HomeMy WebLinkAbout0149.093::,.:. .
. <" -:A~:
-:-::~~~~::
-"
-
n ..
February 4, 1993
BOBORABL3 CITY COttNCX~
Palo Alto, Californ.i..a
Attention: Finance committee
_.,irA fUblie power a.88ociatiol1 (APPAl 'J'_r •• Pow,,; Progr.a.m
Members of the Council:
At th~ Finance Committee meeting on January 12, 199J~ staff presented a
report describing the AFrA Tree Pove; progr .. ~ After discussion, the
Co~ittee decided to keep the report kin Committee" for further study
and evaluation~
To aid in ttJis process, staff ~as requested to prepare an outline of
various revisions and alternatives to the program along ~ith the costs.
Attached is a spreadsheoat which describes the different scenarios
discussed at the meeting and the resultant budgetary and rate impacts of
each.
In the first column, the spreadsheet identifies costs for t~e City's
current Tree Management program (TMP), which is budgeted in ~~e Public
Wo ..... ks Department. The 'free Mana9"ement Program, adopted by Council in
1982, called for the removal and planting of 2 pe,rcent of the total
number of City trees per year for an annual total of 832 trees~ It also
identified approximately 2,600 vacant sites for tree planting. This
target was considered a prudent and achieYable level to mair.tain the
hea'.thy canopy of trees within the City. B1.idget consid.arations reduced
that tarqet to the current level of 500 trees per year. However, due to
the drought, ~ost of these plantings have been suspended, so that there
is a backlog of at least 800-1,000 trees which have not been planted~
The second column shows the costs for the APPA Tree Power Program as
de5cribed in CMR:118:93. It assumes full fundi~g by the Electric Fund
fo~ 832 trees per year targeted in the TMP, the additional 260 trees per
year in already identified vacant sites, and the balance of trees in the
special programs. This proposal calls for no funding from the General
Fund, and it restores the ideal target for re-planting trees back to the
level of 2 percent of the tree population per year called for in the
Tree Management Program.
-
Alternative 11 modifies the proposed plan to shar~ removal costs for the
trees b.:3tween the Electric Fund (25\) and the General Fund pst). This
is based on the assamption of costs by the Elec~ric Fund for the removal
ot trees for electric line-clearinq. It assumes the increase in the
level of plantinq trees from the current budgeted level of 500 tree~ per
year to the 832 tree goal. Cost to tt,e General Fund would be $121,920
per year or $1,279,200 for ten y~ars.
Alternatiye #2 assumes that the Public Works Department ~ill continue
funding for the Tree Management Program at the current level (500
tTees). The Electric Fund would pay for the additional 332 trees to
reach the 832 't.ree goal and the 260 trees to be planted in vacant sites.
uternative t3 assumes that the General Fund will continue 't.o funa at
the current level, and that the Electric Fund .ill assume the costs for
only the additional 332 to reach the level of the 832 tree total. This
alternative calls for no planting of trees in vacant sites.
Al ternative 14 assumes that the General Fund 'Will continue to t'und at
the current level. The additional 332 trees will not be planted. The
Electric Fund will pay only t'or the planting of 260 tr~es in vacant
~ites.
In summary, each of the various alternatives discussed at the Finance
Committee me.ting has been outlined above. Stafr is pr&pared to discuss
these items at the schedvled meeting.
... ~ (~~ _~es ectfully submitted,
R SEMARY ~N
Administrator
Department of Utilities
~~.~
RICHARD L. YOUNt? /
Deputy Director of Utilities
~~
city Manager
Related CMR: 118:93
Attachmen't
CKR:149:9l Page 2
· "l":.i:'~'l!£!5E:.:-. .;a;;
_-"'* • ". ,¥ ij , -,
COMPARISONS FOR TREE POWER PROGRAM
I!ID ~I £mlBZlllall Cualillati PrNN-.iI 41 .... MIrIll 41l1l111lb fl Alllli1Idrlfl aI_tII.1ID ~
I. CityTret'l Manal!'!"",nl Pn1gram (~OOT''''.I) (8nTte,.) (812'1'1'''') (J]l1'r'fI~) on'ncM) ReQlOYflI $101.000 ,17Q,680 $42.&40 4 $60,000 $68,080 0 '~n:h.KI 20,000 3:J,;"JftO 33,280 13,280 13,280 0 I·lanling O. ~t'l!lQ 62 . .'I!lQ g~.goo ~~~ 0 f:t.'{ J ;_E~.:: .}; ,. " Suhtotal 121,000 266,2010 138,320 106,240 106,240 0
2. Vacanl Sile" (2hO,yr) (26(n~e\l) (260Tr ••• ) (26I1Tr.el) (l60'fu-t~) l·uf<h.M' 0 10,400 10,0100 10,0100 0 1Q,oIOO ""'n1inll: 0 19,5OO 19,500 19,500 0 19,500 M8Inlenanl.~ 0 ~.622 , ~~622 ~ S§.~.~.2 I 0 ~~62~ ~ SuhhllAI 0 96,522 96,522 96,522 0 96,522
.1. SfW't."ial Prugram., (I808TI'1I_) (I ~ll!Il'rer.) (l~·rrer.) II&I!Tl~"") (1IIll8Tren:) 2-ror-1 0 20,000 20,000 2<>,000 20,000 20,000 Sc!f'dJing5, ele. 0 2,0100 2,0100 2,0100 2,400 2,400 I Sublotal 0 22.400 ~ 22,400 3 2~,400 I 22,400 ~ 22,400 • I 4. Advertising 0 10,000 I 10,000 s 10,000 " 10,000 II 10,000 I
."1. AdmlnistrBlti(Jrt 0 _'~5Q9 ~ J2,5Q9 ~ 12~~.99 " .1.2----'----5Q9 , J.~,500 ~
Suhtotals 101' Item, )-."1 0 $407,002 $279,742. $247,662 $151,140 $141.422
I':leclric Ftmd <-'ost/l yr 0 $407,662 $279,742. $247,662 $151,140 $141,422 E!cl.'lti\: Fund C'osVIO yr.! 0 $4,076,620 $2,797,420 $2,476,620 $1,511,400 $1.414,2~
r~rlcral Fund C05l/lyt $121,000 0 $127,920 4 $160,000 5 $160,000 • $160,000 I GenNal Fund Cnilt/lO yrs $1,210,000 0 $1,279,200 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000
Total Co"t/l 'ir $121,000 $407.662 $407,662 $407,662 $311,140 $301,422 Total Cnsl/IO yo; $1,210,000 $4,076,620 $4,076,620 $4,076,620 $3,111,400 $3,014,2'.10 (Electric & General FunJ~ C('lnlhincd)
ImrlJict On Rlcelric RCVl'lnuc 0,6'" 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2'%
-Plllnitna ourr ... ~ ~med bv In-~ ... _; t'OIlt'ect ,*ntlnll ... 7"-
-11'lCII_~ 111« .... · ,.IUlI" 1tw..."""NaI" .... ,,,,,_ 10 V-I; ...... 1_ ....... I'~ "* ......... 11 .......... "urn_«"_"-!WId Inor_ -p.v .... f ..... o-
-20% from !JIll"': 7M/, fr"", att-.I Fund
! -•• 1Id000.(IfUfoI.,.. ...... lIOI'IIrect,_II_n"pIIontiIiOll
211-J-t\-1i3
,
'.