Randi
--- Begin Message ---Hi Tree lovers,
Here's more fuel for the tree fire, this time from Councilman McIver. In preparation for the protest at the Mayor's office at high noon on Nov. 17, it is interesting how my message to 8 decision-makers in city government only generated one response. As a private arborist, I'd be interested in hearing from those of you who may have had this spam reach your emailbox.
Please feel free to forward this to other interested parties. If it has reached you in error, I apologise, and am perfectly willing to ensure that you are not inconvenienced further. Just reply with "Delete Spam" in the subject line.
Arboreally yours,
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard McIver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Arborist budget cuts
Mr. Oxman,
I appreciate your taking the time to let me know of your opposition to the proposal of Mayor Greg Nickels to eliminate two positions within the City Arborist's Office and for your suggestions as to how the work should be handled. You may wish to share some of your ideas about the tree inventory and staffing with the Mayor's Office or with Grace Crunican, the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation.
The Mayor and City Council have made cuts in excess of $100 million in recent years in response to the economic downturn and due to the impact of the Eyman anti-tax initiatives. For 2005, the Mayor's proposed budget closes an additional budget shortfall in the neighborhood of approximately $20 million. The proposals to eliminate the Library Bookmobile and to impose parking fees in city parks have been the most unpopular elements of his budget proposal, but as demonstrated by your email, there are a number of other unpopular and difficult budget cut proposals.
As you probably know better than I, the Mayor would eliminate two of five positions in the Arborist's Office. It currently has a part-time receptionist, two arboriculturists, a tree crew supervisor, and the City Arborist who manages the unit. The supervisor position and one of the arboriculturists are proposed to be cut. The unit responds to approximately 6,000-7,000 telephone calls a year, as well as written correspondence. While many of these calls can be answered by phone, others require field visits to evaluate site conditions, particularly if a call concerns a potentially hazardous tree or a tree root breaking up a sidewalk.
The Mayor's Office says that the primary impact of their proposed cut would be to substantially increase the time to respond to citizen complaints and requests. The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), which houses this unit, estimates that response times would increase from the current 3-4 days to 3-4 weeks during peak periods, except in high priority cases where a hazard to people or property may exist, or where a tree or branch may impede traffic. According to SDOT, three would be no changes in the number of trees pruned as a result of the proposed cuts.
The Council is currently analyzing the Mayor's budget proposal, receiving input from citizens, and exploring alternatives, all with the expectation of adopting a balanced budget by Thanksgiving. Of course, for every dollar the Mayor would cut that we choose to restore, we must find a corresponding dollar in savings or increased fees. Needless to say, this isn't easy, particularly when we've already taken the easy cuts in previous budget cutting rounds.
Again, I do appreciate knowing how you think these cuts would adversely hurt the citizens of Seattle. I don't feel that I am ready to take a position on this particular proposed cut, but I will certainly keep your comments in mind as the debate progresses.
Richard J. McIver Seattle City Council
>>>Original message from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/31/2004 11:03:13 AM
Dear Council Member, 10-31-04
Please do not eliminate any city arborist positions to 'save' money. Seattle has a wonderful tree resource, a luxury unmatched by other cities. Governmental tree programs in right-of-ways, parks, and other public spaces set the lead for citizens to follow by caring for trees on their own private property. The city may be land-rich, but we are maintenance-dollars poor.
SDOT's ratio of 5 chiefs and 2 tree worker indians may seem disproportionate, but only because of city policy of ignoring of thousands of trees needing attention that line hundreds of miles of Seattle streets. Any cost savings by cutting staff will result in increased tree hazards. The increasing liability posed by a maturing tree population that is growing in size can only be controlled by increased staff, or at least maintained at current levels. Either get more people, or get the ones you have to work more efficiently. This includes allowing all our trained staff to do work on trees at the time it is noticed. Our tree inspectors are merely reporting hazards, due to union rules that confine them to a supervisory role.
The Urban Forestry program web page at the City of Seattle states the need for 'fresh ideas and innovative partnerships'. For true compliance with the TREE CITY USA program we take credit for, Seattle should open up a channel by appointing citizens to our tree advisory board. For the Office of Sustainability and Environment to proceed with creating an Urban Forestry Strategic Plan without such involvement seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
Please use our tree inventory. City employees doing tree maintenance should be executing a programmed plan, as laid out in the analysis of our tree inventory. The expensive tree survey sits in a box without being continually updated or queried as a source of work orders for our staff. The current disorganized method of relying on work orders generated by a constant deluge of unsubstantiated incoming phone complaints is very inefficient.
Please place one person in charge of all public-owned trees. The separate SDOT City Arborist staff and the Parks Department Urban Forestry staff share many of the responsibilities for trees, causing duplication, wasted city money, and inadequate authority to address issues concerning trees. One result of this 'divide & conquer' strategy is a weakening and dilution of our tree policy direction. Another result is that a cohesive arguement for an integrated funding strategy cannot present a persuasive budget request that addresses the need for proper tree care.
The diffusion of high priority tree maintenance needs throughout a large geographic area can be addressed by contract crews, yet agreements with employee unions prevent such a work arrangement. The most urgent needs for addressing tree problems that may be hazardous can be contracted out in an expeditious manner. The fact is that contract crews work harder than union crews, and are a better value for citizen tax dollars, regardless of the source of that revenue. Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Michael Oxman 13721 Greenwood AV N Seattle WA 98133 (206) 949-8733 http://treedr.net
--- End Message ---
