HomeMy WebLinkAbout0260.095,
-, • ·0",·
.. ,.-
<)5-96
TO:
ATI'ENTlON:
FROM:
DA'IE:
SUBJECT:
BWlJES]'
:' City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FINANCE COMMITTEE
CITY MANAGFJl DEPARTMENT: Public Works
May 25. 1995 CMR:260:95
Palo Alto Tree Task Force Report Analysis
This item is infoanational OIl!y, in response 10 Council direction 10 staff 10 review the
recommendations propored in the Palo Allo Tree Task Force (rTF) lnlerim Report aoo
_ respond 'li1th an analysis 0( the issues associated with implementing the TTY
. recommendations.
BIffiMMENDATION
No actioo is requested al this time. This report is provided 10 serve as a basis for future
C<lllIDlittee discussions.
'POlley IMPI.JCADONS
ThOre is no impact on eUstlng policy at this time.
BACKGROJlNP
On March 6, 1995, Cooncil dir",,-:ed staff to evaluate and respond 10 recommendations
made in the Palo Alto Tree Task Fore.: (ITF) Interim Budget Report. The first step was
10 separate the poTtey issues from the financial elements of the report. Staff from the
Public Works, Fmance. and Utilities Departments wod<ed together 10 identify the spe<:ific
elements and the appropriate rommittee assignment. Staff bas established • process for
reviewing the issues over the nex! several months as shown on Attachmem I.
The majority of the rerommenrlations from the IT.F are p.-imarily related 10 service levels,
lind as such would first be reviewed by the POOcy and Services Committee before being
discussed by the FiDance Committee as 10 funQmg requiremems, One particular i<;sUe, !lJat
of poteotial funding from the Electric utility, requires ad<fltionaJ information and review
from boili the TTY itself and the Utilities Mvlsor; Commission. The Policy and Services
Pzge 1 af'
.. !"
.~ ---.
o
Committee meeting 10 begin discussion of !heir ;'sue< ;. sche<Ju1ed for My S. 1995. The
funding issues .. ill be scheduled (or the Finance Comminee in late summer or early fall.
Staff will pursue deveklpmeru of. pbased implementation of funding alternatives such as
the one proposed recently for the sclloo! ~istric! pl;!ying field rr..allilenance project. The
first phase would begin with the interim (uoomg proposals cootained in the FYI995-96
hodge!. cootinue with additional fuoomg requirement> resulting from Policy '" Services
recommendations or any recommendations rec:ei"ed from the Ut!lity Advisory
C.ommissioo. and finaJ.."ly. return 10 Commi!1ee with the dev.\Qpmeut of detailed
information 011 tl>e cost, legal. and administrative requirements for estabflShing • Lighting
and I ~nd5Cape Assessmen! Disi!;c!.
EXF,ClJTIVE SJ!MMARY
Staff identi1:1e<l the fo!low'.ng issues 10 be referred 10 the Pot~y '" Servkes committee for
coosideration: implementation of all Hug!les. Heiss recommendations for expanded
servke levels including an increase of 38 percent over fr.., proposed FY 95-96 budget
levels for contract trimming. adoption of the industry standard for pruning cycles.
inc ... ..as<:d removals and planting>. and tree inventory data base updates; addition of
positions 10 the Tree Section (an office speciaHst and contract cooromator), and addition
of. staff!ialsoo 10 the proposed oon."IVfil group; creation of a public/private partnen;hip -
llOIlprOfiI Friends of the Trees group; appointment of • tree advisory group; adoption of
a Tree Protection Ordinance; establishment of. process 10 enbance overall roordination
of an City activities involving trees; .nd Utility funding of. tree progl1llll.
The financial elements identitred and <!V.luated in this report include the following:
O<ganizarional Review sraffing implementa lion; life cycle costing; • utility funding of •
tree planting, trimmJng and public education program; .pp!icaOODS for gran! funding;
publlc funding alternatives such as revenue l>oods. assessmeill districts (lighting and
landf.cape), property as.....sments. new construction assessIDe!JIS, and estabftshing a permit
sys!em; and private fuoomg options which would be hand'.ed th.-wgh the creation of a
oonprolit group.
I. BLLXlET ISSUES
a, Orpnjz,atjrma1 Review Jmplementa6nn
The TTF has endorsed full impl=entatioo of all the Hughes. Heiss
,~, The pbased implementation of those recommendations begins
with the proposed 1995·96 hodget. The Hug!les. Heiss re>OO!lll1lendation 10
convert three positioos from iI>-house crews !O contract pnming has been partially
implemented in the currenll994·95 budget utilizing IWO existing vacancie&. The
1hird position will be converted 10 contract is future attrition 0CCUr>. The creation
of a tw~itioo crew designated 10 park trees has also been implemented and
will be forrnaflZed in thi: proposed FY 1995-96 budget.
Pagel on
.'
,'::Z~, '
-. -~~-J:_ >-.... -
',' "
II
-. . ~
" \L"
.--i-~'
In addition. !be C!Iy Manager bas proposed ':lgmen6ng l'>e 1995-96 Tree budget
with an aM!tion.al $100,000 to be used foc m.:rea..:d OOO!raCt trimming and
PI'Illling. Therefore, fue FY 1995-96 operating budget refle(;ts a toIal increase
10 contract ser..-ices of $195,000 ($95,000 as I result of attrition of two of the
Ihree posllioos in the tree section recommended for conversion to CODIra\."t, and
$100,000 od<!ed to !he General Fund budget for additional trlmming). This
represents 62 peTteD! of !he TIF proposal for contract trimming. The TTF
recommendations to further increase contract tcimmiP.g from !he proposed
$195.000 to • lOla! of $) 17,900 would provide trimming services 10 a IOU! of
1,000 ~ and reduce !he CUlTen! IO-year tree trimming frequency 10
aW0ximately 4.9 years. This issue is proposed for referral to !he Pol"y and
Servkes Q,mmittee.
1995-96 Bnd2eJ An\WFnwjon
The proposed addition of $100,000 for increased rontra<.'t trimmL'g seMces in
the FY 1995-96 budget is • first phase of funding row.rd the full program which
is ultimately approved by Cooncil. Addit:iona: funding can be incrementany
added either in future years' budgets or by Budget Amendment Ordinance during
!he 1995-96 fiscal year, if the Commi!Iee recommendations proceed on a time
line between budget ~c1es.
lL· UFE CYClE COSTING:
The concepI of tree fife ~cle costing is • I0OI used 10 compare !he estimated lifetime
costs of maintenance 10 tr_. Ufe eyeie costing is basically • model which assists in
the se1ectioo of certain specks of trees, Iocalions of appropriare sites and scheduling
-decisions fur -nWn!enance and replacemen! based on maintenance .::;;pener.ce and
-costs.
roe ability to develop I'Je ~ck costing for !he urban forest is .,·ailable Ihroogb the
us. of the computerized tree inveotO<}', projections of f"~.lfe labor cost.<, and an
established frequency of maintenance {i.e., trimming (){ pruning cycks}. The ultimate
advantage of life ~cle cooling is the abilily 10 identify and eliminate those tree species
Iha! provide only minim.al benefit at higb mairuenance expense. U.ing this
infonnation in combination with knowing ""'" many trees exist. of a specific species,
their size, and required main!enance, allows staff 10 no( onl~ predict the .... ork t11at will
be necessary, but can also fairly accurately predict me cost of !he woo-Ie.
Below is an e<ample 0f a generic life cyele estimate fo< a tree p'.anted this year, and
what Ibe expected costs 0( maintenance would be over the estimated 5O-year lif".
~260:9S Page-lotI§!
./
EXAMPLE:
LUe ')'cle cost for species • X·
Assumptions:
• Tree life cYcle 50 years
• Inflation 3 % per annum
I. Plan!
Tree Cost
Spraying &< Speciality Servke: 10% of toW or
2
YEAJr. SERVlCE RQURS
I Prune .6
2 Prune .6
3 Prune .t'
.. Prune .6
S Prune .6
7 Raise 1.1
10 RAise 1.7
IS Trim 6.3
17 Trim 1.7
20 Trim 6.3
25 Trim 6.3
30 Trim 6.3
35 Trim 6.3
40 Trim 6.3
45 Trim 6.3
50 . Removal N1A 50_
, '.
, ' .. -. -~. . . '-'
-.. -
"
o
LAIIORlmt($}
41.00
~8.41
49.86
51.36 -
52.90
56.12
61.32
7U)9
77.68
85.58
99.41
115.48
134.14
155.82
I & \.00
N/A
.....,.. ;11
550.00
$50.00
~735.00
CosT
28.80
29.05
29.92
30.82
31.7.
95.40
104.24
441.87
132.06
539.15
626.28
727.52
845.08
981.67
1\40.30
1565.66
51355.00
$8190.00
Pagr40U
j
,.'.,
. -.
. '
..
~. ":. --
,
\ ne. .. 1opmen! of"",,1o a data base woold ~ coofngent upoo L'llpIementation of the ... 1ivirles,
..,...,ice levels, and staffing issues "'bith are ~ing referred to the potky and SeNkes
Committee.
ID. FUNDING AI. TERNA TIVES
.. lJbljIY -funded Tree i'roiram
'llIe APiA Tree Power progn;m requires the planting cf one tree f« every dec1ric
I!le".er, or 29,000 trec'l ~ Palo Allo. Since the TfF =ommendation is 10 plant only
an ad<fllionall5,OOO trees, Palo Aho would not ~ eligible lOr participation in this
program. Therefore, it would be besI then, \0 refer to this as the City of Palo Alto
Tree Prognun designed by the TIE.
Any decision cooceming the Electric Utility ~.marng c( the Tree Task Focce
recommendaOoos must ~ gulde<l by the legal requiremenlS regulating the Ente1prise
Funds. Essentially. the Electric Fund must receive some mngible benefit in return
iOr lhe expeoditure c( funds. Although Lie intang;1>le benefits of good customer
relations, aesthetics, irnpro>'ed air quality, and windbreaks exist, they do no( fulfiU
the lega! ..... uirem<:nts. Since p~o Alto enjoy> a relatively mild climate ",if.h a small
air cooditioning load (less than I percenI), the wst .. ~ any tree prop-am can neither
~ jusli fied nor quantified as I demaod-side management progn;m in !be short-term.
In Ibe case of 1he Tree Program, 1he dearest benefit is in the area of nne clearing.
As repcned in the Ele<.1ric Power Research In'itiMe (EPRI) publication, 'Technical
Brier,' "T odoy'. unlity customers, wbo rely beavily 00 COOlpulers and other high
ftChcology equipment, are demaoding more and more in the way ofieliable, high
quality service, and ooe way that 1heutilities are reducing !he chan<:e <>f ser.,.;ce
i!Itemlptions is by paying close attention to keeping power r,ne rights-of-way clear
c! vegetatlon.· EBOrts 10 encourage the wise planting of trees which will not
interfere with 0< damage U1l1ity Iineo; are elearly in !be best intere.t of the electrie ~
payers. 'llIe eleclric utility would support v;-itlt funding and staff assistaooe Ibe
educatiooal activities reJated 10 line clearing and some of the = associated with
the planting of trees in easement areas. However, sin"" tbe TTf rep<Jrt did not
specificaUy identity !hose costs associated will! nne clearing in the proposed
program, more research is needed.
Currently, the Electrk Fund bodgro $571,000 /Or fine clearing. This covers Lie cost
of lhe cooU'ad (~400,OOO). 0,5 of the City Amorist and 0.75 of & Cootract
CoordinatDr, and an additional $21,000 is budgeted roc administtative ovedlcad, /Or
• total of $;71,000. Both the proper planting of Irecs and the cootiouafioo (jf the
underground program wiil eventually reduce the need roc fme clearing. future cit-j
trees, planted in undergrounded areas, will ~ encouraged 10 grow 10 natural hcights
to preserve the boo.->liful caoopy of trees. At this lime sixty pol .. per 1lnderground
district are removed per }'ear, and approximately 40 percent of the city now bas
CMll:..26Il:9S Page 5 of'
~ .' "'-. -.~
"
,-.," -
IlD<L:rgruund wiring. In .. sence !he undergrouoding program se"'es 10 mitigate the
dsmsg .. caused by L'le heavy pruning <>ftr.:es in easement areas.
"'rule awaiting. decision from the citizens' committee coocerning 1."" APP A T ret
Power Program, the Utllhies Department instituted some changes whkh retkct on
increased .,,'aren'" iliat public ow"""hip of utilities carri.. with it public
responsibility and obligation 10 the environment E<bcatiooal eflOrts which
en<:ourag¢ loog-range planning in the types aod location of trees planted ate
wnsistent will> the del'artmenfs resource management pblJosopby. Among the
changes recently implemented is the funding, at the rate of SO percenl 0< S2(),OOO,
f<>r a lando;cape aroh-ltect \0 I'!'>iew all City projects, incluomg utility projects. Now,
as a matter of policy, an capital projects include funds lOr londscaping. This
amounts 10 approxima1ely $100,000 per year. After poles are removed in an
oodcrground district. 4 landscape archit",'! c!etewines ..wu new trees aod other
landscaping is 10 be planted in padmounl areas. Rather than only backfilling L'le
holes, occe poles have been renwved, the Utilities Department ",in oow pr~1de
funding for the planting of. tree or shrub. The City Arborist will designate the
appropriate species for City street uees replacement wi<.h some bput from the
resident. Rear easement tree replacement maJ be <OO5idertd in the future as part 0{
an expanded program.
It is requested that the TIt prQ"ide • deUilled proposal "'ith the associated costs,
identifying 1be specific elements 10 be band1ed by the proposed nonprofit group and
bow lhis ties 10 the existing rme clearing program. It is also possible that U!l1ities
staff may be lLvailab!e to assist v-.ith. some puNic outreach actiVities.
Recommendatioo lOr any .dditioool fw!<fmg bY !he E1ectlic Utility cannel be made
wlthou! this detailed lnfunnation.
. b. QomI:;
When grants are available from State and Feder.1 agen<:ies, theJ can be used 10
supplement Palo A!Io', Iree programs. The "Cooperative Foresti)' Assistance AC!~
(Public LPW 95-313) provides funds throogh the Fon,s! Service. Staffapplied lOr
a state IOm;U:y grant dlJring the <:UITent 1994-95 fiscal year, but did DOt receive any
funding. The process of grant application and funding shoold be <:OflSidered on.ly as
S'JPIllemcntaJ fJDcfmg, and not as a basis lOr ongoing programs, due 10 the potential
lOr 100, offunOmg in subsequent years. Additiooally, grant appIicatioo requirements
may also ru..'tatelhal the City contribU'.e> malchiGg funds whicb may ultimately oller
only a Ii.,:nited net increase to the existing fundIng.
c. Public fnndinr Ahernatives
The tree task lOre<: has identified sever.u ahematives 10 traditional General Fuod
financing of tree care. They include the fuIlowing:
CMJl:260:95 Page' of'
......
•
JI'''''''rM Bonds
Revenue bonds are sold fur projects associated with. soo.-ce 0( fund"mg. The tree
program has no independent source of revenue 10 pledge in I bond sale.
Property Assessmen1s!NMssmenJ Districts
This is the fimding source that staff prefers if C<JUDCi! wishes 10 augment !he tJ-..e
program. It is discussed i:l more deUll under "Preferred Altemaliv~ Funding Option"
below.
NnI Construction ~.ressme111s
Presumably, this would be • type of 'mitigation fee" app!ied to new <onst.'UcOOn
pr'!lecls. Due 10 the cyclical nature of """. construc-tion, this ,,'ouId probably DOt be
a reliable ()( consistent ongoing soo.m:e of revenue fur an augmented tree care
program.
Permi.! system..
While property owners could be <harsed lOr permits in order 10 plant new trees, this
would undoubtedly be seen as oueroo ... , and bureaucratk by !he public, and would no!
likely raise much new funding.
d. Preferred AIt.rna~ Fuwljnll Qptioo
T= Task Force recommendations total aImosI a $.5 million increase in funding OVe!"
1994-95 budget levels. While the City Manager's proposed bodget includes an
additional S.I million lOr an augmented tree care program, that still leaves a funding
saP ofS.4 million. In order 10 fund. go;> !bat large with. reliable, coosistent source
of fun<fmg. staff believes that creating. Landscape and Lightins Assessment
Dis1ricl (LLAD) would be !he best alternative.
1be assessment is payable by property owners on !he;" property tax bills. lhere are
certaln procedural and legal nquirements lllvo.'ved ... ith setting up • dis1rict.
inclU<fmg public noticing and !he right 10 protest. Amoog other things, the
detenn.ination of cflStrict boundaries is defm<:d by "benefit.' Setting up • district
requires I vote of Ccuncil.
The concept of creating an LLAD was receully presented 10 Council in !he
Community Senices report on !he Palo Alto Unified School Di.,trlct (PAUSO)
playing field maintenance program.
If Cooncil so directs. .... aff will report back to Council within six mooths with DlO<e
information on til<: cost, legal, and administrative requirements lOr ...rung up an
L1.AD for either an augmented tree care program, additional playing field support,
ocbodt.
Page 7 or •
•
-~-:-, , '.
"
---~-':-.
e. Priyatt; fundinf
The Tree Task Fc<ce also desctibed other potential "private" funding c{ tree
programs. incTud"mg DOnprofil tree trusts, memorial tree fund<, pbil>.nthr~ic
foundations and Iocai business. Staff supports investigating Illese as potential
enba.ocemenls \0 our programs, bul not as a basis for ongoing funding. 11rese
alternatives v.'ouk! be impotunI ingredients for the tree program. and wouk! result
in invaluable assistllnce from the public and privaTe se<;IOr, 001 wroJd be unlikely
b result in the amou1ll or ongoing new fuOOmg needed I<> lmplemen! task force
mxxnmendations. The 1TF bas S<lgg.,,;ted creating a oonprofit organization Ellal
wooId include retaIning a fun liIi>e position (mltWly paid for !>y the Electric
\.JtilNy) I<> solicit this type of foOOmg.
FlSCtU, IMPAcr
There is nO fJSCa1 impact at this time.
ENVIBONMENfAL ASSESSMENT
There is no tn,ironment2l assessmen! required in COOfJnction will: this report.
PREPARED BY, Shari Reynolds, Public Woch Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD Rf:.'VIEW: ~ A. ~
GLENN S. R.OBERTS
IY.rector of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __ Q~ ~::;L.~~~ fL:?~ .=:f-----cre~~O
'X: Tree Task Force
. CMR::2ISO:95 Pag< I of'
. ~-.
"
~
,_ ,,"~'f-:, _ .. "_-
,r". .!" .-.
. ..,,-, ..,
".-: ' .. " -
-.:... --::..:~ ,-
.--' .: ~-'-
A IT ACHMENT I
ASSIGNMENT OF TREE TASK FORCE RECOMME!'IDAll0NS
FOR REVIEW ANDRECOMMENDAll0N
RE\',EWlNG BODY AND SEQUENCE
RECOMMENDATION
Hughes Heiss:
.>\dop! average S year triJ1Ul1lng cycle
Hughes Heiss:
Increase levels of removal &. planting
Hughes HeL<s:
Add one CODtracI coordinator
Add one office specialist
Update Tree Inventory Data Base
Funding Alternatives
1995-96 Budget Issues
• Organizaliooal Review Implementation
• Addltiooal fu!ldlng 1« lrirnming
life Cycle Costing
Tree Protection Ordinar<:e
Creation Df a Nonprofit tree group and
addition of one staff liaison position
Appointment of a Tree Advi;ory
Coolmittee
Policy 8£
Servkes
1
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
3
I
I
2
1
Tree
Task
Force
I
Utilities
Advisory
Commission
2
Page' orl