility Communications

William E. Mifflin
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) November 1988, 14 (11) 284; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1988.14.11.284
William E. Mifflin
Fairmount Park Commission, 8616 Belfry Drive, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19128
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Communications between municipal and utility organizations must be established, maintained and improved on all levels of management and field personnel. Communications methods and structure depend on the size and existing working relationships of the two components. The success of each component will depend on the dedication of both to maintain open and responsive communication.

The relationship between the Fairmount Park System in Philadelphia, PA. and the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) is similiar to most Municipal—Utility relationships. The Fairmount Park Commission has the jurisdictional responsibility for an estimated 250,000 street trees. Approximately 100,000 of these trees are within the responsibility of PECO. About one-third or the total population is London plane with the remaining in Norway, red, and sugar maple, oak, gum and ornamentals including cherry and pear. PECO retains professional arboricultural contractors to maintain their trees while Fairmount Park performs their work utilizing park employees.

Communication starts at the top. Senior Management personnel from both sides meet regularly. The purpose of the meetings is to discuss recent developments, problems, complaints and planning. Annually a permit is issued by the municipality to give PECO the privilege to work on street trees. The permit states that all work must be performed to the satisfication of the Fairmount Park Commission. The permit can be terminated at any time if work is unsatisfactory. The permit is issued to the contractor with copies to PECO.

The Fairmount Park Commission (FPC) has purposely taken the position of establishing formal communication with PECO with an informal review of work performance with the contractor. The contractor works for PECO. To further improve communications, field personnel and inspectors for both PECO and FPC meet to discuss the work performance of the contractor on a monthly basis. Often informal unscheduled meetings arise out of these discussions.

The direction, policy and leadership is provided by senior management and is communicated to the field personnel in the form of meetings and correspondence. Trust between the two components is essential to a productive arrangement. Combined meetings between the two components have proven fruitful. Examples of “good” pruning and “bad” pruning are discussed using slides or photographs. Some tree site visits are used to explain details or justification for work.

In a public relations move PECO senior management addressed the FPC advisory council to explain their policies. The communication process includes monthly letters to PECO from FPC requesting prunings and removals for their consideration. PECO on a monthly basis provides FPC with a list of completed work.

Emergencies or specials are red flagged and given priorities. Requests for service for the general public are not forwarded directly to PECO, but are inspected by FPC and forwarded to PECO in the monthly request. When a complaint is received from the public, concerning pruning by the contractor, the FPC responds with PECO representatives. FPC is computerized and can recall requests for follow-ups to PECO when a response has not been received.

Conclusion

Good communication is hard work, but paramount to successful working relations. It is both structured, unstructured, formal, and informal. It must start at the top where compliance must be demanded by all responsible employees. Informing the general public, political leaders, and city managers of the policy and coordination between the municipality and the utility is instrumental to a successful program.

Footnotes

  • ↵1. Presented at the annual conference of the International Society of Arboriculture in Vancouver, B.C. in August 1988.

  • © 1988, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 14, Issue 11
November 1988
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Municipal—Utility Communications
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Municipal—Utility Communications
William E. Mifflin
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 1988, 14 (11) 284; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1988.14.11.284

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Municipal—Utility Communications
William E. Mifflin
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 1988, 14 (11) 284; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1988.14.11.284
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Hardscape of Soil Surface Surrounding Urban Trees Alters Stem Carbon Dioxide Efflux
  • Literature Review of Unmanned Aerial Systems and LIDAR with Application to Distribution Utility Vegetation Management
  • Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire