Grounds maintenance: municipal tree budgets falling like leaves.

Trees benefit communities and urban environments economically, socially and environmentally, and in order for them to remain assets to communities, they must receive regular maintenance and care. Municipal tree management programs carry much of the responsibility for ensuring the health of urban forests in the United States.

But the average municipal tree management budget in the United States, adjusted for inflation, has decreased significantly, falling from $4.14 per capita to $2.49 per capita since 1986, according to a study recently released by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Research Trust.

The study consisted of a 67-item self-report questionnaire, which was sent to a stratified random sample of municipal decision-makers in communities of all populations throughout the United States. Two reports were produced: Municipal Tree Management and an electronic report, MuniTree.

Respondents were asked questions about funding, urban forest management practices and costs and partnerships with public and private groups. Municipal Tree Management in the United States reports averages for municipal tree management programs for the entire United States, as well as average results broken down by region and population category.

Average Municipal Tree Budgets by Region

Pacific

Northern

Great

Northeast

South

Gulf

Central

Semi-Arid

Desert

Mountain

California

Source: “Municipal Tree Management in the United States;” produced by Davey Resource Group, a division of The Davey Tree Expert Company, and Communication Research Associates Inc. 1994

Average Municipal Tree Budgets by Population

Entire

Source: “Municipal Tree Management in the United States;” produced by Davey Resource Group, a division of The Davey Tree Expert Company, and Communication Research Associates Inc. 1994

The study notes that urban forest managers must search for alternatives to municipal funding sources if they are to maintain healthy, attractive trees, says William Kruidenier, executive director of the ISA Research Trust.

“Decreased funding is thought to be one of the greatest challenges facing urban forest managers today, and our study of municipal tree management programs seeks to validate that belief,” Kruidenier says. “To offset the effects of decreased municipal budgets, urban forest managers should look for other resources, such as alternative funding sources, partnerships and citizen involvement.”

Decreased funding is one of many urban forest management trends identified in the study, which was conducted by Davey Resource Group, a division of The Davey Tree Expert Company, Kent, Ohio, and Communication Research Associates in 1994. Funding for the project was provided by the ISA Research Trust and the U.S. Forest Service. To identify trends, results of the 1994 study were compared to a 1986 study of municipal tree management published in 1988 by the International City Management Association.

Not only have actual dollars allocated to tree care fallen since 1986, but the emphasis municipalities place on tree care also seems to have decreased. In 1994, municipalities allocated only 0.31 percent of their total budgets to tree management, a drop from 0.49 percent in 1986.

“Tree management competes for funding with community services and infrastructure development and repair,” Kruidenier says. “Trees often suffer when limited municipal funding forces a choice between tree care and other municipal services.”

To compensate, the study indicates that many communities’ tree management programs are becoming less reliant on municipal funds. In 1986, 94 percent of communities’ tree management programs received funding from municipal general funds. Today, that number has fallen to 67 percent.

Use of general forestry grants as an additional funding source has increased dramatically, from 1 percent of survey respondents in 1986 to nearly 30 percent in 1994. Other sources of tree management funding identified in the 1994 study include Community Development Block Grants, the Job Training Partnership Act, special taxes, special assessments and public and private donations.

Kruidenier recommends that communities interested in seeking alternative funding sources contact their state forester or state urban forester for information on national and state grant programs. Donations to urban forestry programs also can be solicited from individuals and companies.

“Urban forest managers can actively seek funding sources and develop programs that both increase citizen awareness of the importance of the urban forest and generate community support for urban forestry programs,” Kruidenier says. “One example might be a cooperative tree planting program in which homeowners are offered public trees at a reduced price. In effect, a cooperative tree planting program allows the homeowner to assume some of the cost of street tree planting.”

Only about one-third of respondents indicated that their municipal tree management program has a partnership with either a non-profit advocacy group or a private group. More municipalities should take advantage of such partnerships, Kruidenier says.

“Citizens can be an important part of managing the urban forest,” he says. “They influence how community dollars are spent. If they view the urban forest as important and integral to community life, they are more likely to support its funding.” However, Kruidenier cautions that municipal tree managers should carefully plan such volunteer programs so they don’t become more costly than beneficial.

Average tree management costs can be significant — and may exceed municipal funds allocated to tree care. In 1994, average tree-related expenditures per municipality for parks, streets, public grounds, cemeteries and nurseries totaled $399,387, while the average municipal tree management budget was $279,307. The most expensive tree maintenance cost in 1994 was tree removal, at an average expense of $481.79 per tree removed. Chemical application was the least expensive, at $42.41 per tree application.

In 1994, 21 percent of tree management money was spent on contracted work. But, more than half the municipalities responding to the survey prefer performing work in-house rather than contracting out. When adjusted for inflation, wages for in-house work have remained fairly constant over the past eight years.

Maintenance training costs also contribute to tree management expenditures. About 66 percent of municipalities provide some training for employees, including seminars/workshops, safety training, technical training, in-house/on-site training, arborist materials, videos, tree maintenance training, beautification/landscape seminars, reference publications, parks and recreation seminars and pest control training.

Municipalities can help decrease tree management costs by developing planned, systematic maintenance programs that improve overall urban forest health and allocate resources where they are needed most. The ISA Research Trust study reveals that more municipalities have implemented systematic management programs over the past eight years. In 1986, 67 percent of respondents reported they did not care for trees on a systematic basis. In the 1994 study, only 37 percent of respondents reported caring for trees on an emergency/as-needed basis.

“The key to successful urban forest management is a comprehensive program that involves the community,” Kruidenier says.

Study respondents see maintenance expenditures and funding as continuing challenges in the future. General funding, funding for maintenance, public support and general tree maintenance remain the top challenges municipal administrators expect to face in the next 10 years.

“If municipalities make greater efforts to build partnerships in urban forest management,” Kruidenier says, “they can increase citizens’ understanding and enjoyment of the urban forest while improving its health and the benefits it provides to the community.”