How do you get what you want> Implementation plan
Develop an implementation plan
The management plan sets goals and objectives, which provide the overall destinations of the plan. It also lists actions needed to accomplish the goals and objectives. The implementation plan is where you describe how these actions will be carried out. For each action, the implementation plan spells out:
- overall priority ranking
- funding source(s)
- specific budget on an annual or multi-year basis
- personnel responsible for administering and carrying out the action
- time schedule
Implementation of a long term management plan may occur in phases. Implementation plans may span short time slices (1-5 years). They should be revised as necessary based on factors that speed or slow plan implementation. Developing, revising, and adopting implementation plans typically occurs at program staff level (e.g., departments directly involved).
As the implementation plan is developed, it may become clear that some actions actually require multiple steps to complete. If so, it may be useful to specify the budget, responsibilities, and time schedule, for each separate step.
Review priority
The management plan may include a general priority ranking of goals, objectives, and their associated actions. As you develop the implementation plan, you may need to review and adjust priorities for the shorter planning intervals involved. Overall priority rankings will be needed to determine how to allocate budget if it is inadequate to cover all activities.
Priority rankings are also used to phase activities over time so that high priority tasks are completed before low priority tasks. For example, dealing with a backlog of potentially hazardous trees may be the highest priority in the first years of the plan. Once the backlog has been cleared out, other actions (such as replanting after tree removals) may have the highest priority.
Identify funding
In your review of the management program, you identified existing sources of funding used by your program. If these funds are inadequate for your new plan, your plan should include the goal of developing suitable sources of funding. Grant funding may be appropriate for one-time or infrequent expenses, such as developing educational handouts. Ongoing activities, such as tree care and maintaining the tree inventory, will need a stable source of funding.
Some sources of funding for municipal programs include:
- gas tax
- city-wide assessment district, e.g., Landscape and lighting districts (LLD)
- fines from ordinance violations
- tree removal permit mitigation fees
- general fund
- grants - from state and federal agencies and programs, corporations, nonprofit organizations
- community groups, e.g., community service organizations, local urban forestry nonprofits
- corporate/local business sponsorships
- partnerships with utilities
Dedicated funding is typically more reliable than funding from sources such as the general fund. The Outline section below provides space to identify funding sources for actions in your plan.
Develop budgets
For ongoing activities, work records and past budgets provide a basis for making budget projections. If your tree population is large or the trees are fairly uniform, it may suffice to calculate average costs per tree. However, tree care costs can vary by tree size, location, species, or other factors. You may be able to improve your budget estimates by accounting for the specific costs associated with different segments of the tree population. A worksheet using this approach is shown in the first example below.
For contracted work, administrative costs for bidding and managing the contract should be included in the budget. Costs associated with in-house work will include personnel costs and materials, as well as overhead costs related to equipment maintenance and training.
Budgets typically need to account for inflation, equipment replacement, and other factors that change from year to year. Budgets also need to account for how costs change as the tree population changes over time. As trees get larger or develop age-related problems, unit costs may increase. On the other hand, if high-maintenance trees are phased out and replaced with properly trained replacements, unit costs may go down. Since these changes are often incremental, successive annual budgets may show little change. However, multi-year budgets should show how costs are expected to change over time as the tree population changes.
The implementation plan budgets are needed to help develop annual work plans. Based on available budget, you may be able to accelerate or defer specific management activities called for in the plan. The level-of-service (LOS) approach shown in the second example below is one way to present this. The LOS matrix provides a menu of service levels (from minimum to optimum) for each program activity area and their associated costs. This allows decision makers to more clearly see how funding levels will affect program outputs.
Assign responsibilities
The implementation plan should indicate who is going to carry out the actions described in the management plan. This includes administrative responsibilities as well as the work units or staff positions that will actually conduct the work. You may already have developed this information in order to develop budget estimates.
For actions that require cooperation and coordination between departments, all department managers involved should agree on assigned responsibilities. Managers should also agree on the level of priority that is needed to ensure that actions can be implemented successfully.
Establish timelines
The implementation plan should include realistic timelines for conducting actions and meeting objectives. Some activities need to be completed in a given order. If sequential steps are handled by different units or departments, schedules have to be shared to coordinate the phasing of activities. In addition, regular status updates can indicate whether the schedule needs to be revised.
As noted above, budget and funding affects the timeline for plan activities. Following the LOS approach, it may be necessary to delay or spread out implementation of lower priority actions to ensure that high priority tasks are accomplished first. The reporting requirements set forth in the monitoring plan provide a way to ensure that progress is tracked over time.
Example
5 year tree care budget projections
The worksheet below, which is adapted from the one presented in A technical guide to developing urban forestry strategic plans and urban forest management plans by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, can be used to estimate budget figures for tree care.
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | 5 year total | ||||||||
| Activity | Diameter class | Cost/tree$ | # of trees | Total cost | # of trees | Total cost | # of trees | Total cost | # of trees | Total cost | # of trees | Total cost | |
| Specify activity | 1-6" | ||||||||||||
| 7-12" | |||||||||||||
| 13-18" | |||||||||||||
| 19-24" | |||||||||||||
| 25-30" | |||||||||||||
| 31-36" | |||||||||||||
| Over 36" | |||||||||||||
| Activity totals | |||||||||||||
Activities in the worksheet budgeted by diameter class include:
- Tree removal
- Stump removal
- Immediate priority pruning
- High priority pruning
- Routine pruning
Based on your own experience, you may decide to use different diameter classes or other factors to develop individual cost categories. Overall averages per tree may also be used if you do not track costs by tree category. You can also check with other organizations or communities to get per tree cost estimates if you lack this information.
The spreadsheet from Wisconsin DNR also includes other tree care activities that are not categorized by tree diameter class. Some of these activities may vary according to other categories that you may want to include (e.g., planting site prep may differ based on site characteristics).
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | 5 year total | ||||||||
| Activity | Subactivity | Cost/tree$ | # of trees | Total cost | # of trees | Total cost | # of trees | Total cost | # of trees | Total cost | # of trees | Total cost | |
| Tree planting | Site prep | ||||||||||||
| Tree purchase | |||||||||||||
| Planting | |||||||||||||
| Activity totals | |||||||||||||
| New tree maintenance | Training/pruning | ||||||||||||
| Mulching | |||||||||||||
| Watering | |||||||||||||
| Activity totals | |||||||||||||
| Other maintenance | |||||||||||||
| Activity totals | |||||||||||||
| Grand totals per year | |||||||||||||
Urban forest program level of service budget projections
Another example of budgeting is found in the Davis Community Tree Management Plan developed in 2002. This plan used a level of service (LOS) matrix. Level of service methodology has been applied in various areas of planning, including traffic planning and emergency response. A LOS matrix is developed by selecting specific scenarios that address plan goals to varying degrees and determining the cost associated with each scenario. The LOS matrix provides a way to show the costs and benefits associated with different levels of management inputs.
The Davis plan explains how each level of service was determined. Levels of service were based on the City of Davis's existing urban tree program and best practice recommendations for tree care from various sources. Budget figures are from their calculated expenditures. The table includes both the current LOS and the staff's recommended LOS for the plan.
A sample survey conducted in Davis showed a backlog of potentially hazardous trees in the street tree inventory. Removing hazardous trees was given the highest program priority in the plan.
Tree Management Planning Tool
| Program area | Level of Service | Budget Impact |
| Hazard Tree Abatement | ||
| Potential level of service 1 (minimal) | On request only (City removes 125 trees / yr) | $34,375 / yr ($275 / tree) |
| Potential level of service 2 | Remove on request (125 / yr) and eliminate backlog of trees in 10 yrs (25 trees / yr) | $41,250 /yr for 10 yrs ($275 / tree) |
| Potential level of service 3 | Remove on request (125 / yr) and eliminate backlog in 5 yrs (50 trees / yr) total 175 /yr @ $275 / tree) | $48,125 / yr for 5 yrs, then $34,375 /yr |
| Potential level of service 4 | Remove on request (125 / yr) and eliminate backlog in 1 yr (250 trees / yr @ $275 /tree) | $34,375 / yr for five years, and one-time capital expenditure of $68,750 to remove 250 trees |
| Current (2000) level of service in FY'01 | Level of Service: 1 (125 / yr by City at $252 / tree) | $31,500 |
| Staff/Tree Commission Recommendation for Fiscal Year | Level of Service 4: (125 / yr by City at $275 / tree and onetime removal of 250 trees to eliminate backlog) | $34,375 / yr for five years, and one-time capital expenditure of $68,750 to remove 250 trees |
| Mature Tree Care | ||
| Potential level of service 1 (minimal) |
City prunes 1,500 trees / yr (16-yr cycle) | $195,000 / yr ($130/tree) |
| Potential level of service 2 | City prunes 1,500 / yr and contractor prunes 750 / yr (10-yr cycle, 2,250 trees/yr) | $270,000 / yr, City = $195,000 ($130/tree), contractor = $75,000 ($100/tree) |
| Potential level of service 3 | City prunes 1,500 / yr and contractor prunes 1,425 / yr (8-yr cycle, 2,925 trees / yr) | $337,500 / yr, City = $195,000 ($130/tree), contractor = $142,500 ($100/tree |
| Potential level of service 4 | (4,680 trees / yr), City prunes 1,500 / yr and contractor prunes 3,180 / yr | $513,000 /yr, City = $195,000 ($130/tree), contractor = $318,000 ($100/tree) |
| Current (2000) level of service in FY'01 | 3 (8-yr cycle, 2,971 / yr at $94 / tree) |
$278,500, City = $178,500, Contractor = $100,000 |
| Staff/Tree Commission Recommendation for Fiscal Year | 3: (8- yr cycle, 2,925 / yr) | $337,500, City = $195,000, Contractor = $142,500 |
| Young Tree Care | ||
| Potential level of service 1 (minimal) | No young tree care | $0 |
| Potential level of service 2 | Only TREE Davis prunes (13-yr cycle, 350 trees / yr @ $20/tree) | $7,000 / yr |
| Potential level of service 3 | Only TreeDavis prunes at 50% of goal (4-yr cycle, 2,383 trees / yr @ $20/tree) | $47,660 / yr |
| Potential level of service 4 | TREE Davis prunes 2,766 / yr and City prunes 2,000 / yr (2-yr cycle, 4,766 / yr) | $125,320 for 5 yrs, City = $70,000 ($35/tree), TREE Davis = $55,320 ($20/tree) |
| Current (2000) level of service in FY'01 | 3 (4.5-yr cycle, 2,050 / yr by City and TREE Davis at $31 / tree |
$64,000, City = $54,000, TREE Davis = $10,000 |
| Staff/Tree Commission Recommendation for Fiscal Year | Level of Service 4: (2-
yr cycle, 4,766/yr, 2,766 / yr by TREE Davis at $20 / tree, 2,000 by City at $35 / tree) |
$125,320 for 5 yrs, City = $70,000 ($35/tree), TREE Davis = $55,320 ($20/tree) |
| Planting | ||
| Potential level of service 1 (minimal) | No new city funded tree planting | $0 |
| Potential level of service 2 | Replace removals only (125 trees / yr) | $6,250 / yr (TREE Davis @ $50/tree) |
| Potential level of service 3 | Replace removals, plant on request, and achieve > 90% full stocking in 10 years (375 trees / yr) | $18,750 for 10 yrs (TREE Davis @ $50/tree) |
| Potential level of service 4 | Replace removals, plant on request, and achieve > 90% full stocking in 5 years (625 trees / yr) | $39,050 for 5 yrs, City = $23,400 ($75/tree), TREE Davis = $15,650 ($50/tree) |
| Current (2000) level of service in FY'01 | 4 (480 / yr by City at $75 / tree) | $36,000 |
| Staff/Tree Commission Recommendation for Fiscal Year | Level of Service 2: Replace removals (125 / yr by TREE Davis at $50 / tree) and one-time funds to re-plant 250 removed trees. | $6,250 for five years, and onetime capital expenditure of $12,500 to re-plant removed trees. |
| Administration | ||
| Potential level of service 1 (minimal) | 0.67 Supervisory Arborist / 20,000 trees, $2.50 / tree | $81,824 |
| Potential level of service 2 | 0.83 Supervisory Arborist / 20,000 trees, $3.13 / tree | Budget Impact: $94,696 |
| Potential level of service 3 | 1 Supervisory Arborist / 20,000 trees, $3.75 / tree | / 20,000 trees, $3.75 / tree Budget Impact: $117,673 |
| Potential level of service 4 | 1.17 Supervisory Arborist / 20,000 trees, $4.37 / tree | $143,246 |
| Current (2000) level of service in FY'01 | Level of Service: 3 (1 FTE supervisory arborist for 20,000 public trees, $3.75 / tree) | $112,500 |
| Staff/Tree Commission Recommendation for Fiscal Year | Level of Service 3: (1 FTE supervisory arborist for 20,000 public trees, $3.75 / tree) | $117,673 |
| Total budget impact | ||
| Potential level of service 1 (minimal) | City = $311,199 | |
| Potential level of service 2 | $ 419,196 (City = $330,946, TREE Davis = $13,250, Contractor = $75,000) | |
| Potential level of service 3 | $ 569,708 (City = $360,798, TREE Davis = $66,410, Contractor = $142,500) | |
| Potential level of service 4 | $854,991 (City = $466,021, TREE Davis = $70,970, contractor = $318,000, plus onetime capital expenditure by City of $68,750) | |
| Current (2000) level of service in FY'01 | $522,500 (City = $412,500, TREE Davis = $10,000, Contractor = $110,000) | |
| Staff/Tree Commission Recommendation for Fiscal Year | $621,118 (City = $417,048, TREE Davis = $61,570, Contractor = $142,500, Capital Exp: City = $68,750, TREE Davis = $12,500) | |
Planning questions
- Have we investigated all possible sources of funding for the plan?
- How will we develop and present the budget?
- What are the highest priority actions?
- Which actions need to occur in a specific sequence?
- Upon which scenario or scenarios (varying levels of service) should the budget be based?
Work plan
Use this worksheet to schedule the tasks involved in developing the implementation plan |
Topic |
Drafted by: |
Target completion date: |
| Review prioritization | ||
| Determine funding sources | ||
| Develop budget(s) | ||
| Assign responsibilities | ||
| Develop time line and sequencing | ||
Outline
You can use the form below to develop a matrix for the implementation plan using your plan's goals, objectives, and actions.
| Goal 1-list [from the outline] | ||||||
| Objective 1.1 -list [from the outline] | ||||||
| Action | Priority | Implementation steps | Timeline | Budget | Funding source | Responsibility |
| 1.1.1 list [from the outline] | ||||||
| [Repeat for each action item] | ||||||
| Objective 1.2 -list [from the outline] | ||||||
| 1.2.1 list [from the outline] | ||||||
| [Repeat for each action item] | ||||||
| Objective 1.3 -list [from the outline] | ||||||
| 1.3.1 list [from the outline] | ||||||
| [Repeat for each action item] | ||||||
| repeat for any other objectives under Goal 1 -list [from the outline] | ||||||
| Goal 2-list [from the outline] | ||||||
| Objective 2.1 -list [from the outline] | ||||||
| 2.1.1 list [from the outline] | ||||||
| [Repeat for each action item] | ||||||
| Objective 2.2 -list [from the outline] | ||||||
| 2.2.1 list [from the outline] | ||||||
| [Repeat for each action item] | ||||||
| Objective 2.3 -list [from the outline] | ||||||
| 2.3.1 list [from the outline] | ||||||
| [Repeat for each action item] | ||||||
| repeat for any other objectives under Goal 2 -list [from the outline]. Repeat for remaining Goals | ||||||