Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4. Kensington Business Center Discussion 09/09/2014Mount Prospect Public Works Department L $/ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 SUBJ: KENSINGTON BUSINESS CENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY TREE REMOVAL Background The Kensington Business Center is a 300 -acre business park that is home to several high profile corporations. It boasts over 60 properties with more than 3,000,000 square feet of leasable office and warehouse space. Due to its proximity to O'Hare and Pal Waukee airports; availability of a high caliber labor pool; and physical amenities which include several landscaped ponds, a jogging trail, and a public park, the center is marketed as an upscale light industrial business locale. Originally, the site was a Northern Illinois Gas Company tank farm facility. It was reshaped as a business park during the 1970s and 1980s by the OPUS Corporation. As part of this redevelopment, the village accepted responsibility for a variety of public improvements including streets, storm sewers, water mains, sanitary sewers, streetlighting, and parkway trees. By agreement, the village does not own but has accepted responsibility for sediment control in the business park's retention ponds. Similarly, the village does not own but has accepted responsibility for the maintenance of the jogging path. The village also maintains the Feehanville Creek channel to preserve its capability to convey storm water from the village to the Des Plaines River. Generally, all of the public assets and village -owned infrastructure in the park have been maintained in a manner that vigorously supports its market profile as premium business site. Since 2004, the village has expended approximately $2,400,000 to improve public infrastructure in the Kensington Business Center. These expenditures facilitated street resurfacing, pond dredging, streetlight replacement, tree removal and planting, site furniture replacement, and a number of other improvements. In the 2015-2019 Capital Improvements Plan, an additional $3,565,000 has been slated to continue jogging path and retention pond improvements. Page 2 of 5 Kensington Business Center Private Property Tree Removal September 4, 2014 Problem Statement As part of a recent emerald ash borer infestation survey, Public Works crews noted a preponderance of dead or declining trees on private property within the Kensington Business Center. Subsequently, staff conducted a detailed walking survey of all the trees in the business park. We identified 346 trees that were dead or dying. For the purposes of this survey, a "dead" tree is defined as one with no foliage and a "dying" tree is defined as a tree that exhibited at least 50% crown loss. All 346 trees are on private property. Legally, the maintenance and/or removal of these trees rests with the respective property owner(s). There are presently no dead or declining Village - owned trees in the business center area. 158 of the 346 trees (46%) are ash trees that appear to have succumbed to Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation. Another 16 trees (4%) are elm trees that appear to have contracted Dutch Elm Disease (DED). The remaining 172 trees (50%) are comprised of a variety of species. These trees appear to have entered decline due to the unusually harsh winter of 2013/14. These trees are depicted graphically in Attachment A. The village code provides two mechanisms to address dead trees on private property. One mechanism considers the specific conditions created by Dutch Elm Disease (DED) and Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation. This mechanism is defined by Chapter 9.713 of the village code and is enforced by the Public Works Department. The second mechanism treats all other species of dead trees (other than elm and ash) as property maintenance violations. This mechanism is defined in Chapter 21.603 of the village code and enforced by the Community Development Department. Chapter 9.713 treats diseased ash trees and elm trees as public nuisances. This public nuisance doctrine is based on the idea that sanitation, or speedy eradication of EAB and DED trees, is the most effective tactic to control the spread of these diseases. This approach has proven highly effective at preserving the village's elm population; considerably less so with ash trees. This disparity is due to the highly convergent and aggressive nature of the emerald ash borer beetle. Specifically, Chapter 9.713 provides that the Village can cause the removal of private property ash and elm trees following due process notification to the property owner. In such circumstances, the Village provides a property owner with written notification advising them of village code requirements and requesting removal of the impacted tree(s) by a date certain. If necessary, a second notice is issued. If there is no response to these requests, the village obtains competitive pricing from qualified tree contractors to remove the tree(s). Subsequently, additional notification is issued, including property posting, advising the property owner that the Page 3 of 5 Kensington Business Center Private Property Tree Removal September 4, 2014 village will remove the tree(s) and bill the property at the lowest quoted rate unless the owner takes necessary action by a date certain. If the date certain expires, the village directly hires a tree contractor to remove the tree and bills the property for the full cost of work. If the debt is not paid, a lien is placed against property. It is noteworthy to mention that the costs to remove private property trees of any species are higher than the costs to remove village -owned parkway trees. In many cases, the cost to remove a private property tree can be two or three times the cost of a parkway tree. This disparity can be partially attributed to the volume discounts inherent to the village parkway removal contract. For the past few years, we have removed approximately 1,000 trees each year. More significant, however, is the fact that most privately -owned trees cannot be accessed utilizing mechanized equipment such as aerial trucks, log cranes, and chippers and are obstructed by fences, structures, and utility wires. Often, contractors must climb and rope to remove a tree. As a result, their costs are higher. Staff has obtained a reasonable measure of compliance utilizing the provisions of Chapter 9.713. In 2013, approximately 150 ash trees were removed by private property owners as a consequence of this process. Only two reached the stage requiring a Village contractor to remove the tree. However, as EAB infestation crests, it is likely that compliance rates will dip and compliance costs will increase. Other species of dead trees on private property are regulated utilizing a property maintenance violation protocol as provided in Chapter 21.603 of the village code. This protocol contains notice and due process requirements similar to the ash and elm removal process. However, the process differs in two distinct ways. Notably, the Chapter 21.603 only pertains to trees that are completely dead. There are no provisions to deal with declining, diseased, or partially dead trees. Additionally, Chapter 21.603 does not contain any enforcement provisions that would facilitate removal of a dead private property tree by village forces or a village -hired contractor. Instead, these code requirements are enforced utilizing the village's adjudication process. If the adjudicator rules in favor of the village and orders the removal of a privately -owned tree, the order holds the weight of a court judgment. Non-compliance with an adjudicator's order can result in fines up to $1,500 per day. These fines can be recovered utilizing a property lien. The provisions of Chapter 21.603 are primarily enforced on a complaint basis. Each year, approximately 12 properties are cited using this process. Only one or two reach the adjudication phase each year. Presently, there are 172 dead or declining trees of various species (non -ash and non -elm) in the Kensington Business Center. 106 are completely dead and can be eradicated utilizing the provisions of Chapter 21.603. Page 4 of 5 Kensington Business Center Private Property Tree Removal September 4, 2014 The remaining 66 trees are in various stages of decline but are not completely dead. Presently, the village code contains no provisions for eradicating these trees. Proposal As a proactive measure to improve the aesthetic appeal of the Kensington Business Center in an expeditious manner, staff asked the existing village parkway tree removal contractor, Homer Tree Service of Lockport, Illinois (Homer), and the existing parkway tree stump removal contractor, Kramer Tree Specialists of West Chicago, Illinois (Kramer), if they would remove all 346 dead and declining trees at existing contract rates. Kramer responded that they could not perform the work at existing contract rates. Homer responded that they could perform the work at existing rates. They estimated that they could complete all of the work within 45 days of a notice to proceed. However, Homer also stipulated the following caveats: • They will be paid directly by the village pursuant to the existing contract. • They will not be responsible for scope of work agreements and access agreements with private property owners. All work will be directed by village staff pursuant to the existing contract. • They will not be responsible for site restoration (turf damage, stump removal, etc.). Discussion Staff estimates the total cost to remove 346 dead and declining trees in the Kensington Business Center pursuant to existing parkway tree removal contract rates is $100,000. This proposed expenditure would include the contractual cost to remove all trees. It would also include a contingency for measured quantities as well as a contingency for legal work necessary to obtain permissions and execute agreements with the 60 different parcel owners in the business park. There are insufficient funds in the existing budget to support this proposed project ($100,000). If the work is authorized, funding will be drawn from the existing balance of the general fund. Homer's caveat to get paid by the village upon completion of the work is understood to be a cost-saving measure for the firm. Billing a single customer reduces the contractor's accounts receivable and debt collection costs when compared to billing multiple customers. The manifestation of this condition is that the village assumes the risk of financing the work and recouping expenditures from as many as 60 participating properties. No site restoration will be included as part of this proposed project. Neither Homer nor the village will participate in the cost to restore turf, trim other plants, or re -plant trees. These and all other like costs will be borne by the property owners. Page 5 of 5 Kensington Business Center Private Property Tree Removal September 4, 2014 Since Kramer declined to remove stumps at the contract rates, stump removal will not be included in the scope of proposed work. Pursuant to our tree removal contract, Homer will remove the trees leaving no more than a 3" high stump. Ultimately, removal of these stumps and restoration of the stump sites will be the responsibility of the property owners. Ash stumps will be chemically sprayed to prevent regrowth of ash shoots. Staff anticipates that it may take several weeks, or a couple of months, to obtain the necessary written scope of work agreements and access agreements from affected property owners. Many of the properties in the Kensington Business Center have off-site owners and several are owned by real estate investment trusts. As a consequence, identifying and communicating with appropriate owner representatives could be time-consuming tasks. Although Homer anticipates completing all of the work in 45 days, it could take until the end of the year until staff is prepared to release the work. Unfortunately, Homer's existing contract expires at the end of 2014. In order to avoid potential problems, Homer has also agreed to extend the existing contract, and the existing rates, for one calendar year. Generally, staff senses that there will be upward pressure on tree contractor rates next year. In large part, this is due to the high demand for tree services due to storms, disease, and insect infestation in recent years. Consequently, as a stand-alone proposal, Homer's offer to extend the existing contract rates for another year is attractive. Furthermore, it is the opinion of staff that extending Homer's contract for one year is imperative if the additional Kensington Business Center work is authorized. Request for Direction Staff seeks village board direction on the following: • Is there support for an unbudgeted expenditure in the amount of $100,000 from available general fund balance for the purpose of eradicating 346 dead and declining privately - owned trees in the Kensington Business Center delineated on Attachment A? • Is there support to expand the existing village parkway tree removal contract with Homer Tree Service of Lockport, Illinois to include the removal of these same trees pursuant to the terms described herein? • Is there support to extend the contract period of the existing parkway tree removal contract with Homer Tree Service of Lockport, Illinois for one calendar year? I would greatly appreciate it if this matter could be presented for the village board's consideration at the September 9, 2014 Committee of the eting. Appropriate staff will be available to facilitate discussion. n P. Dorsey Cc: Director of Community Development Bill Cooney Director of Finance David Erb Village Clerk Lisa Angell Deputy Director of Public Works Jason Leib Forestry/Grounds Superintendent Dave Hull Administrative Superintendent Kristina Jakupovic File " 1 c e e r amu° ee r. iM. emesis e ., e �ar.^zF y form �d PPI aye � e e • ,, � ' .: e. e e F Affamm J