Tonight I voted YES on extending our contract with Davey Resource Group for tree management/support/training services for one fiscal year, and I want to give some perspective & transparency on why since I've been an advocate to limit our vendor contracts.
Agenda item for reference: https://d2kbkoa27fdvtw.cloudfront.net/.../f0027940b530c0b...
Overall, I think the cost quote (26k) is low/competitive given that we’re getting the expertise of an ISA Certified Arborist (~60k per year salary) for less than half of the average cost of their salary. Our cost is $2166 per month or about $1500 per contractual visit.
I checked the references for Davey Resource Group and spoke to Teresa Green from the Mayor’s office in Columbia City, IN (one of the two reference cities that were comparable in size & scope of contract), and she acknowledged that they do a fantastic job acting as the responsible party for assessing and managing their urban forest, and praised them for their ongoing work in finding and applying for tree grants for their city. She also told me that they had attempted to use their Tree Board commission as a replacement for some of the assessment services from DRG, and that it hadn't worked very well- a common issue when you're relying on volunteer services rather than paid services.
However, I really think it’s prudent to maintain a critical eye on this kind of ongoing contract, particularly at this time. During the September 23rd 2019 city council meeting prior to my election, Raylon Leaks-May made a fantastic point, encouraging us to explore our options, keep track of the work DRG is doing, and require regular updates. There was a suggestion of updates every 3-6 months. We’re now just past 6 months, and we haven't seen those updates or an ongoing accounting of what DRG is doing to help achieve our goals of a healthy urban forest (note: Alexis Richards in our Sustainability Dept notified us during my comments that they were getting an update this coming Thursday, which I will review when it becomes available).
Likewise, our tree loss rate for new plantings of ~10% isn’t terrible, but I’d ask that we look into reasons, like common mortality reasons of water and nutrient stress, damage due to lack of tree guards, soil compaction, improper tree staking and tying, etc. Since Davey handles young tree establishment, I would expect a reporting on this, as well as for them to coordinate our reimbursement from our tree vendors per our 1 year warranty. I have sent a note to staff regarding this.
Also during the Sept 23rd meeting, Evelyn Elster asked us to look into what Pleasant Ridge is doing right, since their canopy is rightly cherished and prioritized and seemingly healthy. I spoke to their city manager and wanted to point out that they don’t have a DPW team the way that we do, but they do have a 16 page Tree Manual they created internally to guide them on tree selection, current risks and goals to reduce those risks, and an inventory of their trees. They maintain their own database, which is essentially an excel spreadsheet, and when trees need to be assessed they use Davey Tree Services to assess the tree and potentially remove or prune.
Now, I know we’re a different beast- we’re a bigger city (.57 sq mi to our 3.88 sq miles), but we have what I would consider an even stronger position. Davey Resource Group completed their canopy assessment for the city in July 2016 (https://drive.google.com/.../1e7h4MhgaxR7.../view) , then completed an incredibly thorough 74 page Tree Management Plan in November of 2018, outlining priorities for 2019 – 2023. I discussed with city staff the portability of our tree inventory from their TreeKeeper database and how it’s likely possible that we could get a data dump- we could potentially maintain our own database. So, hypothetically, if we moved forward without DRG, we would do so with the benefit of a Tree Management Plan, a full tree inventory, and a DPW team that had the benefit of about 10 members who have been trained by DRG in some aspects of tree maintenance and assessment.
Additionally - At our January 13th meeting, in the sustainability report it was noted that 110 of the 400 trees planted last year were planted by volunteers- that's over a quarter of all trees planted! I read a study from Oakland California that tree survival rates for inner-city street trees were approximately 60-70% for trees planted with community participation, versus less than 1% without community participation. (https://www.fs.fed.us/.../other.../OCR/ne_2004nowak01.pdf) While we obviously have much better survival rates, I think the takeaway of community investment makes sense.
If the volume of interested applicants to the Environmental Sustainability Commission is any indication, we have a resident population that truly cares about the environment and likewise the health of our urban forest. I’d also like to see us leverage the Community Forestry program that was mentioned back in Sept 2019, because engaging the members of our community to invest in their environment is likely to yield better results. https://www.ferndalemi.gov/.../urban-forestry-tree-program
So, for me, it really comes down to the goals:
1.) do we want to eventually manage this in-house or 2.) is it more cost & quality effective to contract tree management out indefinitely
If our goal is to eventually be self-reliant on our trained DPW members, I would expect to see a greater emphasis on training, and I’m glad to know our DPW union contract encourages the development of our staff to take their training to the next level and potentially become certified. Currently, that goal is not clearly identified in our strategy documents- when council updates them this summer, I will take up this issue. In the meantime, our DPW staff is going to continue receiving training, and we're going to receive the benefit of ongoing assessment by certified arborists. Because our trees are our largest and arguably one of our most valuable assets, I felt that it was prudent to continue this investment until we can revisit our priorities and strategy for tree canopy management in the future.
One final note: we have increased our tree canopy from 30% in 2016 to 45% currently, 5% above our goal. I think we should set a growth percentage per year as our new goal, so that we have a yearly priority rather than a 'finish line' for the future.
Comments