Council hears options to spend growing tree‑fund balance; staff recommends master plan and near‑term plantings

City staff told council that the fund paid by developers who cannot meet on‑site tree mitigation has grown rapidly since 2021, and they proposed using a mid‑year amendment to appropriate $1.25 million for near‑term plantings, strategic property acquisitions and the creation of an urban forest master plan.

Why it matters: The city’s tree fund is financed when tree‑preservation options in the Unified Development Code (UDC) are exhausted. The current balance — which staff projected to be several million dollars by fiscal‑year‑end — represents a resource the city can use for public tree planting, maintenance and targeted preservation. Council questioned the fund’s permitted scope, whether funds could be used to acquire privately held properties or to remove invasive species, and how an urban forest plan’s costs and scope should be defined.

Key points presented - Fund balance: Staff said the fiscal‑year‑end projected balance is roughly $3.4 million before the proposed mid‑year appropriation; they also noted about $1 million in expected refunds to developers and a $400,000 fiscal‑surety deposit that may be refunded depending on project completion. (Figures presented by staff.) - Proposed mid‑year amendment: $1.25 million to support tree plantings, potential property acquisitions to preserve heritage trees, tree plantings tied to capital projects (for example the Shell Road widening and other upcoming transportation or facility work), and the development of an urban forest master plan. - Revenue drivers: Staff said much of the growth since 2021 came from major utility projects and nonresidential developments that had few on‑site mitigation options; single‑ and multi‑family projects also contributed significantly. The Atmos Energy regional gas‑line project was cited as a major single contributor to recent fund growth. - Urban forest master plan: Staff recommended hiring consultants to inventory canopy, model benefits (stormwater, heat reduction, air quality, property values), identify priority planting/preservation locations, and produce short‑ and long‑term strategies. Staff estimated a master‑plan cost would likely be in the “hundreds of thousands” depending on scope, and said the study could also address wildfire risk mitigation and potential partnerships for tree conservation and education.

Council reaction and specific feedback - Councilmembers expressed general support for creating an urban forest master plan and for appropriating near‑term funds for plantings and medians in select roadway projects, but they asked for clearer limits and legal language in the UDC to clarify allowable uses (for example acquisition, irrigation, removal of invasive species, and education programs). - Several councilmembers said the fund language in the UDC should be more explicit (Flower Mound’s ordinance was cited as an example) and suggested adding line items such as land acquisition, irrigation, planting, and maintenance to avoid ambiguity. - Some members requested safeguards for sightlines and traffic safety when planting medians and urged the selection of tree species and planting locations that minimize conflicts with drivers, signals and utilities. - A councilmember suggested the city consider refunding some developer payments to repay original funding sources when those payments were made by city projects or utilities; staff said code and proposed UDC changes would be reviewed and that some development categories will be exempt under proposed language.

Clarifying details and limits - Staff said current UDC language requires tree‑mitigation payments when other mitigation options are exhausted; the proposed draft UDC language at the time of the workshop would broaden allowed uses “for tree planting, care and other tree preservation activities.” Staff recommended including more explicit language in the UDC to prevent misinterpretation. - Staff noted some funds currently held are fiscal surety tied to developer agreements and may be refunded if developers meet their obligations.

Next steps - Council generally supported the concept of using a mid‑year amendment to appropriate funds for near‑term uses and directed staff to return with scope and cost estimates for an urban forest master plan and to provide clearer draft UDC language that enumerates permitted uses of tree fund dollars.

Ending note: Council members emphasized preserving heritage trees and using the fund to support canopy, while asking staff to return with narrow, specific proposed language and a defined scope and budget for an urban forest master plan before committing significant sums.