Yeah, I'm sure.

Yeah, sure.

And then next Tuesday.

Yeah, that I just thought.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's just one of my summer voices.

All right, here from North America.

Good evening, everybody.

This is the Urban Parks and Forestry Board July 2026 meeting.

My name is Terry.

Thank you very much for your patience.

We had we were late getting into the room tonight.

So before we get started in the meeting, I'd like to remind folks of a couple of things to make it easier for you to follow along and make public comment.

You can watch us in real time in several different ways.

Attend in person in the city commission room.

Stream us live on your computer by going to the meetings video page at Bozeman.net and clicking the view live event link.

You can watch the meeting on Cable TV channel 190.

You can also join us via video conference.

You'll find the link to join us by clicking on the calendar event page for the meeting on Bozeman's main webpage to find the Earth to find the urban parks and forestry board agenda.

Click the link to register and follow the prompts to enter the meeting.

Lastly, you can call in to listen.

You'll find that number on the video conference and access code on the agenda.

Please note this is for listening only, and you will be unable to give verbal public comment using this method of participation.

If you are joining us through video conference and are having connectivity issues, try exiting out of the meeting and coming back in.

If you continue to have issues, please remember you can also listen via the phone information.

Streaming live on the website or on CAPE cable on channel 190.

If you would like to offer public comment this evening, there are three ways you can do that.

You can make your public comment in person here in the commission room.

If you are joining us through video conference, you can use the raise your hand feature when it is your turn to comment.

Staff will call you by name.

Remember to go back in and lower your hand when you have finished making your comment.

And then you can always provide written public comment before the meeting by sending an email to comments at Bozeman.net or by visiting our public comment web page.

Any public comment received by noon on the day of the meeting will have been distributed and read by the board.

We will hear in-person public comments first, followed by those joining me via video conference to allow time for remote attendees to cue up for comments.

Thank you.

And now the agenda tonight.

Yes, uh, we have one change to the agenda.

Uh we'd like to remove item F one, the staff update regarding Sunset Hill Cemetery.

That was mistakenly re-uploaded from last month.

So we do not have another Sunset Hills Cemetery update.

Okay.

Thank you, Mitch.

Um next is approval of the minutes from the June meeting.

I make a motion to approve the June 2026 meeting minutes.

I second.

Pay Slowski.

Yes.

Sally Shrink.

Yes.

Brandt Baruch.

Yes.

Terry Lumpston.

Yes.

Steve Lowry.

Yes.

Matthew Cortan.

Yes.

Joe Cartwright.

Yes.

Minutes approved.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

So now is the time to comment on any non-agenda matter falling within the scope of the Urban Parks and Forestry Board.

There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that specific item, but you may only speak once per topic.

Please note that the board cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda.

All persons addressing the board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner, and members of the audience shall respectfully shall be respectful of others.

Please state your name and whether you are a resident of the city or a property owner within the city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes.

Now's the time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I live in the Northeast neighborhood.

And I just wanted to bring to your attention what's been happening with the Northern Pacific Park, which is often also returned referred to as the depot park.

So it's front IDIS Ida and Aspen Streets form a little triangle.

And with the new development going in, the the yards project, they've been redoing the streets and gutters and putting in infrastructure for that.

And in the process, they've um torn the park up.

The boulder is still there.

Um but as they're putting it back together, based on the uh road gravel roadbed and compaction for sidewalks, it would appear that the park is going to be mostly concrete uh in the future, which is a shame because previously it was almost all grass with some mature trees and picnic tables, and it doesn't appear that that's what it's gonna, it's gonna resemble something um much less pleasant uh in the future.

And I don't know if if this board has the ability or anything to go out and maybe help them make a better park versus a worse park before uh before they're they've done it, but that's what's happening out there.

So thank you for your time.

Good evening.

Uh Daniel Cardi, I'm a Bozeman resident, one of the co-founders of the Bozeman Tree Coalition.

We have been active in Bozeman since the summer of 2023 when 24 acres of cottonwoods were bulldozed at the Canyon Gate Development.

Uh one of our members, uh Marcia Cavaney, who is in the back of the room, submitted written public comment for the Bozeman Tree Coalition this morning.

We hope you all have received that and had a chance to read it.

To that written comment, I would like to add one more.

I think in the current draft of the forest management plan, that the canopy cover goal is two week.

Um right now it's in that 10 to 12 percent range.

Um, and that seems to be the goal for the um management plan.

Remember, this is a 10-year management plan.

I believe the consultants took a look at similar similarly situated cities of Bozeman and found out that the average canopy cover goal should be around 18%.

So that's what we, as the Bozeman Tree Coalition would recommend.

We, as the Bozeman Tree Coalition focus on the ecological function and ecosystem services provided by Bozeman's Urban Forest.

We think this management plan should be bold and it should provide a framework for informing changes to the city's unified development code.

Thank you.

Are there any more general comments in the room?

Okay, do we have any general comments online?

No online public comment.

Great.

Thank you.

Um now we are to um item G1, the work session on the 2026 Urban Forest Management Plan and the review of the preliminary draft.

Okay.

Microphone works.

Love it.

Appreciate everybody's patience uh getting set up and thank you for everyone, your time and attention to this project.

I'm not gonna dilly-dally too much here and just kind of hand this over to the consultant team that's been waiting patiently online.

And uh Milo and myself are here to also uh jump in if if needed.

But um we're on work session number four.

But um we're on work session number four, and we've got a pretty substantive draft of the overall urban forest management plan um for review with uh a brief uh presentation from the team to sort of navigate uh what's what's a pretty large document and and they'll cover some highlights and again I'm here for questions, chime in with any comments that that I'm seeing or hearing along the way.

So they should be down again.

Oh, great.

Kill that audio.

Got it.

Okay, well, Josh, I think I'll let you take it away.

Okay, I trust you can see my screen.

Yes.

Yes, we can see your screen.

Okay, great.

Well, it's it's great great to be back.

Um, and it's lovely to actually be able to see you this time.

So it's worth the wait to get that technology fixed.

Um yeah, so you you know all of us, so freeze over this.

This is gonna be a pretty quick presentation because we really want to focus on hearing feedback that the board has on the draft plan.

So we'll we'll provide our brief schedule update, um, and then we'll have that discussion on the preliminary draft that we submitted, and then we'll talk about kind of the next steps and what where we're going uh after this.

Okay, so we're toward the end of phase two.

So we've we've developed the we're calling it a preliminary draft to signify the draft that the board and Alex um get to review and kind of finesse before we take make that public.

And so once once we go through this next phase of things and we incorporate the board comments and um forestry division comments, then we'll call it the draft.

So anyway, um that draft will you know again have a public comment period associated with it, and then we'll move on to to phase three where we kind of wrap things up, pull in public comment, and try to finalize that document.

Okay, we're here at work session four, and after this, we'll have one more in September.

And the purpose of that one will be to review um any updates that that were made after incorporating feedback received during the public comment period.

And we'll have one public meeting at the very beginning of that public comment period to let people know that it's available and how to access it.

And um, and then we'll have another meeting uh during that period, closer to the end of it, to address any questions and help people uh understand what they're looking at if they have questions about that.

Okay, and so I think about two weeks ago you should have received a copy of this document.

And yeah, so we're we're just gonna open the floor for feedback from the board, um, specifically looking for comments on the organization of the document, which we previously had a uh an outline approved.

So hopefully there's not major organizational things, but there could be minor shifts that that you'd like to see.

Um general length and detail of the plan, where we put our focus, kind of if it's written appropriately for the different audiences that we want this to be useful for, and and any other comments you might have.

So, yeah, we'll open it up.

Maybe Mitch, you can start off with anything you want to add or before we everybody else goes.

Sure.

Um, I don't know, I don't know exactly where to start except that um Josh, all in all, I thought we're we've got a good start here.

Um initially when I start going through this, I see some kind of minor formatting details um early on and sort of throughout, um, in particular where there's photographs or insets of um pulled out pieces of um uh uh verbiage or quote from the plan.

So those are kind of small formatting details, which we should be able to clean up uh relatively easily, I believe.

Um I was pleased to see that you got into um real recommendations um in the plan.

Uh I thought that was that was really good.

It wasn't really um uh too broad as far as the recommendations.

Um I I don't know if it's too early to get into to this piece or not, but I would be curious about um the public comment that we received about the 18% of uh for recommendation on the canopy coverage.

That this may be uh more of a map um question, but I think what we're hearing here is this desire for options, okay.

Um that could be broader that would give us the ability to say we and when I say us, I mean the the the city as a whole, our city commission to say, hey, we we're willing to do more and invest in this more.

Um the the public desires that, et cetera.

So that would that means there's uh a bit of a menu, if you will, right?

And and I don't really mean to make that to where there's a ton of choices, but there are options to say, hey, you could do this as well if you were willing to make this type of investment.

Yeah, I can start um addressing that, and then Matt, you can add details, but I'll keep it a real high level.

So I think we looked at what it would take to get that two percent increase, which is it doesn't seem like a lot.

Um, but when you look at the the work required, you know, by the forestry division, how many trees need to be planted every year to get there?

It's it's quite substantial.

Um so that recommendation comes based on uh essentially it's the what we think is is aggressive but reasonable and achievable.

Um but I hear you looking for options, and so we could Matt, I'm curious what you have to add about you know, adding sort of a Cadillac version.

Like if somehow there were a bunch more funds and a bunch more capacity, what what might be achievable then?

Yeah, of course.

Um there are a couple things I want to just clear up going into this canopy discussion.

Um so there are canopy coverage percentages for cities based on their ecoregion, um, which may be the study that was mentioned at the beginning of this, which essentially says for desert cities, ideally uh 12 to 15 percent canopy for grassland cities.

I think it's 18 to 20.

And then for forested regions uh like Pacific Northwest or North Northeast, you're really looking at 30 to 40 percent.

Um and those come from American Forest uh research and US Forest Service, and then over several years of uh doing these plans, Planet Geo has actually kind of adjusted those, lowered uh the canopy percentage based on our studies, our canopy assessments we've done throughout the country.

Um so that's kind of where I think that 18% might be uh might have been coming from.

Um we look at the benchmark cities in Montana that we use for this project to do other benchmarking, according to American Forests, um, which we have seen and mentioned in the UFMP, um they do calculate their canopy estimates higher than what other technical sources show.

Um so this is a little higher than what it likely is, but the benchmarked average canopy for the Montana cities that we used is about 16%.

Um that's kind of giving us an upper guide.

Um in terms of setting canopy goals, we do run this model for about four different scenarios, no net loss, one percent, two percent, three percent, and four percent increases in canopy.

So we can definitely provide those as other options or recommendations uh within the UFMP.

The one thing when we're looking at these canopy goals is kind of reconciling uh planting, current planting and work levels.

Um so we do want it to be realistic, and right now what we're seeing within uh Tree City USA reporting for Bozeman is that you're averaging about 300 trees per year, and just to grow to that 12%, that would be 871 trees planted per year.

Um that's not accounting for mitigation plantings for trees that naturally die or need to be removed, and not accounting for plantings, mitigation plantings that are part of the EAB phased removal of ash trees.

So excuse me, we just we want to keep that in mind as we're setting those goals.

Um so increasing a canopy goal or showing other options for a higher canopy goal, that will mean more trees planted per year.

Um and currently we're kind of looking at a 30 30-70 split partnership where the city plants about 30% of these trees per year, and then partnerships with the community plant about 70% of the trees per year.

Um so those are things we want to keep in mind as we you know provide these higher canopy goals or options, um, but we can definitely include those within the plan, show what that might include or require, um, and the city can choose as they go.

And another part as we do uh recommend doing some benchmarking and measuring progress.

And this plan is meant to be adaptive.

So you know, five years down the road, maybe you've already exceeded the 12% canopy goal, or maybe you're not as close as you thought.

So you can adjust based on you know what you're seeing in real time.

Okay, just a quick follow-up on that on that.

Thank you.

I get we all we definitely understand and appreciate it's like you know, you pull on the string and it and it affects other elements as well.

Um I think that's okay.

And we should call that out that hey, if you're going to do more, you could say it's 16%.

That triggers this.

This may be further investment in staff and and spending on tree planting and installation and young tree maintenance.

Um in equipment, there are again it affects a number of other elements, but it would give us the information to go into it and say, hey, we um again when I say we, it's sort of the larger we of the municipality want to make that investment and we're willing to do that.

It's not the current uh where we're the current state of affairs saying, hey, we're only going to uh you know, we're gonna try to increase canopy coverage with existing staff and existing contractual uh budgets, et cetera, and we're gonna do that, it's going to affect these other elements.

So it's not trying to build it with uh stagnant um division within the department.

And I can add a little bit of clarity here with just this this background of we have the draft of the overall plan, and a lot of what Matt has mentioned just now is referencing what we will have in the appendices of this plan, and specifically it's a draft document that we've already reviewed internally, being the canopy assessment goal settings, we've got some of what Matt was talking about in an easy chart, right?

A, B, C, D, E scenarios showing different uh what ifs, right?

And it it provides more detail in a pretty succinct little graph and a visual, right?

That this is what 12% looks like in a number of trees per year.

This is what 15% looks like, this is what the status quo looks like.

And I think those charts that are again in that appendix document, I think we need to reference that right up front when we mention it in the overall plan, because that helps set the stage.

And another point of emphasis for that specific topic, uh, we are talking about a 20-year timeline to increase that canopy.

So whatever X percent is, we're talking about a set number of trees per year uh for 20 years to reach that.

So the amount of homework that the consulting team has done in the background, uh, we really want to bring that to light for you know that chart and some of those details in there, I think uh not only helpful as a professional and to bring to my staff and say, wow, that's that's what it really takes.

It also is certainly um nothing that is uh vocabulary specific to the industry, it's it's it's plain English, it's layman's terms, and I just think some of that detail that's in that uh canopy analysis is gonna be helpful.

J just out of curiosity, if we move to a menu uh option or options on the menu, I guess.

Yes, that's the same thing.

Um, is it possible to attach budget increase to that or capacity increase or something?

I it occurred to me that if we're tripling the number of trees planted per year to get to that 12%.

I I guess I don't know what that translates to the full budget or to people on the ground.

Yeah, and I I think my gut reaction is we are at capacity staff-wise for what we can plant.

The push over the last several years is said what can we do with volunteer efforts and grant funds to add a few more trees.

Um, but what Matt also mentioned was their recommendation is a 30-70 split.

So if we're able to tackle 30% of whatever that annual goal is, um maybe we have enough staff.

And if 70% of the effort comes from volunteerism, uh partners, fundraising, and new development, I think we can analyze that year over year and say, well, okay, we are on target for the recommended trees per year, or we're not on target, then we can assess, I think on a year or biannual, because our budgets are biannual now.

We can say, I think we need to set a plan in our strategic plan and our performance measures in our in our staffing plans, it's time to make adjustments if we're not keeping up.

So that's that's what I see.

If it was if it was uh 2,000 trees a year, we wouldn't be able to do our 30 percent.

We would have to increase staffing or contract budget.

Agreed.

And I and I think that that's what's gonna be important to be called out here.

We're gonna need some of that information when it does come, that that we have some guidance from the plan and that we're not having to figure it out on our own.

And when we do go to when it is budget request time, uh when the plan is finally adopted, we can look at the plan and say, hey, if we're gonna go through this option, we're gonna need this much additional investment in order to make it happen.

It's not possible to do with the existing human infrastructure and the budget that we have at this point.

So some guidance from the plan budgetarily on operations and capital would be helpful.

I don't understand the 70-30 split.

And I guess that's a question for the consultant.

You assume 7030.

What is the 70 percent?

Is that a private homeowner planting a tree?

Um, you know, volunteer efforts.

I just don't see that adding up to 70 percent.

Yeah, um, so we typically run the model models um more with a 50-50 split, depending on the city's capacity, budget, and funding.

Um in this case, we did turn that to 3070.

Um, and those are those partnerships are you know, uh volunteer groups or Arbor Day groups planting on private property um with residents homes, or as uh Alex said in new developments and subdivisions being developed, trees planted there.

Um and really the largest chunk of that is gonna be new development.

So, say for example, a new subdivision comes in.

And what always comes to mind for me is uh Flanders Mill.

So Flanders Mill is a few years old, off of Ferguson, Baxter, yeah, that area, Westide.

And it's kind of a fun observation for our staff because we've seen the neighborhood come in, you know.

Oh, cool new house, cool, nice park.

We got some grills in the center of the park.

Maybe we should head over there for lunch.

Um but we we've added all those new trees, right?

So through field observations, we wait and see.

Okay, this neighborhood looks about done, the houses are occupied, the park is finished and accepted.

It's time to add all those new street and park trees to our inventory system.

So we've done that.

We didn't mark each of those trees as you know community-led or contractor install.

But they were, right?

We didn't plant them, but they're in our system now.

And after that all that dust settles, we can go on the inventory and say, oh, man, that's about 500 new trees just from that subdivision.

Now, that's not a consistent rate.

Uh it depends on what happens each and every year, right?

If we get two or three subdivisions in a year, maybe we're ahead of the curve.

But if we hit a recession, we might not have any.

So that that's a big marker for the 30-70 and and not only what Matt's already mentioned, but sort of working off precedent, right?

It tends to be that might be a little bit anecdotal, but it tends to be we are providing about 30% currently, and we are inheriting the other 70% from volunteer initiatives, community efforts, development.

Um when we move through neighborhoods or commercial properties and see that someone else has planted a tree through an approved permit, that's that's largely what's behind that 70%.

Do we know how many were in 2025?

I would say no.

And even just discussing this process and the planning effort behind this UFMP, we've already determined that internally as forestry staff that we need to work on that with our inventory system.

We we clearly mark everything that we planted as as city-led trees, but we're not currently tracking that community led, and that can be a simple, you know, when we add trees, there's one more category or one more label, and and that will increase um some data, some number tracking there.

Is it worth considering the street pre-program to extend it to private property?

I think it's worth thinking.

Um currently I ask is that it's such a large number, and depending on new subdivisions and so forth, I don't think is going to get us there.

There's a lot of existing homeowners who might be otherwise incented to plant trees on private property if the incentives were like the street tree program.

I I'm I'm also curious how the area of what we're counting for the canopy cover, if that expands and we're planting trees, it doesn't increase our percentage, right?

It will over time.

But wouldn't it?

I mean, still could be 11% for many years if you expand the area and you plant trees in the expanded area.

That that that percentage is going to be hard to increase if we're doing it with new development, because I'm assuming a lot of those new developments aren't counted within the original area of canopy cover today.

Well, the canopy cover is the entire I believe our current canopy cover is the entire uh growth boundary currently.

Does the consultant team want to jump in?

Matt's got a hand up.

Maybe can you guys hear us right now?

Uh oh.

Can you text Josh?

Yeah.

And while we figure this out, um one component of that, if we're adding a lot of new trees, they aren't gonna really show up as significant gain immediately, right?

The count is there.

And that's gonna be kind of a theme throughout this is a count of trees versus the canopy percentage are gonna be two different types of measurements.

And yes, if we put in a thousand or ten thousand new trees and they're all this big, you know, this is their shade, um, it's not gonna count for much right now.

But assuming they all live and they're cared for and watered, you know, five, ten years down the road, they'll register as larger and larger.

And then that also is an assumption that we've kept all the other trees in town alive.

So you do have growth in canopy percentage.

No, they can't hear.

I wonder how we lost it.

Nothing has changed.

Something came across the screen there.

Um right when it happened.

How long ago was that?

It was just a minute ago or so.

Just be just as you were asking um Matt that question.

Yeah, completely guess what?

Yeah, yeah.

I think we see all the dry sounds.

Okay.

I hate this mouse too.

Josh, can you hear us?

No.

Josh, anything?

Is my screen nothing copy on it?

Mitch, while they're working on that, could I ask you a question?

Josh, you got anything?

Who approves removal and modification?

Removal of trees and modification of an existing park.

I don't want to do that.

How does that work?

No.

So I don't know why it changes that.

We didn't touch anything.

Site plan development.

Let's go back to the audio thing because that's associated with the development that's going to be.

Just try joining.

Which all of our committee have representatives that sit on that committee and review these options and what they're gonna look like.

And that particular case.

And iterations.

Can you hear me?

There were three aspons there that were removed.

Five trees are being installed.

Three switch over here.

Red oaks.

In permeable papers and in sort of more of this plaza type of environment.

It's a park building.

Okay.

That was not favorable, favored by the residents to remove North Ida as a vehicular transportation pathway.

So we shrunk the park back down to the size that it is now and went to more of this plaza style and put in th five trees rather than the three that are better or suited for that type of urban environment.

Deeper running roots, more shade, won't break up the concrete, longer lived.

And it's but it's certainly looks like a shocker right now.

Did you hear that, Josh?

Thanks.

Yeah.

Is there to the public?

It's very easy to see that these trees have been cut down.

What they can see is the plan that is known internally to plant a specific number of trees that are better suited for this area.

How can we make that information easily available to the people who are still going to be able to do that?

I think we have to try leaving.

So people know and they're not feeling like we're just chopping study.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And then great question.

I think we can certainly make improvements in that regard.

We can utilize our communications department in the city to help, right?

Push these plans out and say, hey, actually have and and why it looks this way.

So we'll make another with communications.

You know how we do those signs and the new development going up?

Trees.

Yes.

Could they get their little new development incoming informational?

It's a good idea.

Yeah, it's a good idea.

So we'll Josh, can you hear us now?

With our communications department.

We'll make a note for them.

You have something, Alison?

Please, yeah.

Um there's also something called a public tree reimbursement form that usually is filled out as part of a development application checklist.

And the neighborhood president and myself did go through the documents looking for that, and we didn't find it, so that's why there was curiosity about like how was this decision arrived at how is the public being compensated for those trees that were removed?

So that can you know, having all the documents can also help the information out there, especially since Nina is really Northeast Neighborhood is really um literate about the community development viewer.

So we're hoping to see that soon.

Can I ask a follow-up to that, Alison?

So that document not being included, like is that something that just is not publicly available, or is that like illegal that they didn't include that in the application?

I think it I don't I don't know the answer.

It's not illegal.

It's just um, you know, things get missed sometimes.

The department's really busy.

I haven't heard back yet, so I don't know.

But it did that last time.

Can you hear us, Josh?

No.

Does anybody have any comments up here, board members that would not require the consultants that you can think of?

Let's go back to the audio.

I could give you guys an FYI if you want.

Audio settings.

I I just had a I had a mission.

Now we have even less options.

Is there a way, obviously not our board, but to require development to do more trees.

Is that doesn't come within this our preview?

I I agree if we're gonna have 70% outside of the city, it seems like there needs to be some requirement for new development.

I don't I don't I don't know anything about that.

I'm just I assume that's outside of our purview, is that right?

It's an interesting idea.

It is something though that's related to the topic today, and that could be put into the plan.

Um I don't know what happened in the plan to require additional trees.

So that's above and beyond what we require now.

And I and I don't know what we require now, so that would be I'm not speaking knowledgeably now.

Yeah, and in need Alex to help me on here a little bit, but we already require the street tree frontage um every so many feet out into the city right-of-way, which is already spaced in a distance for full canopy cover, so you get that any closer, you're getting trees at the end of the case.

Mike check full canopy covers that are too close together.

Um, and that's not good for the trees.

So it'd have to be done in a different we need another tool.

Yeah, I thought.

I think there was like some suggestive sort of things in them in the plan.

But I thought it could have been more specific, and some of it was a little tepid in my opinion.

Like I don't know how you would feel about Allison on the city commission, perhaps.

Um but I would like to see like more specific suggestions.

Are they like um I have to read that saying talking about like a permanent program, like, oh, this is something you should only use as a last resort.

Um but I want the consultants to come back.

I can't do it so I can say that again.

So um the FYI that I was gonna give you guys at the end of the meeting, um, does tie into this.

Um, there are a few opportunities to um add more trees into new development, and one of them is in our zone edge transition regulations.

Um I gave a walking tour last night, gathering feedback from residents about how we could further mitigate the impact of high density development on lower density adjacent development.

Um also giving that same tour again on Monday night.

Um some of our zone edge transition requirements uh or um situations require have a a tree canopy, a tree planting requirement, but others don't.

And so if you guys, if any of you want to come on the tour, we meet at Beale Park on Monday night, and we have a questionnaire developed by uh um independent professional facilitator who um and you can give your feedback on you know where we could incorporate more trees into zone edge transitions if you wanted, or if you think they're good the way they are, uh just to gather feedback.

So uh 6 p.m.

Monday night, Beale Park.

I guess I want to just I'll have some snacks and refresh artists.

Allison, could you give them a little overview about zone edge transition and really what that means?

Totally, yes.

Um zoning dictates what can be built where um usually mass scale setbacks um and then sometimes the uses as well.

And so when zones on the map change, if there's a draft drastic difference between the two zones, we want to implement a transition measure which just sort of softens or mitigates the impacts, and trees can be a great component of that.

So um the commission has a work session on August 28, uh 25th, sorry, um, to go over these zone edge transitions and um the height of the buildings in the B3 downtown district um currently at 90 feet.

So yeah, just soliciting public feedback.

Mitch, I have a question for you about your reaction to the plan.

I look I read cover to cover as much as I could.

And I felt like a deer in the headlights and drinking from a fire hose.

Yeah.

I mean, what do you do with all of this?

I mean, pragmatically.

How do you what?

Yeah.

Yeah, it is a lot.

Um, there's a lot in there, but and it's uh thorough.

And I again we're kind of early in the draft, but I have a similar feeling when I'm reading it that like, okay, how do I take this and turn it into a an actionable work plan to where you can you you can create items that we want you to do?

And ITs and here to here so that you're not overwhelmed with all of these recommendations, and where do I begin?

And that's where we need to get to.

Um so how do we break it down to what we're gonna do first?

And and now while we're doing that first, we can be working on house.

But you know, what are those things?

How could you go back to that?

That's my biggest excess right now.

That's the biggest takeaway that I can do.

Uh reclaim home.

It's not laid out clean enough and linear enough.

I thought I saw something.

This is what we're gonna do first in order to get this next done why.

Um that's where I'm at.

But overall, I think it was it's very good so far.

Um I was pleased that there was the level of detail that there is at this point.

Uh yeah, that's good.

Yeah, I think they've done a really good job in this, and I think it would be helpful for us and for you to turn this into something that's more actionable for you.

Agreed, that's right.

It and and that's gets to within the confines of your position.

That gets to what we were talking about before when we get talking about even the example of canopy coverage, but when we have it where it's the recommendations are um you need this much, you know, the additional staff or additional money or additional trees.

Once we adopt the plan, that gives us the ability to go back at budget time to the commission and say, hey, here's our adopted plan, this is the action.

This is why we're asking for this.

We all decided this was the direction to go.

And um, we're not quite there.

Yeah, I don't see how the commission can act on it without knowing what it's gonna cost.

Right.

Both in terms of personnel and money.

Right, right.

You know, if they approve it, yeah, and they come back later in your budget and say, well, you approved the plan, we need to double the size of the forestry department.

Probably gonna get a negative reaction.

Yes.

Now that is a difference between the previous plan.

We did have those, it was laid out where hey, this number of additional number of employees, this type of employees, additional budget for contractual.

It was in those days dollars.

We so to your point, Sally, we knew it was going to have to grow, and you could look at it and say, oh, those were um 2016 dollars.

Um nonetheless, it gave us that we knew if we adopted it, we had a plan and it was going to take an effort.

We could either, you know, you had ex you had options of you can hire this number of people, or you can increase your contractual budget by this amount of money again in those dollars if you want to do if you want to execute the plan in this way.

So that's where we're not quite to yet.

I think we're I feel like we're kind of starting out here.

And that's right.

Yeah.

Especially when you look at long term.

This place is going to look like Oklahoma.

Right.

And we're growing west.

You know, I mean, that was stark reading to me.

Uh-huh.

Right.

It's agreed.

Basically a desert grassland.

Right.

And we want to plant more trees, increase the canopy.

Yeah.

All the while growing west, which is drier and drier, even today.

Yeah.

I mean, I don't know how you reconcile all of that.

Yeah.

More zeroscaping and less grass and so forth, and more devoted to the trees, which makes a lot of sense to me, but who I mean, how does that convert to policy changes?

In the zoning code and everything else.

And how many trees are gonna die just because of that?

Mostly acting.

Yeah, it certainly affects the species that you're planting, and it puts on higher importance, more criticality on the trees rather than turf grass and smaller plantings like that, right?

Things that can give us more shade, offset the heat island effect that comes in with additional people into the community.

Um then sequestered more of the carbon that comes in with more building and people in the community.

Yeah, so we put more importance on the trees than we do on some of the other landscape items.

And we're not irrigating any trees right now, are we?

Um not specifically directly, no, it's you know, we um have started in the last few years, you know, putting additional bags on the trees, the trees through the tree through our um cost share program now come with those like we're not hearing anything.

Water bag trees or water bags for the trees, um, and then any sort of just over spray irrigation is what's utilized.

So outside of that, it is use the water bags to get them established, I think and then you get to keep them.

And then so you use them on any of your other trees or try to restart off things, and if I do work, so I'd pull them back out and put them on the trees.

You know, and then put additional water onto the trees through the through the bags, and um so I think it's more important during these times of less water and drought on the trees, frankly.

Um we've learned some of this the hard way when we went through a drought a number of years ago and and it was like no irrigation and no water, the trees took a really big hit.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, that's right.

And that also changed that affects the species of trees that we plant, and that's what's kind of called out in the that's appropriately called out in the plan.

Yes.

If I may just slightly ask a question, are you rebooting the entire meeting?

Not on granite.

Autograph is like it's still running.

I can I mean I can put it on pause if you want me to.

I'm just we're gonna review the whole Zoom.

Okay.

So it's up if you guys want to talk about that.

Yeah.

I guess what is the appropriate thing to do?

Should uh we pause.

Okay.

Um let's take a general pause and we will come back at 7.15.

All right.

Um we actually, and I believe everybody.

Oh we lose somebody in the room.

We lost one person, and we do have like a minute and a half to wait from when I said we would come back.

So I'm going to pause.

That's good.

Session.

Um, when we lost audio with the consultants in the room, we were discussing a question about canopy cover and watering.

Did I hear that correct?

Um, which is gonna help me out.

Yes, it was the inclusion of the area for the canopy coverage.

Was it the growth area or is it the current boundaries of the municipality?

Not to put you on the spot, Alex.

Sorry, I remembered.

That's that sounds right.

That's what we're after.

Okay, and I think Matt might be ready with a response.

Oh Lord.

Sorry, so current city boundaries.

So we can get clarification of that before the final finished product.

Um that we do have the defined um boundary.

Oh, hold on, help me with the term, please, Mitch.

The growth boundary.

The city of Bozeman growth boundary is a defined GIS framework for future development.

So we can clarify that in the plan.

Um, just to just add my two cents on that.

Um could the plan with that growth boundary like have the definition of what that growth boundary is.

Is that like developments that are through initial stage are part of that, or is it just the initial application?

Like, where's where is that line to be included versus not included since the um I believe there's multiple steps?

Well, and the growth boundary is like the geographic area that we show throughout town.

And essentially, uh trees would be added whenever we as a forestry division add them to the system.

So it would be it would be post-development when all the dust is settled on construction activities.

All right.

Uh-huh.

That's why that's gonna happen every three years going forward that that is happening at the growth boundary area.

Um that's a big confirm as well too if that would help in the future in the benchmarking where you are the end of the goal of you know what we're projecting for the future numbers.

Um that's why we overdate it if we're gonna cover the whole growth boundary and help you get more accurate picture snapshot in time.

Thank you, Hannah.

And I I do think there's gonna be an element to this plan that perhaps we need to spell out a little more cleanly that we're getting this kind of uh snapshot from the plan.

And as Joe said, there's a lot of information in that snapshot, right?

But it gives us something to work with to move forward and then using city tools refine it.

So if we have canopy numbers to shoot for, I think regardless of current city limits or the boundary map, we take that and run with it.

If it's 12% or 15% or whatever it is, we move forward and year over year we're adding uh accuracy to that with our work with the GIS department and how we're recording the trees that have been put in the ground.

And then, yeah, the the flyover that Hannah mentioned, that's a direct collaboration with GIS that every three years we have that in the budget to work with them to have a flyover, and that that will change with that that is framed on the growth boundary.

My brain is melting.

Um not current city limits.

So I think you know, the canopy percentage and the goal setting there is is one major aspect.

Um I don't know if if we want to cover some other items in here.

Um, I think in terms of some of the key aspects we discussed, you know, we're we're talking about community engagement, uh, insect disease, disaster preparedness.

I think they've given us a very thorough set of conditions for insect disease disaster um stuff we may not have thought of.

And something that jumps out to me is like we talk about wildland urban interface.

Maybe we have some park spaces on the edge of town that are more naturalized and they don't have irrigation in place and they're full of uh fire prone tree species.

We might want to have some type of disaster program where if there's a nearby wildfire, we need to make sure all those trees are in really great shape, that we've gone through and pruned them so they're free of dead wood and excess fuel piled up on the ground.

Maybe we can dump water a month or two ahead if we have that kind of advanced notice.

So that's an example in the disaster preparedness that's um really helpful information and certainly not my background with any wildfire work um out of my wheelhouse.

And then the other component in there that I think is very helpful is we're we're getting professional consulting services to say, hey, emerald ash borer still is the number one concern.

You know, we've been working before I came here, you know, we were prohibiting ash um as a permitted tree and working on reductions.

We've made a lot of progress reducing green ash in particular as a major component in our species profile.

But this is suggesting that we're not doing enough, and we still need to keep that at the forefront of our preparation for insect and pest introductions.

And it also talks about places where it'll be difficult to increase canopy coverage because of things like not enough suitable growing space.

And I'd be curious to see what the overlap is in these communities that are already undercovered and where we feel it's not possible for us to increase the coverage, and can we get creative with ways to remedy that and make it more suitable for growing new trees?

And also how can we mitigate creating more spaces where we can't grow trees?

Well, I'll jump in with a quick response, and then if anyone from the consultant team wants to add, uh I think maybe one of the one main constraint, and this plan mentions the tree equity score, which publicly available on American Forests.

Um you can scroll around the whole country if you want and view areas that have been assessed by their system.

So tree equity score, some of our highest uh scoring census districts are fully tree-lined, you know, mature neighborhoods with a lot of street trees as well.

So planting space is full.

And we certainly have areas like that where you're probably not planting a new tree until you're removing an old one.

So that's maybe one example.

And another example would be areas that are high density with a lot of paved surfaces.

And perhaps they're developed at the standard according to UDC and our development code.

And you put in the required trees, and maybe they're in like four by four wells cut out of you know, uh a full concrete sidewalk as opposed to a turf soil boulevard.

And maybe that's an avenue for improving things where instead of just the minimum standards, they there could be incentives or mandates in place to expand beyond that.

Um possible example would be like North Seventh.

Uh, that's not traditional.

Um what looks like nice little tree pits underneath that is a suspended soil and uh structural cell that allows you to just pour the soil in so it's not compacted, and that's an example of something that's pretty innovative and really improves growth for trees because you don't have to compact all that soil just to pour concrete.

So those tree roots are thriving in nice loose, oxygen-rich, porous, uncompacted soil, and that takes a lot of uh technology and planning to go above and beyond what would be a minimum standard.

That's what I've got for that answer.

This might be a bit hyper-specific, but I think the the thing that's done best within this, and the what makes it easiest to digest is the figures and the graphs.

Um I think that there's a lot of content and it's all great, but it's also just a lot of content.

Um, and so as many figures as can be added, the better.

And I I find that if there's just numbers, the numbers don't really mean much without a figure.

Um, and one section where that stood out to me was in the tree inventory overview section on page 18.

Um it's going back to what we talked about in the last meeting where um 2% of the trees were rated as excellent.

Um then I think it was like 40% were rated as good.

And so this is maybe contradicting myself, but if that were put on a graph and you would see 2% is excellent and 44% is good, suddenly we have concerns with that.

But I do think that that's important to include as a graphic because that's a significant amount of our tree population, and it gives us a good picture of what it looks like.

And so then one of my pitches, I guess, for that is could we just combine good to excellent as one rating, or is that like following the specific RPI designation for it?

Well, we are I would say this is a standard and we're moving towards uh consistency like across a national standard uh in the way that we change conditions for trees.

So we do have excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor, and dead.

And that is something that lends to some of their recommendations in here to not only have those standardized uh for monitoring and reporting like this, but to also move it into like our work um priority system.

You know, so they've recommended like high priority removals, high priority prunes, and we don't necessarily follow that system currently, but it's a little more informal.

Um that's a recommendation from the team here is to keep consistent with uh with some other national standards.

Yeah, as Ali said it is a national standard.

So having those excellent good trees are uh useful for the RPI analysis, and then also if the trees will be excellent condition rating is important for calculating an ecosystem benefits, the trees, larger trees with an excellent condition are gonna provide more ecosystem benefits than a good tree or a better tree with the same size.

So I mean that these things should be within those conditions, is very useful in the analysis portion.

I think we could also use a use of graphic, but this would suggest to you know show each of these numbers on a you know upscale from like bright green to dark brown and with excellent and good and both very positive shades of green and sort of make that same point without sacrificing the location from those categories.

The question for the consultants is how do we get to a final report that would have say an executive summary, a two-page executive summary that outlined specifically what is being proposed as a result of this study, such that a commissioner not rooted in all of these details can understand what they're voting on, both in terms of cost and in terms of personnel the benefits, the cost, and have a clear idea of what it is that we're asking or we're proposing to them.

So you're just suggesting that we include that you can ship that somewhere or something close to that.

Yeah, if I was um voting on this as a commissioner, I would not want to read all hundred pages.

I would want to know how much it's going to cost, why it's needed, what the benefits are, and to whom those benefits accrue.

Which would require a lot of input from Mitch and staff and us, and it would be backed by all of the wonderful data that is in here, but it would be specific and concise.

I think we have a few of those components already in the executive summary where it has about three pages with it and linear graphic.

Um at our profit update with the condition next week.

What are the high level dates that they want to see in that summary?

I think there's definitely roof to improve like you're talking about that benefit benefit cost trade-off, maybe not necessarily reached specific scenario, but better outline based on the look of the data in the plan, how those trade-offs might be applied at the city commission level when thinking about budgets for future years than the more treated.

Yeah, when I look at the executive summary, nothing there jumps out to me as a specific proposed action.

Yeah, and I think that's where there's some balance required because a lot of what we're proposing will be like we were talking about earlier, a menu for the city to choose from, and for the worth three to 50 states here, but we're placing our focus against one specific sector sector, and there's a trade-off elsewhere.

Um I think we talked a lot about that with counter goals earlier and what that goal setting number should be.

Um, but we definitely work to provide the language to help make that a little bit more clear, and I think we can private the commission as well to receive that with what we talk about next week.

Okay.

And I think um there's there's definitely more for us to pick apart internally as we continue to review this, and maybe a quick example is is looking towards the end of the document with this goal implementation matrix that shows images, action, action targets, and then a relative cost with a dollar, two dollar, three dollar sign.

My version in front of me is not the same page number, so I'm sorry.

But uh the first example says maintain and improve the public tree inventory, and then there are different targets.

That is largely if we're making improvements, it's between the forestry division staff and the GIS department.

And I could see that being again as a hypothetical.

We talk through these options and we talk with GIS and say, is this going to cost us more?

Are we going to have to buy new software?

Are you gonna have to dedicate more time from your staff at GIS to work with forestry?

And what does that look like?

So that could be an example where it just says two dollar signs right now, but if we go and discuss that with GIS, we might find out that well, it's actually probably going to be ten thousand dollars in additional staff support from GIS.

I could see some of these being, you know, uh clarified that way.

Can you remind me?

Oh, go ahead.

Just to kind of yeah, rephrase it to challenge that Anna was speaking to this isn't a prescriptive plan with requirements, right?

It's it's largely goals and guidance, and so it definitely makes it hard to have that kind of executive summary, I think, that you're describing that says you know, is this is recommended that this is what it will cost.

Uh because it's it's more amorphous than that, and like Alex was alluding to like as you know, over the years implemented this we did in more details in terms of what it truly costs to do certain things, and it's most of that is beyond the scope of this plan at this point to get to that level of detail.

And I also think there's an element of we're reaching out to other city departments, and we've already had several meetings, right?

Being the coordination meetings.

Now we're we have this draft final plan.

I want to make sure that we're not having anything in there for water conservation or engineering or planning that says what is that paragraph about?

We have no idea how to do that, right?

And we're really drilling down on this uh this canopy coverage concept.

Again, I think um we take some of those charts from the full assessment there, put them up front in the plan.

That's a great example.

I'll I'll just say the to hit 15%, it says 1,949 trees a year.

I have no idea how to do that.

That's daunting.

That's a big number.

And if that is the recommendation from the final adoption of this plan, and the city commission wants us to pursue that, then it is on us as a city to say, this is what everyone wants, and we're gonna find a way to do some number crunching here and see what these costs are gonna actually be.

So it is a trade-off, right?

It's we're getting uh a road map, you know, and and then we have to implement it and pay for the gas.

That's pretty good, right?

Come on.

I just um another thing that might help to consider that is if we are relying on private development to supply a number of these trees to hit our canopy cover goal, whatever it ends up being.

Um I think expanding the city code and ordinances and also the tree removal notifications and permits sections would be helpful.

Um like the tree coalition provided a comment suggesting um breaking it down into more detail about how codes and regulations, et cetera, might look between bigger new developments, like a subdivision versus like people's backyards, and how that's something that isn't always specified.

Um then also just thinking about like I know that the consultants looked at various other cities in Montana and comparable cities across the US, and how they run programs um for permitting or um like replacement mitigation in lieu options.

Um how some of those policies might look and how it affects um well what their enforcement mechanisms look like for one, and then how that impacts um like funding of these programs and also how it affects like um the availability of new developments and new housing, like if that's actually something that would deter them if we had more robust regulations or even like a two to one replacement requirement or something like that, or fines for just coming down and tearing down all these trees.

Because I think we've gotten other public comments, and I've heard a lot of stories personally about new developments coming in and just like clear-cutting an area, even if they are planning to plant a bunch of new trees afterwards, the net you know, the net gain may not be as much.

So yeah.

Yeah, I hear a lot of mention of minimum requirements, and that seems to be kind of a trend in the way we plan, and thinking about like in our current resources and what is available to us, like with minimal growth, what could we attain with minimal growth?

We could attain 2%, but if we send a plan to the city commission where as a board we recommend a lofty goal of 15, 16, holy moly 18%, it's the city commission gets to look at it and decide fiscally whether or not the city wants to place that level of importance on our urban forest.

And I don't think that our board should be preemptively saying no on the budget, which it kind of feels like that's what happens when we talk about like these resources just won't be available or not necessarily realistic.

This the city could give you enough money to make a lot of trees possible.

If the city says this is what the people want that we'll get the money.

And I'm just trying to process what I have now.

So now my personal laptops dead.

Um so that's fun.

And uh notes on my calendar, um, some other comments that I thought of when I was reviewing the draft.

Uh we have that analysis of our budget against the comparison cities.

And kind of interesting that we are above average across the comparisons, but below average statewide comparisons because Missoula grades on a curve and threw off everything, right?

So Missoula has quite a budget for their forestry program.

And you know, that's something to consider there.

Uh and I was also struck by our volunteer hours that are uh above average across all comparison cities, but well below national averages.

So it shows, you know, again, it shows pathways for us.

It says to me we can do a lot more with volunteers.

That could be a cost savings thing.

And it also says to me, like we're already at a fairly high budget, and especially when you consider uh dollars per capita of citizenry, it's it's pretty nice budget for trees.

But this is what we're dealing with, right?

We're this is a uh a very important time, you know.

This is this is why we're resetting this plan, you know, to give us guidance for another 10-year timeline.

Yeah, I'm curious what we could do to more heavily leverage that 70% contribution because I think that there are ways to beef that up and take some of the burden off the city, and maybe it requires doing something different than we've done historically or getting creative, but it doesn't feel impossible to ask a developer to put an extra tree or two per sidewalk in there development.

And then another thing that I noted cruising through this draft uh survey results, and in particular, you know, the staff survey, that was quite a while ago for me, and now I'm circling back, right?

And a big item that came out of staff survey um parks, so parks maintenance under parks and rec, right?

Um we of course work with that team, but we spend a lot of our time focused on street boulevard trees.

So a lot of the survey insights were hey, we've got a lot more potential in our park spaces and again to minimum standards.

We get trees in new parks, but there's a lot of room for expansion, and that also ties to the consultant team's um analysis of plantable space, right?

That we have potential across 64% of the whatever map we're using right now, right?

Um that's big that's a lot of potential, you know, and uh that's gonna sound real good in the plan, and then we're gonna refine it again.

We're gonna say that um that median off of Valley Center by Costco is uh the state, and we're not gonna plant trees there, you know.

So there's a lot of potential, and I I think we have to pick through what is a long and detailed analysis, which is what we wanted, and we need to start linking things together and the the staff results, that's a surprise.

We've got a lot of passion for our park spaces and wanting more trees in there.

And uh gosh, that's more to mow around, but that must be what they're after.

Um so that I'm starting to see links like that.

And I think with more discussion, we'll we'll start to make some of those ties, and that's gonna go to city commission and and they're gonna hear that too, and they're gonna have their comments as well.

And I think that's how we get to more of a clearer picture.

I I really appreciate all like the data points that you're kind of grabbing right now and picking out of there, and I think kind of circling back to the way that the plan is actually formatted and going back to the executive summary piece, if there's any way to capture some of that at the front end so that we can kind of level set on where we're at.

The way that it reads right now to me is just a kind of blank plug-and-play definition of what the document is, but it doesn't really tie to our community and the stats that you're kind of referencing, and I think that getting some of those up front would really help us and anyone else reading the document, get into that more granular detail and start to come up with these more detailed questions around like how could we do it a little bit differently or a little bit better.

Just a suggestion.

Yeah, I want to second that also just um as a suggestion, having a lot of those graphs and the things like in the appendices that you mentioned.

I think at risk of making it longer to read.

I think that would be really helpful to have some of that information up front.

I had a specific bit about the goal framework.

Um I I noticed in the second goal, I was expecting some action about mature trees, and and I didn't see any there.

And so I'm just uh it had been written throughout the rest of the document, and I just wonder if there's a could be more of a focus on action steps related to mature trees or if if that could be reviewed again at some level.

Yeah, we didn't uh look into that.

I did not realize I had uh excluded the reasons we have actually so um before I ask Alison her questions or to share her questions, um to tee off the formatting step.

One thought I had on the executive summary, which I think the ability to do this depends on what software and where this document's going to reside, but um some of the definitions for some of the firms.

I wondered if you could like link somehow where you could hover over canopy, and then a box pops up with the definition really quickly for that person who is only going to read the executive summary.

If they're curious enough to have then they get the definition, and then they understand better.

Just my thought.

Alison.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Um thank you, uh Matt, Josh, and Hannah, for all the work you've done to put into this, and also Alex and um all the the staff who've dedicated countless hours, I'm sure, to bringing us what we have in front of us.

Um I did have just a few kind of specific questions.

Um one of them, thank you, board member Schrank, for um touching on page 64, action two point five.

Let me get there.

Oops.

Okay, it says um maintain contractor readiness for specialized and surge work.

Um could you elaborate a little bit about what you mean by that action?

Oh, yeah.

So that is to open the city increased capacity.

Specialized work could be creating jobs with large trees, uh, or would you need these for use of large trees to actually uh their lifespan or trees that say uh SPCs will treat the city of the starting out ash trees left and right?

Um that's gonna see the city's capacity, so having uh standing tree pair contracts or uh large scale rules in that situation, uh and then also the research work that's more about storms, uh, storm comparatives and other natural disaster preparedness, which can exceed capacity as well.

So part of uh remote training school services they recommend having standing tree pair contracts in case of those emergencies, and that's just something that we recommended here, but the city with capacity and special circumstances.

Right, okay, thank you.

And on the next page, uh goal 4.2, page 65.

Um, update tree related standards and guidance.

Um can you guys elaborate a little bit more on where in the plan I might find those um you know, updates?

Are you actually going to include code updates, a suggested policy updates, things like that for us?

Um so we have some high-level recommendations for consideration.

This is also real quick.

This is also for reading engagement.

So updating the street tree street tree manual or street tree guide with the city has reviews this would include updated standards on recommendations for residents to water the trees off with the water and the water uh probably like the uh proper species, and then the code would be some high-level recommendations or gonna uh uh it's not first provided options to it work with handwork for both uh content.

Do it work with hand work for both and uh contents.

Uh all of the updated standards pertaining to planting, pruning watering those are you can file through the ISA access those people.

Okay, um and then I just have a couple of questions to make sure that we're on track with the plan.

Um the project management plan from you guys found on the engage page on page eight of that document.

Um D4 says that um under private property development, you guys will come back with recommendations that help preserve canopy cover, including um recommendations for private property.

I I will confess I only had about two hours to kind of dive into this plan.

Can you point me to which section of the plan that is gonna end up in?

Yeah, so that would be after the implementation matrices uh there's a resources in consideration subsection, but sorry it's on page page 77, but I don't know if that ends up now.

There we go.

Um notify towards the uh basically a phase approach for how you need to start implementing reactions for private property trees.

Okay, excellent.

I'm glad that you're um looking at the Montana Constitution too, because we got special rules here.

Um thank you.

And then on that same document, the um project management plan, D5, also on page eight, talks about the heritage tree program.

Um it says our team will develop a heritage tree program to that includes qualifications, regulations, standard practices, and maintenance.

Um is that going to be included in the plan?

Did I miss it?

Uh so we do have word now.

There is an action on creating the heritage tree program.

I did see the action.

It'll also be the uh resources and consideration subsection of the administration majority stables, but kind of what that looks like.

Uh what air of the street program should look like if we look at both of them, but we can't include it in the second draft.

Oh, the public is saying they can't hear the consultants at all.

Can you comput it?

Is that the better?

We can we can hear it's just not making it out to the audience as well.

Right, because when we redid it, it didn't go back through.

It's okay.

It's a bit to the stream line there, yeah.

What did you say?

Okay, it's not making it to the stream to the going out to chart.

Oh no, so we have no audio for the recording.

You guys can be heard the uh people uh can't be heard at all.

Can I be it's it's very muffled over like your microphones, but that's not it.

Ooh, that's not good.

Can we try to start?

And so um, I'm just going to be proactive right now.

Um can everybody stay 15 minutes longer after the meeting?

Okay, I would like I'm extending the meeting to 815.

Um I don't start it again.

It's because when we reclosed it out, it didn't go back through the system.

That's why it's coming out of this computer.

Oh so we can either try to put this microphone up to it, and it will that come through or will be muffled or just restart the six of one half dozen the other.

Yeah.

Um can you tell, like when you're back there, can you tell?

Like if they start talking with this up to it, can you hear what Granicus is hearing?

Like, how can you tell it's muffled?

Uh because there's it it's clear there's our audio coming in.

It's like someone's talking in in the other room, two rooms over.

Okay.

Is the easiest way to put it?

Right.

So just trying to just try to get it a little bit closer to where it's essentially that's yeah, like this microphone.

Josh, can you give us Josh?

Can you want to just say something?

Yeah, so you guys sound a little quieter to us too when that whatever just happened happened, but is it how's that?

Is this okay?

We can still hear you.

Okay, we got a thumbs up from I it's much better now.

Yes.

Okay.

Yay, good trick.

We're just gonna try that.

Okay, here we go.

Okay, so yeah, sorry.

Do you want me to repeat the question or you know what I was asking?

Are we still on the heritage tree program?

Question.

Yeah, so D5 says our team will develop a heritage tree program, which will include requirements for qualification of a heritage tree, outline regulations associated with designated heritage trees, and provide standard practices for documentation, inventory, and maintenance of heritage trees.

Yes.

Um so we do have the recommended action within the goal, but it looks like we will need to add the um subsection with recommendations, specific recommendations on heritage trees into that implementation uh strategy for the second draft.

It does not look like it made it in.

Okay, so you guys are not creating the program for us.

No, we'll use guidelines from American Forests and other industry leaders on heritage tree programs, and then we'll look at how that might need to be adjusted for a Bozeman specific context, but we will provide the industry standards and then any recommendations if there are any for what that could look like in Bozeman or how it might need to be adjusted in Boseman.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then my final question again refers to the project management plan.

Um item D6.

Um policy recommendations, recommended target updates to Bozeman's tree regulations.

And I think actually, was that the one that you referenced earlier on page 77?

Which is not our page numbers.

I don't think it's not the exact thing.

I think it's similar, and I think this is flagging something for me that we talked about internally from a formatting perspective.

We have these great tables, but then it's like where it is that link to it links to a whole bunch of text in that implementation section.

So I think we can work internally too with Alex and Mitch, and if you all have recommendations for how to kind of maybe visually align some of these these things a little bit better from a high-level summary table to then where some of those actual recommendations and associated resources for consideration are in that standalone implementation section, which is kind of you know, you've gotten through all this data, and then you still have a lot more to go to say here's what we want to do for Bozeman moving forward in the future.

So I think we can have some more discussions internally about how how to align um here's what we're saying, a goal and associated action strategies are with like then also the specific recommendations to achieve those things because they're in the plan, but I think maybe we're just getting a little bit lost in some of the blocks of text, perhaps.

Right, okay, excellent.

Yeah, I just know one of the public comment things was consistently, you know, how do we protect mature trees?

How can we change things in our code?

Um so yeah.

Yeah, and there is uh it is on it starts on my page 82, um, but there's some key considerations where we do have uh recommendations for further updates as they were um based on Bozeman's code language as they uh deal with tree preservation, tree protection during construction, uh, planting standards, maintenance standards, and then also a couple other um that we went through all of those uh city codes and created they're not exactly um specific language to use, but they are considerations for future updates.

Okay, thank you very much.

That was all the questions I had.

Um great, thank you.

Um are there any additional questions from board members?

All right, do we have any um general public questions regarding this that haven't been shared previously?

Um I think understood that the work sessions do not normally take public input.

Do they not take public input?

Because it was hard to wear that.

Well, it's the it's a work session, not a special presentation.

Special presentations don't take public comment.

It is to the chair's discretion to take public comment at a work session.

We did receive written public comment that gives the chair the authority to say, hey, if someone can write in a public comment on a very specific agenda item, the general public then make public comment as well if they are present.

There's an equity piece there to a public comment that could be given if you're viewing it on television or listening to it or present in the room and not just submitted it via writing.

Cool.

You're good.

No, I really appreciate the opportunity.

That's very nice.

Thank you.

Um Marcia Caveney, Bozeman resident, um, Bozeman Tree Coalition co-founder, and we did submit those written comments to you about last month's meeting.

I've been traveling for several months helping family back east, so quite jet-legged, but trying to wrap my head around where we're at again.

And I thought all the questions were really good.

Um, invite uh Mitch and Alex to do is utilize the Bozeman Tree Coalition more often if possible.

I noticed that we were, I thought, listed as an external stakeholder at one point early on, but the only external stakeholder um process that I noticed so far was the survey.

And we would love to have a group of people at a meeting, a sit-down time, or to be able to participate in a in a work session, because we spent you know the past three years working on city codes for tree-related projects.

And we feel we have might have something to offer and would love to be a part of the process.

We have over 200 subscribers and many people from all different walks of life, all different ages, renters and homeowners, and many experts within that group, whether it's a retired city arborist that we often consult with or other skills.

The other thing that comes to mind, let me see if I can remember it, just started to slip away.

Was oh, in the discussions, I feel like what's kind of missing tonight a little bit, but might come in in the next work sessions, is just more focus on retaining trees.

It started to come up, I think board member Matthew Courton brought that up.

But how do we and also um I won't attempt your last name?

Paige, board member page brought up some things about how can there are ways of using even our existing codes for tree um improvements with developments with private property undergoing uh development review, and that's the phrase we kept keep using is it's large sections of land, private property undergoing development review.

And we we sent you a link to what Bend is doing because of their growth problem.

They had the same thing, so they have priority trees, the great big ones.

You know, how can we keep some of these trees?

Canyon Gate took down 250 trees, and they are replanting about 11.

So there's a net loss there in seventh and aspen, they lost all of the trees, two large spruces and about 20 other trees.

So I think there's great improvement there, and like we mentioned in our letter, we've been told for the past two years that we get to work on codes for trees after this plan, but we need the plan to say what the public wants, and that's let's protect as many trees as we can, but be reasonable about it to allow also for a new development to take place.

So thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

Um, I'm wrapping up that topic for the night.

Um, and now moving is on to director's updates.

Okay, well, I'll keep this as efficient as I can.

Um, this agenda item is listed uh monthly on our agenda for if there is time as a general uh update for the board to keep the the board apprised of things that have happened over the last month um since we last met, and that we're just to educate the board with general um information that's occurring in the department specifically.

Um since our last meeting, we did open the splash pad.

Um so we made it through to that.

I at the last meeting it was it was tenuous at that point, and we've made it, it's been incredibly popular, and on the mornings that I go by there, the families are waiting for the gates to open.

Um it's been fantastic.

So we have three splash pad attendants that's um that work there, wanted you know circulate through, and um that's going very well.

And so we'll we're really pleased with that, and we'll look forward to how that operates into the future.

And what I mean by that is we can kind of gauge as it goes on and it's functioning.

You know, do we need to expand hours?

Do we need to shift them?

Uh, really, where is the demand?

Um also we've been able to um open bogert pools, speaking of aquatics um now one more day a week, so seven days a week.

We were we were open six days a week um at our last meeting.

Um so we've been able to train enough lifeguards that have that open seven days a week, and that's a big accomplishment actually, because there's been a huge life court lifeguard shortage nationwide since COVID.

Um we lost a lot of lifeguards because majority of the pools didn't open that year, and it's been really it's the people found other things to do, and they just kind of got out of the routine of being lifeguards.

Um and so that trend is shifting now and it's coming back, and we're seeing that across the country.

Um this Saturday, Ability Montana is doing a 5K um walk run at Lindley Park, and we're doing a ribbon cutting for the Ability Montana uh pathway, which uh the board partially funded through our community grant uh last year.

And the mayor will be there at 9 a.m.

Um I have another engagement at 9 a.m.

I can't be there this Saturday, but I'm gonna put that on the board's radar that that'll be happening Saturday, 9 a.m.

Um we're also doing some significant work right now, partnering with HRDC, the Human Resource Development Council, on um working with some of our own-house populations and the impacts in the parks and and training some of our staff with HRDC and meeting some of the individuals that are clients for HRDC and just uh trying to make some improvements there.

We've seen significant impact over Glen Lake Rotary Park since they've opened a new facility over there off of uh Manley and Griffith Griffin, and um so a lot of work is going in and into that right now, and and uh making sure that we can continue some of the improvements that we're doing over there at that park, and that um we still maintain some of our relationships with folks like um Random Axe of Silliness that does uh uh the Ferry Village over there, and that uh so it's really kind of this whole large complicated fairly it's this is a much larger issue than just parks uh issue.

So it that we've got um code enforcement um in community the community outward community policing folks um engaged in this and really trying to come at this in a uh a very empathetic way, considerate way on um not only enforcing roles but being considerate of people need something to do and a place to go.

Um so it's it's it's taking a fair amount of work, but I think we're doing it the right way.

Um our parks and cemetery position, superintendent position has closed.

So you guys remember Tom White retired uh back in March, and so that position is closed, and we'll be interviewing for that um here next month, and hopefully hiring for that soon.

Um something we've started working on and don't don't have underway yet or on contract, uh, but I do think this will be coming to the board in the future.

I just want to put it out there is a rate study for um the department.

So looking at what our revenues will be or our um our cost recovery and what we'll be charging out there.

So we haven't done a rate study in a number of years.

Um I'm trying to remember the last time we did it, I think it was 2019 that we did this, and we did it in-house.

Um we'll we'll hire a team to help us with it this time.

Um we'll take commission direction as well as far as what our um final recovery will be will be looking like, our cost recovery.

So, how much will we subsidizing to the public and in it in which type of programs?

Um, but we want to run that through the board all first and look at these potentials for increases and recommendations that we might have to the commission for cost recovery.

Um and then finally, we're putting doing the final finishing details on two new synthetic turf over at the sports park, um, field number seven and field number fourteen.

So, yes, they are geographically um significantly separated.

So field number seven is primarily a rugby pitch, but it's a multi-use pitch.

Um, and it's it's done and being utilized, so we have some fine fine tuned details that we're finishing up right there with a via punch list, and then field 14 is an association with uh Bozeman School District, and it is across the street from Gallatin High, and it's striped for football across and soccer.

Um, and the turf is down, the lines are down, uh, the parking lot is paved, and we're hoping to have it open next month so they can start football practice.

That's my update.

That is perfect.

Thank you so much.

Um this board generally meets the fourth Thursday of every month from 6 to 8 p.m.

And with that, I'm attending tonight's meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.