HomeMy WebLinkAbout0490.095)
r
" ", ~:""~::\ ~''->' ~
,to ,,~
-,o" ... ~
'--.
. . ' ..
(i)
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
A'ITENTION: FINANCE COMMITTEE
FIl.OM: CITY MANAGER DEPAllTMEI'iT: Public Works
DATE: November 9, 1m CMR:490:95
SUBlFCT: Proposed N ooprotlt Tree Group Beoerlts and Cost Analysis
BFJ)tJEST
This report is in response 10 the FInance Committee's request for additional information
on the benefits IIuIt may be realized through !he estabf"hmeDl 0( a Nonprofit Tree Group
(NTG)-
RECOMMENDATION
This is an infonnatiooal report only and no action is requested.
fQ) lIT IMPlJCATIQNS
There is DO impact on existing policy .
EXF.(;l!TIVE SllMMAllY
AI. !he OcIober 26 rmaoc" Committee meeting, staff presented information on issues and
policy related 10 !he proposed creation of an NTG. CommIttee members rajs"d questions
as to what = effi:ctivenesrJbeneflt would be derived frQlIl the establisllment of a
NonprofiI Tree Group. Staff was requested 10 return with additional information regarding
!he benefilllult could be realizoo Illrough !he proposed educationfoutreach tree program;
the directrmdirect advantages 10 .he City of baving tIie NTG plant trees vs. paying a
contractor 10 plan! trees; any significant difference in !he attrition rate 0( trees planted by
City crews!cOOtractors vs. volunteer groups; whelher there are areas in !he City in DUd
of a ~ntraled planting effort; and !he feasibill!y 0( implementing a tree program similar
10 the compost glvea ..... ay (provide residents trees 10 plant Oil their OIll1l.)_
Page 1 of)
.. ""-.' ~.' ....
' . .;
~ ... ~~~.
--: --~ ..
~ . '
.. '
.--. '" ,-
o
Staff believes that !be NTG could be instrumental in fostering atti<udes and behavior within
the community that would have. kmg-tenn benefil simUar 10 what has been achieved with
the Rccycli'lg Program. Twellly-five years ago • recycling effort was star'.ed when there
was not • market for salvageables. The need 10 maximize the nation'. resources bas
resu!red in impI~ll'.ation of federal and state regulations and markets for salvageables.
Twenty-five years ago, there was 00 way 10 ~ WMt the comribution 10 the
envirorunenl would be by initiating recycling programs.
Over !be neU twellly-five years, through the po!eDtia! efforts of an NTG, publJc awareness
of the importance of tree species selection. siting, pruning and overall care could provide
• ~gnificanl benefli 10 Palo A!ro's urban forest.
Because the elements of public education, proper planting, good soli mix, proper species
and site selection are essential 10 !be surviV21 of a new tree, staff believes the concep< of
a tree givea,,'ay program similar 10 the compost giveaway would noc be • viable program.
The NTG proposes 10 wort w,lll residents to identify appropriate tree sites, species, and
answer questions about everaH care. This support would redt.-ce the amount of staff time
currently spent communicating (Phone calls and site visits) with homeowners about tree
selection and skillg.
Based on recent inspections of 500 Cily trees planred in the past four years and information
gathered from volunteer tree planting organizations, the difference in attrition rate between
the two is no more than 6 percent. Staff bas also confirmed there are Vacanl tree sites
interspersed IJ-U'ooghoo! !be City; however. there are no specific major neighborhood areas
in the City that would require a concentrated planting effort.
Staff has pr.pared the analysis sbown on Attachment A 10 compare the costs of tree
planting under three scenarios, contract wO£k perfurmed by the private secIof, work
contracred 10 the C. Jifomla Conser;anon Corps, and wO£k performed by the proposed
Nonprofit Tree Group. The analysis sbows that the fllSl year gross cost per tree is
significantly less for !he NTG when !he one-time starlup funds are noc included. This
assumes !hat the NTG can sustain its ,'otooteer base at • sufficient level 10 accompIisb the
planting and pruning 0( new trees.
fJSCAI, IMPACT
There is no fIscal impact .t this time,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSF-SSMENT
There is no environmental .. sessment required in conjunction " .. ith this report.
CMRA90,9S Paet200
PREPARED BY: Shari Reynolds, Public Welds Aclministrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: _",!.:>~--:.):-;:L~~l",;;-;:. o;fii~~"'f-L ___ _
GLENN S. ROBERTS ~
CITY MANAGER APPROVAl: ---;~~;:;;:~Gf~""';!-t---
FLEMING
Manager
ce: Tree Task For.:e
CMR:490:9S
Page 3 of J
.
IBn raNTING COST COMPARISON
2% urban ~rest repla<emenl (400 remove and plant; 400 plant var..ant sites). Planting season;
November 1 -February 2a (estimated 70 wOOt days, not including bollday. and some rain days, or
17 wod:ends.) Work will be about 12 I1<eS per workday or 50 trees per ",eekend, ifvolunteer
planted.
Activity Coatnct· CC(:··
Site idenJi1ic::.tion,. JIf't'"Plant irupection,. coota..'t 4OO1>OW> 400 hours
~.and ~1'\1C" 1ocatiott and species issnes.
400 VIC&IIt sitd. (site i'lspcction fOr 400 removals i&
net MUSSal}'.J
p..udJ.a5c: and oaintahl trees before pIantIng. 70 hours ~ booB
Deliver IRes to pIanting sites. NIA 2 LO b0UT5
Supervise ... od:ers and izls;.!ect c::omplc1af planting. 140 hours S6<l1>oun
Cily 'itafftime::: Coc:mimatt'l"ofPW Projects saWy 611 'Ollrs lm~un
md bo:ocfits SJI..2-
VaJl:e DCh.,.,.: 51"166 ~"t
T.-. .,...n.JS (100) S40,OOO S40,000
Lob<>'1<> pTac! (100) 5<0,000 $40,000
Total I"... Jlbor and •• teri.ats: (planting ooly) $99,'66 1111,961
Cost per pIaoWll' ("'" o.cluding FAn:; _'up $11' 1.49
costs. md prunin& t.OSts.)
• .. Based 011 actlJaT contract in FYI99OJ1991 .'ith Arbor Care T~ C;)mparly •
Based os. actual C'OCtract .'itb CaIifomia Coruervariou Corps {'C(,:C) ill. FYl994·9.s .
PATG
I() !>ours
7C booB
N/A
70 """"
lltlllUS
SO,f1l -
S40,OOO •
S46J12
159