Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albany council weighs revenue measure to expand street‑tree care and finish streetlight upgrades
Summary
City staff told the council that expanding street‑tree maintenance and completing a citywide streetlight conversion will require a stable funding source; staff estimated a current tree program budget of $380,000 and a more comprehensive program at roughly $590,000–$635,000 annually, and asked for direction on a potential revenue measure and ordinance changes.
City staff urged Albany’s City Council to back a funding package that would expand the city’s street‑tree maintenance program and complete a multi‑year streetlight conversion.
Public Works Director Mark Hurley and program manager Devorah Zauder presented the city’s Street Tree Management Plan and a street‑lighting evaluation, describing a shift from a reactive, property‑owner shared maintenance model toward a city‑led proactive program. “One of them is to clarify our authority and responsibility,” Hurley said, describing a consultant recommendation that the city assume fuller responsibility for street‑tree care.
Zauder told the council the city’s current street‑tree maintenance budget is $380,000 and that a full, proactive program would carry a larger recurring cost: “We estimate [the program] to be between about $590,000 and $635,000 a year,” she said. The expanded program would add systematic planting, young‑tree care, expanded inspections and GIS improvements, and periodic canopy assessments. Staff also identified consulting and program administration as a significant portion of the projected costs.
On street lighting, Hurley described a conversion program that has already upgraded several fixtures and identified roughly 500 lights remaining to be relamped. City staff said they have a broad CIP estimate of about $800,000 for the remaining relamping scope and that some critical intersection upgrades are included in the adopted CIP but other elements are not yet funded. “We’re talking about how do we avoid this situation going forward?” Hurley said, noting proposals for quarterly surveys and planned relamping to prevent another backlog.
Council members pressed staff for options on how a measure could be structured. Councilmember Jordan suggested a range of scenarios, including a parcel charge tied to building square footage and an approach that could be calibrated to displace existing general‑fund contributions. Vice Mayor McQuaid asked whether a dedicated measure could free up Measure M or DD funds for other priorities; staff said it could, depending on the revenue target and design.
Staff requested direction to begin drafting measure scenarios, work with financial and legal consultants on mechanics, and prepare any accompanying ordinance changes so that funding and proposed responsibilities could be considered together. The council did not take a final vote on a measure but signaled interest in returning with refined budget options and ordinance language ahead of a potential November ballot cycle.
