As we look at budgeting, it's important to understand that inadequate funding is going toward care of the urban forest. The Minneapolis Tree Advisory Commission months ago took the stand that failure to fund better care, will result in exponentially higher costs later.
A recent study by the USDA on Minneapolis muncipal trees found that 60% of municipal trees are in need of maintenance and a more regular care plan. Since we have lost so many large shade trees, and many others are approaching the end of their functional life cycle, it is critically important that we care well for the young trees that will fill in the canopy over time. The study also stressed the importance of greater species diversity, even though maintenance costs are higher. At a recent forum Commissioner Kummer placed blame for Dutch Elm Disease on warm winters. In fact, warm winters have played a part. But the failure to fund rapid removal of diseased trees has been a prominent factor, in addition to the notable absence of public education or the MPRB taking a stand on the use of fungicide treatment by private citizens. Instead of looking at the urban forest as a system, the Park Board is only looking at public trees. The USDA study grounded our investment in trees in an economic analysis, demonstrating that for every $1 spent, the city receives approximately $1.60 in benefits related to stormwater management, energy savings, property value, pollutant absorption, etc. Many other benefits are not quite as easily quantified, but it's obvious that the environment in Minneapolis is a big part of what makes our city special. Meanwhile, the Park Board is now working on filling its 5th new management position created this year. The cost of the new staff is around half a million/year that is needed elsewhere. Meanwhile, frontline staff positions such as Forestry and Maintenance are being left open by attrition. I do wonder about the priorities of the organization. The Park Board obviously has a customer service problem (ask any group that has attempted a partnership w/the MPRB) but I attribute the problems more to the attitude of park leadership than to an inherent need for more Managers. Especially when the organization's budget is shrinking, fees are rising and services are being cut. Hopefully, the Park Superintendent and direct reports will use their newly found free time to answer all Commissioner's requests for information, so our policy board can make good policy decisions. Jason Stone Diamond Lake Candidate for Park Board, District 5 --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part): > The problem is also that the budget is completely reactive and not > proactive. So there is a 5 year backlog of stump grinding and a complete > failure to > budget strategically in the context of a long-term plan. So we have 5 years > worth of infected stumps where the bark has not been removed and blame the > weather for the problem and then outsource good union jobs and have no > capacity in > house to remove any stumps. > > I'll use buckthorn as an example. As much as I hate buckthorn, the > discussion about whether buckthorn removal is a priority is really > irrelevant. The > real question is do we have an urban forestry plan for non boulevard trees? REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
