Licensing for tree services

[Iustinian]

Just wanted to throw this out there and get other people's opinions or experiences with whats happened in their areas -- in regards to tree licensing.

One of our municipal arborists became elected to city council, and is pushing hard to require anyone performing tree services in this city to obtain a license for tree work. The proposed requirements will include paying a fee for the license, having a ISA certified arborist on staff at all times, having a copy of your certificate of general liability insurance on file with the State, and showing proof of paying work comp.

Some of others around here are seeing it as a positive thing because 1) it will eliminate alot of the hacks and thus 2) eliminate alot of competition 3) make it easier for customers to file a damage claim if something goes wrong, and be safer for customers.

Some people here are seeing it as negative because 1) they think there wont be adequate enforcement staff available 2) its just going to make it harder on the legit businesses. 3) they think the fees will be unaffordable for small tree services, even if they can meet the other requirements.

Just wondering if anyone has had experience with this in their area, and what the results were, and also any good points people can bring up about it. Right now, we still have some time here to give feedback before it passes or fails, and possibly even help it along or stop it.

 

[troythetreeman]

how much are the fees and what will the revenue be used for?
the law requires workmans comp in iowa? because in minnesota, if you own the company, you dont need to insure yourself, nor your family
nor sub-contractors if im correct
as for certified arborist, if its trim work, he should not only be on staff, which should mean, in the yard while the work is being done, he should be the guy in the tree
and as for removals? insurance should really be all a guy needs
i have mixed feelings
i really think the less legislation the better
this is america
i would totally stand behind a city green stamping a company who provides said proof and keeping a public record of these companies
i would oppose however, gestapo tactics in making it difficult or impossible for new/small/part time companies to make a go of it
let homeowners do the research they want and hire the company they choose

 

[capetrees]

Describe tree work and how does somebody decide what you're doing is tree work as opposed to tree removal? Why would I need to be ISA certified to remove trees? Why should a city or town become involved? What does the city or town owe to the consumer? This is why there are civil courts, to decide if someone got screwed on the work that was to be done. If a guy wants to take a chance at pruning and ruins the tree because he's not a certified arborist, good luck to him. The city doesn't need to get involved. I say no to the licenses. Too open ended and very hard to regulate.

 

[Iustinian]

good point

Describe tree work and how does somebody decide what you're doing is tree work as opposed to tree removal? Why would I need to be ISA certified to remove trees? Why should a city or town become involved? What does the city or town owe to the consumer? This is why there are civil courts, to decide if someone got screwed on the work that was to be done. If a guy wants to take a chance at pruning and ruins the tree because he's not a certified arborist, good luck to him. The city doesn't need to get involved. I say no to the licenses. Too open ended and very hard to regulate.

one thing though, is that you might not be able to recover for damages from someone in civil court though if he doesn't have enough income or assets to attach. which is where requiring them to have proof of insurance comes in -- easier to recover.

a city or town does owe its citizens some obligation of public safety, so maybe thats their logic.

I agree with you, it seems very open-ended and hard to regulate -- I mean seriously, how are they going to afford additional staff to enforce it?

so far, the proposal has discussion of the license fee being not less than $50 and not more than $1,000.

I also agree with the previous poster, about how it becomes a dues paying thing. the guy proposing this thing is/was a municipal arborist, so the city was probably paying his dues anyway. Funny thing about him -- he's got a hack job tree service doing the work at his property, with no certified arborist; a friend of mine worked with them out there, and they worked at his house lol.

we did a removal around the powerlines one day as part of a city contract, and he came out trying to cause problems over whether or not I was wearing chainsaw protective chaps -- he got a little perturbed when i pointed out that I wasnt required to wear them for aerial work (so ANSI says)

 

[capetrees]

one thing though, is that you might not be able to recover for damages from someone in civil court though if he doesn't have enough income or assets to attach. which is where requiring them to have proof of insurance comes in -- easier to recover.

a city or town does owe its citizens some obligation of public safety, so maybe thats their logic.

A city or town doesn't owe it's citizens any level of safety or legal recourse if the homeowner hired the person to do the work on their own home and didn't do their homework in finding if the person is insured or licensed. Thats their fault and the taxpayers of the community don't want to pay legal costs for stupid people. Building, plumbing and electric all have codes and thus specific rules thus inspectors can enforce them. Tree work as you know is very varied and different. Again, removal as opposed to pruning. And if the homeowner doesn't care about licensed or not, why should the neighbor or town for that matter care about a private citizens trees and private property??

 

[RacerX]

IMO if you're going to have a licensing system then it should be statewide. Allowing each town to set it own fees and licensing requirements is an invitation for corruption. This state had a similar system when they let each town regulate contractors, including landscapers. Each town would have a license that required the contractor to prove he had insurance and some other qualifications. Work in 20 different towns you might need 20 different licenses costing several thousands of dollars per year. There is a provision that allows a business to have a statewide general contractors license which keeps the individual towns from putting their hands in you pockets. Many landscapers, etc. hold these licenses so that they only need to pay one fee and can work statewide just like licensed plumbers and electricians.

 

[Iustinian]

A city or town doesn't owe it's citizens any level of safety or legal recourse if the homeowner hired the person to do the work on their own home and didn't do their homework in finding if the person is insured or licensed. Thats their fault and the taxpayers of the community don't want to pay legal costs for stupid people. Building, plumbing and electric all have codes and thus specific rules thus inspectors can enforce them. Tree work as you know is very varied and different. Again, removal as opposed to pruning. And if the homeowner doesn't care about licensed or not, why should the neighbor or town for that matter care about a private citizens trees and private property??

good points

 

[capetrees]

Thanks.

Sorry if I seemed a bit upity on the topic but recently, weve had a number of people in the town where I live whining to the town about issues they should be taking care of on their own, trying to dump thier problems on the town and having the taxpayers pay for the legal rep. Resposibility comes with property ownership and just because some guy in your town can't sell his expertise, why does the entire tree care sector need to bow to his needs?

Thinking for himself at the cost of all.

 

[imagineero]

it's a complicated topic for sure, and there are 4 stakeholders; the property owners, the tree companies, the trees, and the industry as a whole. They aren't all pulling in the same direction. Just in case it isn't immediately obvious, the city isn't a stakeholder.

From the perspective of price, adding a licensing requirement does help in the long term as long as there's enforcement. The enforcement doesnt have to take the form of officers, as long as there's a hotline, neighbours, customers and legitimate tree services will do the footwork. Over time, hakcs can get weeded out, legitimate business can set relatively standard pricing, and work can get done. Most trades (building, mechanics, plumbers) have gone this way and now have set 'book prices' for work. These rates are negotiable, but set a fair starting point. I wont go into the difficulties of setting a book price for tree work in this quote, but would like to say that is an achievable thing.

It's somewhat of a monopoly, but I think it's a good thing for the tree companies, the customers, and the industry as a whole. As long as it isn't abused, setting a fair price means that businesses can afford to get insurance, pay their staff, get some training, replace their gear over time, and spend enough time on each job to do a good job. A lot of new guys just dont understand the real cost of running a business, so they charge for their time only. This ends up not working out for them in the long run, and damages other businesses. For customers it leads to a lower grade of work.

As for the trees, they don't give a crap, and nor should they. I've met plenty of climbers with every certificate there is to get, and every bit of gear there is to buy that couldnt climb to save their lives, or make a decent cut either. Tree sense is part learned, but there's a lot to be said for aptitude. I've met plenty of highly skilled excellent tree workers that didnt have all the right paperwork.

Shaun

 

[Iustinian]

city had their first meeting/"workshop" about it this morning

the guy pushing this licensing is former municipal arborist Skip Moore, who was recently elected to City Councilman. At the meeting this morning, the mayor looked right at him, and basically said something to the effect that they couldn't afford to do anything on it for years, but that Skip could go ahead and give his little speech hahaha. They wound up doing an outline on powerpoint and did very little speaking, but their proposal basically has a low/high scenario for enforcement and fees. For instance, low being chemical applicators don't need the license, and anything cut less than 2" diameter doesn't need a license to $50, high being $220 fee, every type or tree work requires a Certified Arborist on every jobsite.

So basically, its pretty much off the table for at least this year anyway.

Several cities in Iowa were listed as already having such a license however, and they've even suggested having a State license program started.

 

[Grouchy old man]

... anything cut less than 2" diameter doesn't need a license to $50, high being $220 fee, every type or tree work requires a Certified Arborist on every jobsite.

I can see why that was shot down. Who's only going to limit themselves to 2" or less? And a CA on every job?

My opinion on licensing is that it is just another way for the government to get their hands in your pocket. In this county we have licensing for any type of business that deals with consumers and that seems to be working and really that's all that's needed. You have to have proof of insurance and WC- that's pretty much it.

Problem as I see it is that many customers are as dumb as a fence post and only look for the lowest price. Lowest price doesn't always equate with the best work and when the get burned they cry to the government instead of realizing they were the ones who hired a hack and that they could have easily asked for a certificate of insurance and references themselves.

 

[Rftreeman]

the guy pushing this licensing is former municipal arborist Skip Moore, who was recently elected to City Councilman. At the meeting this morning, the mayor looked right at him, and basically said something to the effect that they couldn't afford to do anything on it for years, but that Skip could go ahead and give his little speech hahaha. They wound up doing an outline on powerpoint and did very little speaking, but their proposal basically has a low/high scenario for enforcement and fees. For instance, low being chemical applicators don't need the license, and anything cut less than 2" diameter doesn't need a license to $50, high being $220 fee, every type or tree work requires a Certified Arborist on every jobsite.

So basically, its pretty much off the table for at least this year anyway.

Several cities in Iowa were listed as already having such a license however, and they've even suggested having a State license program started.

why would I need a CA on site to remove a dead tree, please explain that to me...

 

[himiler]

It's the camels nose under the tent.
I've seen it in the air conditioning, electrical, and plumbing fields down here in the Dallas Tx area. The beginning requirements aren't too major and are fairly resonable . . . but give em a few years and slowly but surely the fees begin to pile on along with the onerous requirements. Now you have to attend continuing education classes, have safety lectures on each job, provide the proper documentation, etc. etc., and at each juncture the state has a fee or fine. I was just down in San Antonio doing some work. The electricians on the job were telling me they could get fined if they had exposed ladders on a truck that wasn't marked with the proper signage for a work truck. WHAT!?!
So tell me, how much red tape and "safety precautions" do you want to go through just to cut down a dead tree? Sooner or later it gets to the point where a homeowner just can't afford to responsibly take care of a tree, so they just let it rot til it falls.
Had your air conditioning unit worked on recently? If so you know what I'm talking about.
Steve

 

[Koa Man]

Hawaii requires a tree service to be licensed with proof of gen. liability and wc ins for work over $1000. The law also states that the job cannot be broken up into several smaller contracts in order to circumvent the contractor lic. law. It does not require a CA to be on staff. I was a CA from 1992 to 2004 and elected not to renew my certification, especially since I stopped doing city and state work because of their slow payments. Funny thing is I have some CAs asking me about trees since I have 28 years of experience and some of these CAs have only 3-5 years.

 

[sgreanbeans]

I am for regulation, and we have talked deeply about this before...........several times. Again, I don't think they will make it mandatory to be a CA. If they don't, they need to implement some sort of vetting process. In most city's in Iowa, all you need is $50 and you have a licenses, some require you to have a bond and a insurance cert, but that is all easily fudged. There needs to be a test of some sort, on basic tree care and safety. Just to insure that the person getting the license, has some sort of clue. They could easily hand a test to the license applicant at the counter, 50 or so Q's. Also make them sign a code of ethics, this should help with bad work by those with a legit license.

You wold be amazed at what some of these guys "think" they know. Did you know that a pruning bevel should be about 2-3 inches out from the shoulder? WTF is that you ask! Expert advice on proper pruning from a bubba!

I have been screaming about this for awhile here locally. Everyone agrees that it is needed, but none of them want to do the leg work. Unfortunately our industry is not a priority in these parts. They are 2 busy enforcing imminent domain on property owners, so they can put in a nature trail that no one will use!

 

[rebelman]

I put in writing that i comply with ANSI a3oo pruning standard. I call myself an Arborist. In general, it is fairly easy 2 c from the ground whether work performed is standard compliant. or if it's hack work.

 

[CNBTreeTrimming]

Every town in KS it seems has a license required. The fee is $25 per and the requirement is to pass a knowledge test roughly based on ISA and prove at least $100,000 liability. The enforcement is lax. The only time I've seen it enforced was during an ice storm when the unlicensed storm chasers and truck and saw guys were everywhere.

 

[treemandan]

I hate a hack but I was born in the desert.

 

[Ayatollah]

I'm not an arborist, but here is where these municipal licensing schemes often betray their stated goals:
Enforcement primarily. The muni's like the income from fees, but don't like the associated hard work and costs that make it a level playing field.

fiefdoms: each muni setting up a little sheriff of nottingham. I can tell you a story of a cab owner here who has 1 taxi, and responded to a call to a restaurant where he picked up two city code enforcement agents who then placed her in cuffs, and then issued her an on-the-spot administrative penalty of 2K for not having a cab license for that city (which they wouldn't issue to her anyway). Hell, out here one muni goes into another without any fanfare, so you have to keep a current map on your person or vehicle to see which muni you do or don't have permission to operate in.

 

[ropensaddle]

No it is just another tick on our butts.