The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0366.095TO, . ATfENTlON: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: RF(!IJES]' City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITfEE CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Public Works July 25, 1995 CMR:J64i:95 Palo Alto Tree Task Force Report Analysis Thls item is infonnaDooal ooly, In response 10 Coondl direction to staff \Q review the recommendations proposed i!I the Palo Alto Tree Task Force (TIP) Interim Report and respond with an ruWysis of the issues associated willi implementing the TIF reoommendalions. REmMMfNPATIQN No acIioo is requested at IlIis time. This report is provXled to serve as a basis foe fllture Committee oISCussions. The Tree Task Force has requested that the issues regarding the creation of a ~ tree group and propooed utilily funding be brought simultaneouSly 10 boIh the Fmance Committee and Pvlicy and ServicesComm~ in lh<o hope 0( expediting the process enough 10 aDow an oppornmily Ie proceed willi a spring planting program during the coming season. mUCV IMPlJCATlONS There is 00 impact on existing policy at IlIis time. This report ,flscusses the poteotial fa< establishing a new nooprofil group fa< tree planting and other related activities. BACKGRQUND On March 6, 1995, Council alIected staff 10 evaluate and respond 10 recommendations made in the Palo Alto Tree Task Force (TfF) Interim Budget Report. The first step was to separate the policy issues from the financial elements «the report. Staff from the Public Works, Fmance, and Utilities Departments worked together 10 identify the specific elements and the appropriate comminee assignment. Staff has established a process foe reviewing the issues over the neX! several months as sbown on Attachmenl I. Page I 00 .. : ~--.~ The majority 0( the recommendatk>ns (rom the 1TF are primariJy related 10 seevice level>. and as su<:h would firs! be reviewed by the Policy and Serv~ Committee before being discussed by !be Fmance Committee as 10 funding requiremerus. One particular isst.>e. that of potential funding from tbe ElectIic utility. requir". additional information and review from boIh the 1TF itself and tbe Utilities Advisory Commlssion. The Policy and SelVices Committee began <f1SCUS.1on 0( their issues on July 18. 1995. The initial discussion on future funding issues will be scheduled 10 begin .t the Finance COOlI!littee meeting 0( July 2S, 1995. and will cootinue wben Council relUnlS in September. subsequent to the Policy and Secvices Committee recommendations on program activities. Staff will pursue developmeIll 0(. pbased impkmentation 0{ funding alternatives such as the one proposed recently fur the School District playing field maintenance project. The fiI5I phase begins with the in!erim fuOOmg additions contained in !be approved FY 1995-96 budget; continues wltb additional fuOOmg requiremerus resulting from Policy and Secvices recommendations 0< any recommendations received (rom !he Utilities Advisory Commission; and finally. if directed. will return 10 Committee with !he devetopmen! 0{ detailed information on !he COSI, legal. and administrafr;e requireme:Jts for establishing a continuous f.mding mechanism. EXECUIIYE SUMMARY Staff identified tbe fo!low\ng issues 10 be referred 10 tbe Policy and Serv~ C.ommiltee for ronsideration; implementation 0{ all Hugbes-Heiss recommendations for expanded service levels including an increase 0{ 38 percelll over the approved FY 95-96 budget levels for contract trimming. adoption 0( the industry standard for pruning cycles. increased removals and pl.aIl1ings. and tree invenlory clara base updates; ad<fltion 0( positions 10 the Tree Section (an office specialist and rontnICt coordinator); creation 0( a public!private partnership -llOIlpI'ofit Friends 0( the Tre.. groop; fun<fmg 10 provide a liaison position for the proposed nonprofit group; appointment 0( a Tree Advisory Commission; adoption 0( a Tree Protection Ordinance; establishment 0{ a pr~s 10 enhance overall coordination 0( all City activities involving trees; and Electric Ulility fundIng 0{ a tree program. The 6nancial elemelllS identified and evaluated in !his repof1 include tbe following: Organizational Review sraffing implementation; life cycle costing; a proposal for utility funding 0( a tree planting. tr'.mming and public education program; applications fur grant funding; public f\,nding alternatives such as revenue bonds. assessment districts (lighting and landscape). property assesSIDeDts. new construction assessments. and establishing a permit system; and private fuOOmg options which would be handled through tbe creation of a noopro..'iI group. CMR:366:9S Page-200 ---'*----:""-,,---------~- " . .. f . -.;-, ) .-,,-. J. CREATION OF A NONPROFIT TREE ORGANIZA noN Staff acknowledge. that nonprofit support groop' can be viable resources 10 City programs. However, creation of such • group would require additiooal fundj og and staffing 10 support a fledgling effort. Currelllly the workload roc staff in the Tree Section is alre2dy beyood staff. capacily 10 accomplisIJ (i.e.: additional tree pIan!ing added 10 the FY 1995-96 budget and the backlog roc tree inventory data base updates). At the current level of staffing. DO support is avaHable 10 assist in • start-up effurt or continuing suppon roc a nonprofit group. Dwin& the May 25, 1995 OJui¥;il budget bearing, Marge Abel, Tree Task Foru: member, made a request 10 Council roc flln<fmg in order 10 hire • consultant 10 develop a business plan roc !he J>COIXlSed nooproiit tree organization. This business plan is needed 10 respond 10 comments made at the March 3, 1995 UAC meeting by several Commissioners, who expressed an interest in a tree program bul who also indIcated Ihat more specific information would be needed (i.e.: what type of budget would be required 10 run the noq>rofit, and what is the justification for Electric Utility funding) beroce the Commission could make any recommendations 10 Council (as DOled in the segment ·Utility-funded Tr .. Program-). The City Manager approved the expenditure of $1 ,500 roc a consultant 10 prepare a report defining the costs associated wid! providing planting of Cily trees by a nonprofit group. The scope of services included • descrlp<ion of duties, staffu;g and funding options that woold be necessary 10 support the effort. Tbe scope of services preparl'd by the lTF was reviewed by !he staff of the Public Works and Utilities DepartmeDlS. Staff npeets thaI this report will be submitted 10 the Cily and the TTF wiChin the next 4S days. n. FUNDING AL TER."'IATlVES I. (lpljl1-FlIpded Tree Program TIle APPA Tree Power program requires the planting of one tree roc every electric meier. or 29,000 tIees for Palo AJ'.o. Since the TIF recommendation is to plant ooIy an additiooal 15,000 trees, Palo Alto would not be eligible for participation in this program. Therefore, it would be best, 10 refer 10 this as the City of Palo A1to Tree Program designed by the lTF. Any decision coocerning the Electric Utility funding of the Tree Task Force recommendatioos must be guided by tlle legal requirements regulatiDg the Ente!prise Funds. Essenti.aIly, the Electric Fund must receive some documented tangible benefit in return roc !be expenditure of funds. Although !be intangible bene.fns of good customer relations. aeslhetics. jrnproved air qualio.)', and windbreaks exist, theY do not fulfill !be necessary legal requirements. Since Palo Alto enjoys a relatively mild climate with. smail .j r conditiooing load (less than 'percent). the costS for any tree program can neitber be justified nor quantified as I demand-side managemenl program In !be short-term. CMJU6609S Pagel oil .-• # o In the use 0{ the Tree Progr-..m, the clearest benefit is in the area of line c1earing_ As reported in the EIectrlc Power Research Institute (EPRI) publicatioo, 'Teclmical Brief,' 'Today's utilily custorners, .. 'ho rely heavily on comPUIers and ot.""r high-leChnolog'l equipment, are demanding more and llIO(e in the way of reliable, high quaflt)' service, and one way that the utilities are reducing the cbaDce 0( service inlerruptioos is by paying close attention 10 keeping power line righls-of way clear 0( ,'egetation.' Efforts 10 encourage the wise planting of trees whicll will 001 interfere with or damage utility Jines are clearly in the best interest of the elec1.ric rate payen. The electric utility could contribute 10 t.lIIdIng and staff assistance the educational acllvities related 10 line ,learing and some of the c<>Sls associated wit!! the planting of trees in casement areas. However, since the TfF report did DOl specifically identify those costs associated with line clearing in the Jl<OPO'ed program. m= research is needed. Currently. the Electric Fund bl!dgets $571,000 for ,ine <learing_ This covers the <:ost of the contract ($400,000), 0.15 of a eootnlCt eoo"rmator, and an additional $21,000 is budgeted for administrative overhead, for a IOtal of $571,000. Both the p£<>per planting of trees and the continuation of the underground program will eventually reduce the need for line clearing. Future City trees, planted in undergrounded areas, will be encouraged 10 gm.., 10 natural heights 10 preserve the bountiful canopy of trees. At !his time 60 poles per underground district are removed pet year; and approximately 40 percent of the City now bas undergroond wiring. In essence, the undergrounding p£ogram serves 10 mitigate the damages caused by the heavy pruning of trees in easement areas. In December 1992, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) reviewed the American PubIlc Power Association (APPA) Tree PDWer Program_ This program was much larger in scope than the one j)fesented by the Tree Task Force. Much of the cf=ion at the December meeting concerned the fact that • tree planting prog!'3ID had merils, !Jut thaI the APPA program was 2 force-tit for Palo Alto. A suggestion was IIllode 10 design a plan more specific 10 l".oo A!IO's needs, with the poosibilily of some flnancillg by the E!ectric fund. A11east one Commissioner expressed concern regarcfrng the use of Utility funds 10 finance • General Fund responsibility. However, P<> motion was made 10 approve IX modify the plan. Instead,the modoo was made and passed (4-1) to refer the APPA. program 10 the Finance Committee along wru. lhe lTAC comments in the minutes. The Finance Committee reviewed the program in two meetings. Discussions cenJered around the policy issue of Utility fundiIlg of. General Fund program and rnodIfi<:ations to reduc<> Electric Fund financing. Tbe motion was made and passed whicb recommended thai Council refer the program 10 the Tree Task Force (If formed) and thaI the Task Force make rerommendatior.s on the possible use of Electric Utility funds with Ihree condltions: . "1" ".~. ":. . -. page .. of1 .. ~ ". . -.' . ~-.-~ . I. Utilily funds _ 00( 10 be used merely 10 shift costs from the Geoeral Fund 10 !he E!e<::ri<: Unlil:y; 2. It is not necessary to satisfy !he requirements 0( the APPA program; and 3. Some COllOOCtions must e:<ist between the tree planting activity and the mission of the E!eclric Utility. On Marcli 3. 1995, represeDiatives from the Tree Task Fcrce spoke 10 the UAC as part of Ord/ Communications. Several Com'llissioners expresse<l an interest in studying Ibis issue in !he future, if Cooncil makes !he referral 10 the UAC. As !be Tree Task Force continued 10 finalize their report 10 Council, !he Utilities Departmenl institul<d some changes whicl! reflect an increased awareness t.'tat public ownership of utilities carries with it public respoosil>ility and obligation 10 !be enviromnerJt. &!ucatiooal efforts which encourage Iong·range planning in the types and location 0( trees planted are consisteD! with !he Departmelll's resource management philosopO~. Among the changes recently implemenl<d is !he funamg, at the rate 0( 50 percelll or $20,000, for a landscape architect 10 review alI City projects, including utiliI)' projects. Now, as a malIer of policy, all capital projects inc!ude funds for 1andsc.aping. This amounts 10 approximately $100,000 per year. Afrer poles are retr",ved in an underground district. • landscape architect derermlnes what oew trees and other landscaping is 10 be planl<d in padmoont areas. Rather !ban only backfiIfuig!he holes, 0IlC<! roles have been removed, the Utilities Department willoow pro;.ide funding for the planting 0( a tree or shrub. The City Arborist will designate !he appropriate species for CiIy meet trees replacemelll willi some input from the resident. Rear easemeD! tree replacem<nt may be considered in !he funue as part 0( an expanded program. II is requested !bat !he TTF provide a detailed proposal with the associated COSIS, identifying the specific e1emi:nts 10 be bandled by !he proposed nonprofiI group and how this ties 10 !be existing line clearing program. It is also possible lhat Utilities staff may be available 10 assist with some public outreach .ruvities. Recommendation for any additional funding by the Electric Utility cannot be made without this detailed infonn.otioo. b. 0aulI When grants are available from State and Federal agencies, !hey can be used 10 supplemeot Palo Alto's tree programs. The "Cooper-.live Forestry Assistance Act" (public LPW 9S-313) provides funds through the Forest Service. Staff applied for a state forestry grant during the current 1994-95 fiscal year, but did 00( receive any funding. The process 0( grant appli<;ation and fuOOtng should be ronsidered ooIy as supplemental funding, and 00( as a basis for ongoing programs, due 10 !he potentia1 for loss 0( funding in subrequem years. Additiooal!y, grail! Pag~' of1 ._--~.~~:-.,----.- ," .. ' , . :" .: .; ."., -~ " ..... . ' ' .. application re~iremeots may aha dictate that !he Cily cootributes matching funds which may ~ltimately offer only. limilfd net increase 10 !he existing funding. £. PubUc fuTMfipi Alternatives lbe Tree Task For"" bas identified several alternati 'os 10 traditional General Fund financing 0( '.ree care. They include !he following: REVENUE BONDS: Revenue bonds are sold for projects associated with • source 0( fuOOmg. The tree program bas 00 independent source 0( revenue 10 pledge in • bood sale. PROPERTY ASSESSMENTSIASSESSMENT D1STRK:TS: This is !he funding source Ihat staff prefers if Council wislle5 10 augmenl !he tree program. It is discussed in more deta\lllnder 'Preferred Alternative Funding Option" below. NEW CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENTS: Presumably, !his would be a Iype of 'mitigation fee" apPlied 10 new CO<iStrucooa projects. Due 10 !he cyclical nature 0( new construCtion, this would probably rIO! be • rellilble or consistent oogoing source 0( reveDue for an augmented tree are program. PERMIT SYSTEM: While property owners could be charged for permits in order 10 plant new trees, this would undoubtedly be seen as onerous and bureaucratic by !he public, and would not be likely 10 raise much new funcfmg d. Preferred A!ternatjve Fundi'll Wion Tree Task Force recommendations IoIal almost a $5 million increase in funding over 1994-95 budget levels. While !he Cily Manager's proposed budget includes iJ1 additlooal $. I millioo foe an augmenlfd tree care program. that still \eaves • funding gap 0( $.4 million. In order 10 fund • gap that large will> • reliable, consistent source of funcfmg, staff believes that • new funcfmg soon:<: sucb as a Landscape and Ugbting AssessmeIll District (LLAD) "ill be required. If Council SO directs, staff will report back 10 Council within six months willi more information 00 the cost. legal, and administrative requirements for setting up a LLAD and other options for either an augmented tree care program, additional plllyIDg field support. 0{ both. e. Private fundioa The Tree Task FO<Ce also 4escribed Q(her potential "privar.o" funding 0( tree programs, including oooprotil tree trusts, memorial tree funds, philanthropic lbundations and local business. Staff supports investigating these as potential en!lllncemeots 10 our programs, but [}()( as a basis for ongoing funding. These alrernativos would be important ingredients for !he tree program, and would result Page IS 0(1 • " in invaluable assistance from the pIlblic and private sector, but would be unlikely 10 resull in the amouru of ongoing new funding needed 10 implement Task Force recommendations. The TIF bas suggested creating. oonpro(lt <><ganization \hat would include retaining a full lime position (midally paid for by the Electric Utility) 10 solicit Ibis type 0( funding. OSCAI. IMPACT There is 00 fiscal impact 01 Ibis lime. ENVIRONMENTAl. ASSJ!SSMFNr TIleR is DO enviroomenlal assessmeru required in conjunction will:: tills report. PREPARF.D BY, Sbari Reynolds, Public: Works AdmiillstratOf CITY MANAGER APPROVAL, _71wuA"!f.~~,;:·~L~~G~'"""~-----(~~ .:c, Tree Task ~ ~7of1 <. ." ;> "-~ .. ~,< ",+-. .--. - ATTACHMENT I ASSIGNMENT OF TREE TASK FORCE RECOMMEJII'DATIONS FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REVIEW1NG BODY AND SEQUENCE RECOMMENDA TJON ?oIicy& Finance Tree Task Ser.ices O>mmiltee Force . Hughes-Heiss: I 2 Atlopt average S year trim:ning cycle Hugll<s-Heiss: 1 1 ~ Ie>e:Is of removal &. planting l!ugll<s-Heiss: 1 2 Add one cODlraCt coordinator Add ODe <>ffice speciaflS1 I 1 Updaw Tree Invenrory Data Base 1 1 Ekcttic Utility FuMing 3 1 Funding Alternatives I 1995-96 Budget Issues I • Organizational Rl:>iew Implementation • Additiooal funcftng fa< trimming Life Cycle Costing 1 Tree ProIection Ordinance I 2 CJeatioo of. NonproIiI tree group and 1 2 addition of one staff r .. isoo pcsition AppOiIJtmem of I Tree AdvisoQ C<Jmmitl<:e 1 Utilities Adv'.so<y CommissioD 2 ! .:"./f1, ~,_,~::: i .. _ ,_