288 Kuhns et al.: Urban Forestry Programs in Utah personnel and Extension agents could pay off for those wishing to further the education of community forestry managers. Budget Characteristics Budgets were characterized with questions about total budget amounts, sources of budgets, amount of in-kind donations, the proportion spent in managing specific areas with community trees, and the amounts spent on various management tasks. Budget Amounts and Categories. Most responding communities (58%) had no publicly funded community tree budget (planting, care, etc.), compared to 52% for Missouri communities (Treiman and Gartner 2004). Almost two-thirds (64%) of Utah communities designated funds for commu- nity trees if public funds and private donations are included. A majority of those with tree budgets (60%) said that total community tree budgets for the previous fiscal year were less than $4,000, while 24% were greater than $10,000. A relatively few communities with very high budgets caused a great disparity between the mean total budget ($40,387; Table 1) and the median total budget ($3,000). Total budgets varied considerably with community population (“Mean total” row in Table 1). Mean totals were calculated by adding means in each funding category. Mean budgets varied from $1,630 for very small communities (less than 500 population) to $294,000 for large communities (more than 50,000 population). Communities’ general funds accounted for 91% of their tree budgets, with grants the second most common source of funds at 4% (data not shown). Oregon towns, in comparison, had only 52% of their tree funding coming from general funds in 1992 (Reichenbach et al. 1992), and 89% of towns in northeast- ern Pennsylvania reported that they rely on general funds for all of their community forestry funding (Elmendorf et al. 2003). In California, 70% of tree funding came from general funds in 1997 (Thompson and Ahern 2000). Reliance on grant and donation funding also varied considerably between communities and by community population in Utah, as indicated by the general fund/grant ratio shown in Table 1. Smaller towns and cities with popula- tions of 1,000 or less or 3,000 to 10,000 relied heavily on grants and donations, with general fund/grant ratios of 1.4 to 2 and grant/donations making up 33% to 42% of the total tree budget. Larger cities (more than 10,000 population) had general fund/grant ratios of 20 to 48, with only 2% to 5% of their budgets consisting of grants/donations. It appears that granting agencies get less for their money in terms of match- ing dollars when grants are given to these small communities, but many might not have viable programs otherwise. On the other hand, many grants are fairly small, and large cities may not consider it worthwhile to spend the time to pursue such funding. Reliance on grants in Oregon in 1992 appears similar to that of small towns in Utah in 2002, with a general fund/ grant ratio of 1.9 and 27% of tree funds coming from grants/ donations in Oregon (Reichenbach et al. 1992). California’s 1997 figures more closely resemble those of Utah’s larger cities, with a ratio of about 18, and 4% of tree funds coming from grants (Thompson and Ahern 2000). The California study included many more large cities than did the Oregon or Utah studies. Nationally, reliance on grant funding has been increasing. Tschantz and Sacamano (1995) reported that 29% of communities in 1994 reported receiving urban forestry grants, compared with only 1% in 1986. Total public tree spending per capita for communities with budgets averaged $2.58 per resident (“Per capita” row in Table 1). The smallest communities had the largest per capita funding, at $6.26 per resident, though this funding was heavily based on grants and donations. Per capita funding decreased to a low of $1.08 per resident for towns with 3,001 to 10,000 population, then increased and leveled at $2.40 to $2.70 for large communities. This means that communities with 500 or less population and those with greater than 10,000 population on average have budgets large enough to qualify for Tree City USA designation (minimum $2 per capita). It could be that other communities with under $2 per capita also could qualify, because other sources of funding Table 1. Mean community tree budget totals, per capita and per tree funding, and ratio of general funding to grant funding for communities that had a tree budget, by population class and for all towns. Standard errors are given in parentheses for the mean totals. Tree budget Mean total Per capita fundingz Per tree fundingz General fund/granty 118–500 (N = 13) $1,630 (335) $6.26 $41.00 1.4 501–1K (N = 6) $3,034 (1,639) $1.90 $11.43 2.0 divided by the number of communities in the class. y ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture 1K–3K (N = 16) $3,639 (1,205) $1.35 $23.88 11.5 General fund amount divided by grants plus monetary donations. Town population class 3K–10K (N = 18) $5,856 (2,192) $1.08 $26.57 1.5 10K–50K > 50,000 (N = 17) (N = 6) $64,825 (20,059) $2.70 $20.25 47.9 $294,070 (202,478) $2.40 $15.57 20.0 All towns (N = 76) $40,387 (17,813) $2.58 $25.16 17.2 zCalculated as total tree budget divided by population or number of public trees for each community, then summed for each population class and
November 2005
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
