City Trees is a premier publication focused on urban + community forestry. In each issue, you’ll learn how to best manage the trees in your community and more!
Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/625396
www.urban-forestry.com 23 Remember the good old days when we had all the money we needed for our urban forestry programs? No? Well, me neither. In over three decades of being a municipal forester, whether working for the City of Cincinnati or consulting for other communities, I've never heard anyone say, "Budget increase? No thank you; we're good." Sure, things were slightly better when U.S. Forest Service pass-through grants were available, but then that funding was "redesigned," and like salt in the wound, the great recession of 2008 hit, causing municipal general funds to plummet, and some cities to actually go broke. Because of budget pressures over the last decade, some fledgling urban forestry programs disappeared, and some established ones got very nervous. We've always needed more funding. Traditionally, municipal urban forest management program funding comes from one primary source—the general fund—with some pocket-change revenue from capital budgets, grants, and even firewood sales. But these days, urban forest managers need to take a page from a financial advisor's playbook and seek and secure funding from multiple sources so our budgets are sustainable and to ensure against the shifting sands of the national economy and local politics. Funding for urban forest management can also be affected by factors such as competing departmental budgetary priorities, changes in public opinion, newly elected leadership, and severe weather events. When it comes to our budgets, we need to heed our own advice against monocultures. We shouldn't rely on just one funding source, because you never know what will happen. And, as our personal financial planners would tell us, in order to maintain a viable urban forestry program under changing conditions in an unpredictable future, diversifying our funding sources will mini- mize the impacts of funding cuts from any one area. Later I'll present a comprehensive list of the various funding sources to consider, but first, urban forest managers need to think a bit more about the "ask." What is your message? Why should your program be given more funding? How are you pre- senting it? Who are you presenting it to? What is your message? Every community's priorities and urban forest conditions may be different, but the message should be the same: trees are a good investment. Your message at budget time (and even the rest of the year) is that the urban forest should be viewed as a multi-dimensional asset that has value now and will have even more value in the future. You need to say clearly and repeatedly that it should not be treated as a cost center, but instead as a profit center. With all the irrefutable benefit data we have now, elected officials and municipal administrators can be convinced to see funding our community forestry pro- grams as a wise investment strategy. Throughout the year, look and listen for what buttons to push with your message at budget time. Be savvy. If economic devel- opment is a hot button, your message should be about the contributions of trees to retail areas, rental rates, and property values. If air and water quality or stormwater mitigation are concerns, go ahead and confidently play the "trees are the answer" card. Why should your program be given more funding? Competition for municipal budget allocations can be fierce. Limited public funds need to be spent on projects and programs most needed by the community. Continuing with the profit cen- ter/wise investment theme, given trees' multiple benefits, the return-on-investment (ROI) can be a pretty convincing founda- tion upon which to ask for more and different funding. For example, the ROI in Largo, Florida is $3.01 in benefits for every dollar spent on public tree planting and care; the ROI in Elgin, Illinois is $4.61; and in Pittsburgh, it's $1.51. No U.S. city has reported a negative ROI for its urban forest. What other municipal department or program can claim that, or state that the value of the community asset they manage will increase every year? Educate your budget-makers as to how urban forests contribute significantly to improving public health and safety and address- ing some of the more serious concerns of almost all modern American cities—climate change, stormwater management, water and air quality, public health issues, energy use, carbon reduction, and social justice. How are you presenting it? As scientists and technical experts, we urban foresters tend to count on influencing decision-makers with a lot of facts, statistics, and figures. Unfortunately, facts sometimes put the problem or issue in the context of complex technical analysis and time scales that allow for inaction or endless procrastina- tion by those decision-makers. Using the "just the facts, ma'am" approach fails to push two human nature buttons that even budget analysts and city managers have—the instinctual desire to contribute to the greater good and the positive emotional response to specific needs rather than overwhelming problems. So, if you want to tap into the desires of decision-makers to contribute to the "greater good," you first need to build a case for why the "good" of the urban forest is greater than (or at least as great as) the others you are competing against. And you need to be specific about the budget needs of your urban forest rather than take a "sky is falling" tact. Elected officials, municipal finance staff, city managers, depart- ment heads, and other purse-string holders are human beings, and will respond more positively to your request for increased funding if you can reorient your "ask" to appeal directly to their Milwaukee's urban forestry program receives funding through the City's stormwater utility fee. Photo by Michelle Sutton