Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Moore commented that she appreciated receiving the EAW in July as it was a long <br /> document and that allowed more time for review. She stated that she does not have any comments <br /> that she would like recorded with the document. She confirmed that no members of the Board had <br /> comments to submit. <br /> 5.03: Consider Multiple Grant Opportunities Related to Community Forestry Activities <br /> Senior Planner Anderson presented the staff report. He stated that the purpose of the case is to <br /> review and consider two Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) grant opportunities available <br /> through the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). One is a shade tree program <br /> bonding grant and the other is a ReLeaf community forestry grant. There is approximately <br /> $10,000,000 available through the bonding grant program and a little less than $7,000,000 via the <br /> ReLeaf grant program. The two grant programs are fairly similar(intentionally designed this way <br /> to simplify and streamline applying for both grants) in terms of eligible/ineligible expenses and <br /> timeframes. <br /> Chairperson Moore asked if the funds could be used on any services if approved, such as hiring a <br /> contractor or placing additional staff in the parks department, or whether the funds could only be <br /> used for planting trees. <br /> Senior Planner Anderson replied that funds could be used to hire a contractor as long as the <br /> contractor has certified professional staff. He stated that the funds could also be used to certify <br /> City staff as tree inspectors or arborists. <br /> Chairperson Moore asked if EAB treatment would be ongoing and whether funds could be set <br /> aside to pay for those treatments for multiple years. <br /> Senior Planner Anderson replied that treatment would not have to be continued for the life of the <br /> tree. He stated that if a round of injections were done in 2024, they could also do another round <br /> of injections in 2025 or 2026. He noted that most treatments are annual or biannual. He stated <br /> that once they are outside of that four-year grant window, it would be the decision of the City <br /> whether to continue with treatments at its own cost. <br /> Chairperson Moore asked if this grant would only apply to trees on public property or whether <br /> funds could be used for trees on private property. <br /> Senior Planner Anderson replied that the intention is to focus on public land. He noted that the <br /> grant does have a provision that would qualify certain properties that qualify as low income but <br /> noted that the City would intend to focus on public land and rights-of-way. <br /> Chairperson Moore asked if the City would be willing to look into spaces that are not a park, but <br /> are City owned. <br /> Senior Planner Anderson replied that the City owns quite a bit of land, noting that a handful is <br /> dedicated parkland but currently unimproved. He stated that could potentially be explored but <br /> some of the challenges with those unimproved parks is the difficulty in the survival of trees in <br /> those locations. He stated that they have done plantings in unimproved park lands before, but it <br /> Environmental Policy Board/August 21, 2023 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br />