Op-Ed | Don’t prune the tree care budget, let the voters decide!

Arbor Day tree planting event in 2022. Davis became a Tree City USA in 1977 and was one of the first in the state to receive this distinction.

Davis’ urban forest is a “living umbrella.” The benefits of a healthy and growing tree canopy include providing clean air, shading streets, pedestrians, and buildings, reducing stormwater runoff, increasing property values, calming traffic, reducing noise, and contributing to reduced crime rates. 

Davis has a robust urban forest thanks to an enthusiastic community, dedicated non-profits like Tree Davis and Cool Davis, expertise from UC Davis, and the amount of attention and value the city has put towards their urban forestry program. However, the city has faced challenges associated with inadequate funding for the program. For example, the lack of scheduled park tree maintenance was associated with a jury finding the city fully liable for $24.2 million in damages due to a 2021 death from a falling limb in Slide Hill Park. To address tree liability issues the city has added about 50% of the funding requested ($500,000) to inspect and prune trees on a 3-year cycle in high occupancy zones like downtown and parks. 

Many of our larger trees are failing due to old age, drought stress from loss of turf irrigation, and new pests and diseases. The city removes about 200 trees per year. Many trees are removed illegally or “hat-racked” because the city is short on funds to enforce our own ordinance to protect trees. See the ironically named Oak Tree Plaza on Covell for a recent example. 

The City’s 2023 Urban Forest Management Plan recommends a baseline of no net tree canopy loss, but resources to track this information are lacking. Also, the Plan notes that about 6,000 of the 30,000 inventoried trees are within the street tree easement but not maintained by the city. This lack of clarity is costly to the city because frequent “ownership checks” require staff to review index cards dating back to the 1970s or developer agreements to determine who owns a tree, and sometimes the results are inconclusive. This situation is unfair and confusing for the city and residents.

It is prudent for the City council to consider where to make budget cuts in the face of pressure to find funds for issues such as street repairs, affordable housing, and public safety. In 2014, San Francisco faced a similar dilemma due to budget cuts that made it impossible for the Department of Public Works to maintain all the trees in its care. San Francisco adopted a policy of “relinquishment” to begin transferring responsibility for about one-third of the 70,000 street trees that it had been maintaining to property owners whose land abutted these trees. Property owners were also liable for personal injury or property damage claims that occurred because of failing to maintain their trees and adjacent sidewalks. This relinquishment program was deeply unpopular. It imposed the costs of tree maintenance ($300-1,000 per pruning) and liability on people who may not want the trees, have interest in caring for them or means to do so. Such a policy could be disastrous in Davis. For example, absentee landowners who rent housing may not be motivated to invest in regular street tree care.

In 2016 Proposition E was approved by 79% of the voters in San Francisco to shift the responsibility for the care of street trees back to the city. The measure set aside funds from the general fund, to be adjusted annually based on changes in discretionary revenue. The level of funding covered costs for tree care, new tree planting, sidewalk repair, and tree ordinance enforcement. The revenue measure increased annual program funding three-fold, from $6.5 million to $19 million. 

Let the voters decide if a healthy and safe urban forest is worth paying for. Elected officials don’t like set-asides because they tie the hands of future elected officials to make budgetary and management decisions. But the amount needed for Davis is small ($9-10 million). It would provide stable and sufficient funds for the city to sustain our urban forest and protect public safety for generations to come. It would clarify whether a street tree is a city tree. And it would improve the quality of tree care and health throughout Davis. 

Greg McPherson (PhD) – US Forest Service Urban Forest Service Researcher (retired) – Past President, Tree Davis Board of Directors

Categories:

Tags: