Loading...
09-18-84 Parks Comm Minutes.01 4:00 P. M. September 18, 1984 PARKS COMMITTEE The committee met in the Conference Room at City Hall, Springer, Committee Member Manning, Councilman Saverud and Jim Wright, of. Timber Tree Services. .in attendance were Chairman DPW Hammer, Parks Supt. Drent C. Springer presented copies of a format, "Tree Care and Maintenance Policy", which he said was designed to stimulate discussion. At the previous night's meeting, the Council said that it was incumbent to put together a tree policy. It is basically a reworked version of Supt. Drent's proposed Tree Ordinance of 1984, he said. It is not intended in anyway to be a criticism of what Drent provided, and C. Springer wants it clear that if not acceptable, fine. He said in Feb. or March that the City needs a tree ordinance and set October as a goal. Purposely one thing is not addressed in this policy, that is allowing for budgetary considerations whether in house or farmed out --that must be expanded upon by committee or Council. The Council told C. Springer that we are going to care for and maintain trees. Drent's concept is basically in-house, as is his, but Springer's allows for contractor. His also includes Street Tree Maintenance Supt. For whatever reason, the work isn't be- ing done now. Drent's job is parks, perhaps DPW should be responsible for street trees to take that burden from overburdened Parks Department. DPW Hammer commented on C. Springer's policy, suggestaa wording be changed -in first paragraph to "that the City shall cause to maintain and care for trees". He agrees with the latter three items but stated that both tree planting and tree maintenance programs should be addressed separately. The Public Works Department deals only in right-of-way, said Hammer. Re Item #1, DPW Hammer felt that.the Street Department could do a lot of tree work in the slack time between leaf and snow removal periods. He can't see adding an employee for the tree position when he could not have an exta employee for the Street Dept. Some equipment is needed, but if programmed in advance, the two departments should be able to handle it. The Garbage Dept. is going to a side -arm loader, that will re- lease 4 or 5 people from Street Dept. October through March. C. Springer announced he does not agree, it's been proven that these departments can't handle it or we wouldnt have the public outcry. He is not sure that DPW Hammer isn't doing a disservice to himself by taking the position that present employees can handle the job: the work isn't being done. He feels that someone besides the DPW or Parks Supt. should be responsible for tree work. Someone ought to be in a position of tak- ing care of the problem; shifting personnel around puts the burden back on Hammer or Drent and again, the work isn't getting done. - - DPW Hammer pointed out the manhour savings, we have a fixed cost on present personnel. He and Supt. Drent have been working together, the departments can cooperate and trade off, no reason that this shouldn't extend over the winter months. Supt. Drent referred to his report, "History of. Kalispell Trees", which considers 3 problems: because of a mistake, tree ordinance (#1003) was wiped out -he didn't have one to work with; in new areas everyone planted indiscriminately, this should be stopped to avoid future problems; finally, his crew was lost to a great deal of snow one winter. If .his crew were left alone and he has them all winter, with some street department help, he can take care of trees. He has done so the last 10 years. Be- cause there was, no set policy, he did work as requests came in but he wanted authority to start in the part of town where the biggest problems exist. He questioned where the money would come from, but if there enough for Street Department increase, he would have large enough crew to manage. Parks Committee Page 2 September 18, 1984 When questioned, Supt,. Drent stated that because of Street Dept. needs, his crew only spent part of the winter on trees but during the winter of 1982-83, 112 trees were removed, 66 were pruned. The Community Forester recommended that1,170 trees be given care. An inventory in the center of town -this does not include outlying districts -lists 4,683 trees. Discussionof whether or not the Parks Supt. job description included care of trees. The Supt. stated that he was indeed told to take care of trees, and though he could not give a "yes" or "no" answer to the question of whether he had done that, he replied that he had done as -well as he could. - - C. Manning stated that an established tree ordinance is needed -the City wants to take care of its trees. If the Council makes it .policy that Supt. Drent maintains his crew as parks, the burden goes back to the Superintendent. Have him work out a schedule or removal/replenishing under his jurisdiction and see if it is realistic; only then can we decide. He feels that Drent has been around long enough to know, if he couldn't live up to his expectations of himself, he wouldn't be saying so. C. Springer said that that the tree care maintenance program belongs under public works. The ordinance directing the Parks Supt. program to be under the office of Mayor should be abolished. We are not trying to infringe on the Supt's program, but trying to relieve the burden so that emphasis on parks under the Parks Supt. is where it belongs. C. Manning believes that basically, with all the trees, the whole City is a park. Boulevards and parks are all part of public lands. Supt. Drent has been working without an ordinance, if one is placed on line,- issue should be resolved. C. Springer stated that Drent's proposal has strong inconsistencies, he is not saying his own doesn't either, but asked if those on committee had read and compared various ordinances. When told "no", he stated that we are about to adjourn because we are getting no where. Because he felt that Drent's proposal was inadequate, he reworked it and expects someone to look at it. His policy can be rewritten in seconds but the Council wants policy. Supt. Drent explained that he had only distributed his proposal to committee members as a point for discussion. C. Springer asked that someone tell him what direction the committee is going or he will present his proposal to the Council as a whole. DPW Hammer replied that the whole policy will be based on whether the city wants to expend any more money or to use what is available with what we have. He did not feel that C. Springer's proposal was ready to go to Council. He recognizes the difficulty but said that he and Supt. Drent are experts dealing with right-of-way/trees and suggested that he and the Supt. have two weeks to come up with a good ordinance. C. Springer agreed to this, and moved to adjourn. C. Saverud stated that he agreed with the concept that boulevards are part of the park system. In newer parts of the city we accepted park land on annexations in designated areas and have neighborhood parks. Older parts dont have neighborhood parks to the • same extent; in lieu of that we have boulevards and if we treat them differently in any way than park lands, we are missing the boat. He feels it is a sense of community that the community owns boulevards and trees. He cannot accept the concept brought Up at last night's meeting of an area wide SI➢. They are parklands and ought to be funded by General Fund Revenues; you should not be charged because you happen to Parks Committee Page 3 September 18, 1984 . live near a boulevard. Everyone benefits by taking care of boulevard trees. He agrees that the ultimate bearer of responsibility ought to be the DPW, but disagrees that we should form a tree superintendent position, the DPW should designate whoever he wants. If the Parks Supt. is capable and knowledgeable, rather than set up some one new and special, that is part of his job description. The problem in the past has been that we have not allowed the Superintendent to maintain and run his crew. Once tasks are defined and budgeted for we should allow whoever to do the job with- out interruption. As a council we haven't provided manpower in a consistent way. Discussion of how the Parks Supt. position came to be under the Mayor's jurisdiction. Drent stated that there was an ordinance on books that it was under the "Parks Board" , that legally, the Council couldnt pass a Parks Dept. ordinance. Because of personality conflict, parks matters were removed from DPW and Drent wastoldby former Mayor that he was his own department. C. Springer recalled an ordinance in possibly 1978, that changed Parks and Parks Board to the Mayor's jurisdiction. C. Manning asked if Drent had any strong problem with having the Parks Department under DPW. He stated that he felt it would be a demotion, it was nothing against DPW Hammer, however. C. Manning said that the ultimate goal is what is in the best interest to the city. visitor Jim Wright stated his views, coming from the private sector, but cautioned that if tree work is done in-house, the amount of hours spent in paperwork is phe- nonimal. He estimated that work requests would be fro 20 to 30 per day. C. Springer stated that he had consulted with Mr. Wright but until people read the material and come up with a solution, nothing is going to happen. He reminded DPW Hammer that he had two weeks to give us something. Meeting adjourned at 4:55. ms Attachment • 0 TREE CARE AND MAINTENANCE POLICY BY APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of Kalispell, County of Flathead, State of Montana, with respect to all trees presently situated within the City and with respect to those which may be hereafter planted, whether within existing portions of the City or areas hereafter annexed, that the City shall maintain and care for said tree and shall provide for a comprehensive and continuing program for their preservation and beautifi- cation in such a manner, and within such program development as the resources of the City and its citizens shall direct. In furtherance of this policy, it is the intention of the City to provide as follows: I. A permanent position within the Department of Public Work (Street Tree Maintenance Superintendent), which should be filled, at the direction. of the City Council, by an individual trained and dedicated to the preservation and beautification of trees, and who shall be responsible to the Director of Public Works for the City of Kalispell. 2. To provide sufficient staff to that individual filling the position of Street Tree assure that the needs of the Maintnenance City, and its Superintendent to citizens, are met with respect to the care and maintenance of the trees. 3. To provide sufficient funoing, either by taxation or private or public sources to assure that a comprehensive and continuing programs will be undertaken and maintained. 4• To assure that this policy can be undertaken immedi- ately, with a minimum of expense and a maximum effort directed toward correcting the obvious deficiencies presently existing with the tress within the City. 5. To develop a comprehensive program for the future beautification of newly annexed areas, including those areas to be provided with city services even though they might be outside the city limits.