Tree Board

Tree Board Regular Meeting Minutes 5 January 2017 5:30-6:30 Thursday City Hall Memorial Room Attending: Tree Board Members: John Akielaszek, Abby Colihan, Jeff Schumann, John Snell Parks Department: Geoff Beyer, Emily Markstein Volunteers: Ellen Doyle, Bob Troester  Agenda Approval of the Tree Board/NBNV MOU was added to the agenda, which was then approved.  Approval of December Minutes Minutes from the December 2016 meeting were approved.  Public comments John S. mentioned that the 5 finalists for the Montpelier Net Zero Sustainable Design contest would be presenting their designs on the next Saturday. He urged all member to attend to make sure the trees were represented.  MOU With NBNC The board voted to approve the MOU agreement with NBNC. The only changes were corrections for typos. The approved version will be sent to NBNC for their approval. MOU is attached.  Community Services Department John S. and Geoff reported that this new department is a done deal. However, Geoff also said that much remains to be worked out. As the development of the department progresses, Geoff will be looking to us for our input. He sees that there may be potential opportunities for Parks & Trees to benefit from the new organization but he also believes there are potential downsides as well. John S. did write a letter of support. It is attached along with Jessie’s response.  Invasive Buckthorn Removal on Shared-Use Path John reported that our last removal effort was successful in removing/girdling a number of trees. But he also that his further research revealed that the seeds of the buckthorn are long lasting and that our uprooting of the trees created a fertile ground for the seeds to sprout. He recommended that in the future we cut down the trees and use Buckthorn Bags (which he has purchased) to smother the tree. Geoff believes that girdling will work just as well. There will be a competition. Page 1 of 11  Annual Report to the City John S. completed the annual report for the city. It is attached.  Goals for 2017 There was a general discussion on Tree Board goals for 2017. Tree Nursery Good progress was made this past year revitalizing the nursery and we will continue to develop the nursery in 2017 as a resource. Keeping up with maintenance is one primary goal. Perhaps using one of the scheduled work days to bring volunteers out to help when needed. The nursery inventory will be maintained as trees go in and out. We plan to experiment with different planting methods; in ground, in bags, and in pots. Avoid over planting, having an idea of where a tree will be transplanted to prior to planting it in the nursery. EAB John A said he planned on updating the EAB preparedness plan. There was also a discussion for how the tree board could promote more signage around the state alerting people not to bring in firewood from out of state. Invasive Removal Invasive removal will continue to be a priority in the coming year. John S. suggested the Dot has a strong interest in this and might be willing to lead an effort to engage the public in removing invasives from their property. Emily will also be working on removal plans, public outreach, and researching best practices. Workdays John S. wanted to have more of a focus on workdays this coming year and getting more volunteers involved. There was a consensus that having recurring set days/times for the workdays was good. It was also suggested that the time for the activities be extended to 3 to 4 hours with the proviso that people could come anytime during that time to help. Outreach Ways were discussed on how we could engage the public more and make the public more aware of our efforts. Another St. Paul St. Project Everyone agreed that we should start another St. Paul Street project in another neighborhood this year.  New Business John S. reported that Jake Feldman resigned from the Tree Board. He will ask the City Council to advertise for a replacement. Page 2 of 11  Next meeting Thursday, 2 February, 5:30-6:30 at City Hall Page 3 of 11  Memorandum of Understanding Between Montpelier Tree Board & North Branch Nature Center Regarding Norm Hudson Tree Nursery This is an agreement between the Montpelier Tree Board and North Branch Nature Center, NBNC. The purpose of this MOU is to establish the responsibilities of the parties regarding the use of the Hudson Tree Nursery, which is located on property owned by NBNC. NBNC will provide land for the tree nursery free of charge for the Montpelier Tree Board to use as a tree nursery. The Montpelier Tree Board will use the tree nursery for growing trees to be transplanted on city rights of way and other places in the city of Montpelier where appropriate. The Tree Board is fully responsible for maintaining the tree nursery. The Montpelier Tree Board is free to plant any tree in the tree nursery it determines would make a good city tree with the understanding that the trees will be transplanted (moved out of the nursery) within 5 years. For any tree that, for whatever reason, cannot be transplanted, it will be up to NBNC to determine if that tree can remain in the tree nursery indefinitely. The Montpelier Tree Board will work to ensure that any non-native or non-naturalized planting will not go to seed and potentially self-seed beyond the nursery. The Montpelier Tree Board will receive approval from NBNC for the use of any pesticide or herbicide prior to its application. This MOU shall be in effect upon the signature of the Montpelier Tree Board and North Branch Nature Center authorized officials. It shall be in force from the date of signatures until it is amended or dissolved by either party. Signatures and dates Chip Darmstadt, Executive Director of NBNC _____________________________ Date: _______________ John Snell, Chair of Montpelier Tree Board _____________________________ Date: _______________ Page 4 of 11 John S Letter of Support December 9, 2016 To: Mayor Hollar, City Council, City Manager Re: Trees and the proposal for a Community Services Department Although I have provided comments on several occasions over the past several months regarding the proposed Community Services Department, I’d like to specifically address my concerns about how these changes may adversely affect trees in Montpelier. Honestly, I am concerned that the impetus for this proposal is to cut costs rather than increase efficiencies. Cutting costs will, I believe, inevitably result in fewer people working to do the same amount of work (or more) with the bottom-line being trees will suffer. The city’s urban forest—street trees, downtown trees, trees in neighborhoods, the beautiful trees of the cemeteries, and trees in our amazing system of parks—are already in a state of great, unmet need, a situation that will only increase in the next decade. While we may often fail to notice “the trees for the forest in which we live,” the urban forest is essential to the health and economic vitality of our city. The value of our park system alone is immense and something that probably adds considerably to the value of nearly every property in the city. The decline our much of our urban forest, especially in neighborhoods, due to the loss of Elms and Sugar Maples, and the poor sighting of many new plantings, has been significant, a cost that is also reflected in property values. The city’s urban forest is supported with some funding from the city for personnel and part of the budget for Parks, Cemetery and the Tree Board, but a great deal of the support comes from volunteers. Both are well indicated by the fact that Montpelier has been honored by Tree City USA for the past 16 years. I would point out, however, the bulk of the volunteer labor— literally thousands of hours— is obtained and managed by Parks and Cemetery managers while additional hours—several thousand every year—comes from the Tree Board and a group of volunteers we have recruited. Additionally, Parks and the Tree Board every year locate and secure cash grants to support tree- related activities, typically $5000- 10,000 per year. Needs that are still left unmet include the following: • Management of hazardous trees, including removal or pruning, an urgent need • Setting aside funds for removal of dead Ash trees when the Emerald Ash Borer reaches the city • Management of invasive plants in our parks, on riverbanks and along public rights of way, an ongoing and time-consuming task. (I believe we will be required to deal with invasive plants as part of state funding for the shared use path extension due to be constructed in 2017.) • Annual pruning for tree health as well as road and sidewalk interference Page 5 of 11  • Updates of our tree inventory every 3-5 years • Coordination of volunteers for various projects • Watering of downtown trees • Replacement of many guards and grates on downtown trees • Reconstruction of sidewalk planting areas • Review of applications for zoning permits • Maintenance of Tree Board and Park sections of city websites • Expansion of neighborhood tree planting program • Expansion and maintenance of tree nursery • Work with students in schools • Protection of trees from animal damage, mainly beavers My concerns about the proposed Community Services department are as follows: • The specialized and often time-based needs of trees will be lost in a larger department • The addition of upper-level additional manager(s) will result in lower-level managers being paid less and, as a result, being less qualified • Increased bureaucracy will result in less time in the field attending to the needs of trees • Time-based needs, such as mowing, will compete unduly with others such as tree pruning • The attention necessary to acquire and manage the many, essential volunteers we currently use will simply not be available. • Long-term projects, such as planting more trees in neighborhoods, will not be given the necessary priority • Re-occurring projects, such as removal of invasive plants or updating the tree inventory, will not be given necessary priority. • Loss of Parks personnel at a time when they are already chronically understaffed If the goal is truly to improve the delivery of services, I would ask that you again look at how this proposal will actually accomplish this. While improving efficiencies is important, I suggest the city’s valuable urban forest simply cannot afford cost cuts. John Snell, Chair Montpelier Tree Board Page 6 of 11 Jessie Baker Response to John’s Letter Hello John, Thank you for your feedback on the Community Services Integration effort. I wish I had heard your concerns earlier in the process. I want to address a few of the points you make and I encourage you (and the Tree Board) to stay engaged in these conversations as we go forward with an adaptive process to integrate the departments. During the previous Council discussions about the Community Services integration, cost cutting has not been mentioned as a goal. Providing better services has been the focus of the work and the efforts of the Workgroup. Currently our FY18 transition plan does not consider cutting any staff. In fact, we are trying to add a VISTA position to work across the three divisions (Parks/Trees, Recreation, and Senior Activity Center.) Our FY18transition plan also considers giving significantly more administrative support to Geoff and Alec than they currently have – including staff support dedicated to fundraising, communications, volunteer management (as well as other administrative duties.) We believe that this will additionally support the Tree Board rather than take away. The Workgroup intentionally recommended maintaining the Committee and Board structures in their entirety so as to maintain the institutional expertise surrounding parks, trees, recreational services, and senior services. We are specifically looking to not lose existing staff and volunteer experts. The Workgroup (with both Geoff and Alec on it) have given unanimous support to this plan. This was done only on the condition that this integration be implemented in an adaptive way -meaning we are going to try some things out, learn from them, and adjust our plan over time to ensure the best services to all of Montpelier (including the Trees.) 1hope you (and Geoff and Alec) will remain engaged in this process! Best, Jessie Jessie Baker Assistant City Manager City of Montpelier 39 Main Street Montpelier,Vermont 05602 P: (802) 262-6250 jbaker@montpelier-vt.org www.montpelier-vt.org Page 7 of 11  Montpelier Tree Board 2016 Annual Report Purpose of the Tree Board: The purpose of the Tree Board is to protect the public health and welfare by improving and preserving the beauty of the city as it relates to the “urban forest,” including street and park trees, the City forest and trees on private property. The Board administers and updates a plan for the care, preservation, pruning, planting, removal, or disposition of trees and shrubs in parks, along streets, and in other public areas. The old American Elm (left) on Court Street, the last of the great Elms in the city, is just one example of the many fine trees we can enjoy in Montpelier all year long. The Board meets monthly (1st Thursday) at City Hall and schedules two regular workdays each month (1st Saturday, 10-noon and 3rd Thursday, noon-2) around the city. All are welcome to attend any of our meetings or workdays. We also have room on the Board for more members if you want to play a larger role in the City’s urban forest. Current Board Membership: John Snell, Chair Sarah Hoffmeier Steve Bailey John Akielaszek Abby Colihan Heather Calderwood Jeff Schumann Lynn Wild Jake Feldman Geoff Beyer, Tree Warden Emily Markstein, AmeriCorps The board and a strong group of volunteers once again logged well over a thousand hours of service in 2016, from planting to weeding and watering, from meetings to completing grant applications, to fighting invasive plants and just enjoying talking about trees. We did all our work in 2016 with an $1800 budget from the taxpayers. In addition, we raised funds through grants and donations and met the bulk of our non-cash needs with volunteer labor. We could not do our work without the very active support of the Parks Department, in particular Geoff Beyer and their crews, as well as support from the Mayor and City Council, the City Manager and the Department of Public Works. Summary of our work for 2016 Page 8 of 11 • Tree planting: We continue to plant trees in various locations around town using both trees purchased with our budget and grant funds as well as trees grown in our nursery. This year we replaced two trees in the downtown area that were in decline and added another five dozen trees to the urban forest in various locations. • GreenUp Day celebration: The Tree Board once again provided maintenance on all the downtown trees by adding compost and gypsum (to counter effects of salt) to the planting areas. • Arbor Day celebration: The Tree Board helped plant a tree for Arbor Day on Main Street. • Tree maintenance: We continue to expand our work maintaining our existing trees. We maintained our focus on the downtown trees, by adding compost and gypsum to the planting areas and pruning the trees as needed. Additionally weeding the planting areas was done throughout the summer. Several trees downtown were damaged by a late frost, after the leaves had emerged. While we hoped all of these might recover, several appear to be permanently damaged and will be replaced in the spring. • Tree nursery: We maintain a small nursery, The Norm Hudson Nursery, at North Branch Nature Center, which donates the land for our use. We are working hard to improve the quality of the trees raised as well as refine the species to better suit our needs. We particularly appreciate the work done by the Parks Department to mow the nursery, remove damaged and older trees, clean up and recycle old plastic tubing and assist in transplanting. • Pruning workshops: The Board and the Tree Warden hosted a hands-on workshop to teach people the basics of small tree pruning. This was attended by over a dozen people some of whom have continued to volunteer with us. • Tree walks: Board member John Snell led four educational tree walks around town during 2015 which were attended by more than two dozen people total. • Watering downtown trees: Due to limited quantity of soil in the small downtown tree pits, weekly hand-watering is required. Several volunteers did the bulk of the work during the summer; as a result, and because of fairly good rainfall, most of the trees came through in excellent condition. • Sidewalk and street clearance pruning: With assistance from the staff of the Parks Department, we have responded to more than a half-dozen situations, including several referrals from DPW, where trees overhanging sidewalks were causing problems. We are pleased to be able to provide these services to the city while also assuring the work will Page 9 of 11 be done acceptably to relevant arboreal standards. • Tree City USA: Montpelier once again qualified as a Tree City USA and was honored for the 13th year as such by the Vermont Urban and Community Forestry Program. A Tree City USA must have: (1) a tree board or tree warden; (2) a tree ordinance; (3) a tree program with an annual budget of at least $2/person; and (4) an annual Arbor Day celebration proclaiming the importance of trees in our lives. • Protecting riverbank trees: Predation by beavers of riverbank trees continues to be a problem, especially noticeable late last spring on the North Branch. The Board has held two workdays during which we fenced a number of trees (left) to protect them from further damage. More work remains to be done, as this is an ongoing issue. • Focusing on Planting a Neighborhood: Board member Lynn Wild is leading an effort to focus planting in a neighborhood in order to both expand the urban forest as well as encourage tree stewardship. The focus for 2016 will be St. Paul Street, beginning with educational efforts in January and February that will lead to planting in the spring and fall. • Consulting: We provide informal, free consulting to citizens, businesses and community organizations with questions about their trees. This work ranges from advice on pruning and planting to questions about tree health or possible removal. In 2015 we provided these services in more than two dozen instances. • Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Educational Project: Unfortunately this invasive pest now surrounds Vermont on all sides and is expected to infest the city itself within a year or two. A group of volunteers, led by Board member John Akielaszek , has continued to inventory Ash trees on a random selection of 100 private properties in the city. A projection of this data suggests more than 2700 Ash trees grow on private property in the city. John has continued to update a response plan and lead the implementation of the steps included in it. Along with Board Chair John Snell, he made a presentation to the City Manager and the City Council about the issues involved. • Grants: The City, mainly through the efforts of the Geoff Beyer, Tree Warden, received grants from Vermont Urban and Community Forestry Program to continue with the citywide inventory of all species as well as a smaller grant to plant a tree. In addition we received another American Forests’ Global ReLeaf grant to plant trees along the river and streets. • Inventory of all trees: Led by Geoff Beyer, Tree Warden, work continues to complete and update an inventory of all street trees. In addition, volunteer Bob Troester created an Page 10 of 11 online inventory tool for downtown trees that may be expanded to all city trees. This can be seen on the city’s website. • Planning for the future: • We will continue maintaining existing trees and planting new ones throughout the city using both purchased trees as well as those we grow in our nursery. • We will continue efforts to focus planting in specific areas of the city, as we have done in the past along Barre Street. This year we will work on St. Paul Street. • We will continue to implement the preparedness plan for the Emerald Ash Borer. • We will continue to educate community members of all ages as to the importance of Montpelier’s trees and how they can better care for those on their property. We appreciate the continued support we have from the citizens of Montpelier as well as the City Council and City government. We could not do our work without the very generous support of the staff of the Parks Department and the cooperation of DPW. • City Budget: we were please the City Council restored much of our budget which now stands at $2000/year. While we certainly have needs in excess of that amount (a single tree, purchased and planted by a professional typically costs 1/3 of that!), we are confident we can raise additional funds and find grants to supplement the tax payers’ investment in the urban forest. Of course, we also hope the Council will further prioritize funding the work we are doing so that it can be expanded. As has been the case with our streets and bridges and other infrastructure, we have failed to adequately address the real needs of our urban forest for too many years now and the cumulative effects are showing all too clearly. Located as we are in the middle of the Green Mountain forest, it is easy to take our trees for granted. The City’s trees need our increased support for in the years ahead. Thank you, John Snell Chair Page 11 of 11