HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil - 2011-10-03 SSPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2011 CITY OF KITCHENER
A special meeting of City Council was held at 4:32 p.m. this date, chaired by Mayor C. Zehr with all
members present, except Councillor B. Vrbanovic.
Notice of this meeting had been previously given to all members of Council by the City Clerk pursuant
to Chapter 25 (Council Procedure) of the Municipal Code.
Council considered Infrastructure Services Department report INS-11-070 (D. Schmitt), dated
September 29, 2011, regarding Kitchener’s Urban Forestry Strategy. Ms. P. Houston, Deputy CAO -
Infrastructure Services, introduced the item advising that trees have been identified as one of the
City’s 12 corporate assets. She noted that limited funding has been allocated in the Capital Forecast
for urban forest sustainability. Mr. D. Schmitt, Environmental & Urban Forest Project Manager, gave
a presentation entitled “Kitchener’s Urban Forest A New Paradigm - Urban Forest Sustainability and
Best Management Practices”, indicating a need to effectively manage the naturally occurring and
planted trees in Kitchener to provide the community with a continuing level of economic, social,
environmental and ecological benefits. He reviewed and requested feedback / comments on the
following six themes:
1. Community Support & Engagement - strong community support links to Healthy Community
and Strategic Plans;
2. Urban Forest An Essential Asset - economic, environmental and social benefits of these
assets;
3. Operations Service Priorities - identified as a service priority in the 2012-2014 Infrastructure
Services Department plan;
4. Best Management Practices (BMP) - plan, plant, protect, maintain and renew urban forest;
5. Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) - significant financial, environmental and social impact; and,
6. Urban Forest Budgets - new funding required for BMP and asset management.
Questions were raised regarding what was meant by the term “crisis” with respect to Kitchener’s
urban forest, and were advised that it was being used in the context of how the City currently
approaches the management of this asset. Mr. Schmitt stated that currently the urban forestry
program spends a majority of its time responding to customer complaints for things such as low
hanging tree limbs. He suggested that these reactionary kinds of issues could be addressed in a
more cost-effective manner by implementing BMP and an asset / ecosystem management
framework. He indicated that over the years, the City has increased its number of street trees as well
as natural areas, but funding and resources have not kept pace. Accordingly, there is a backlog of
work that needs to be addressed and additional challenges are anticipated in the near future as a
result of the EAB. He stated that customer complaints are an important part of an asset management
program, but should not be the sole driver. He added that as part of an asset management system
high value trees, workloads, safety risks, and the time it takes to resolve work orders would be
identified to enable staff to adopt a more proactive approach. He noted that increased investments in
the urban forest through stewardship watering programs, structural pruning, and tree protection plans
are cost effective means of achieving a higher return on investment.
Councillor J. Gazzola requested clarification regarding how a tree’s value is calculated. Mr. Schmitt
advised that the environmental benefits of urban trees are significant and can be quantified using a
scientific model known as iTree which was developed by the United States Forest Service. He stated
that using this model, the replacement value and the annual environmental services that the urban
forest provides can be determined. He indicated that the tangible benefits provided by a tree include
such things as blocking winter winds, shading buildings which lowers cooling costs, and intercepting
precipitation to mitigate the effects of stormwater runoff. He added that the larger the tree the greater
benefit it provides, which is why in contrast to other assets the value of trees increases with age. He
stated that Kitchener has approximately 45,000 street trees and over 9,000 trees in active parkland,
with an estimated total tree canopy of 22%. He added that the cost to replace a recently planted tree
is approximately $700, while the replacement costs for a mature tree can range from $40,000 to
$80,000. He noted that the City of Toronto has estimated a total replacement value of its urban forest
at $7 billion.
Councillor D. Glenn-Graham inquired into the level of community engagement that has taken place
with respect to the urban forest. Mr. Schmitt advised that a pilot street tree management plan was
developed with the Westmount Neighbourhood Association in response to the neighbourhood’s
concern about their declining street trees; and, the City’s recognition of the need for a sustainable
management plan. He noted that this plan included a watering program, which fostered a sense of
community stewardship. He stated that this program, as well as a similar one implemented in the
Auditorium Neighbourhood, showed a very high level of interest and support by the public for the
SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2011 - 244-CITY OF KITCHENER
urban forest. He estimated a cost of $25. per tree watering bag and $300-$450 to plant each tree.
He added as the City’s mature street trees are reaching the end of their life cycle support for these
kinds of programs is necessary to lessen the impact of losing a significant number of trees.
Councillor Y. Fernandes requested clarification regarding the techniques that are being used to
maintain the City’s urban forest. Mr. Schmitt advised that a new structural pruning program has been
proposed and a series of lifecycle pruning workshops are being conducted to train field staff. He
noted that staff is also examining various means to inform the public of the benefits provided by trees
as well as proper maintenance techniques.
Councillor K. Galloway suggested that something should be done to ensure that street trees planted
in new subdivisions receive the level of care they need in order to survive. Mr. Schmitt advised that
poor quality soils and a lack of space make the planting of trees in subdivisions challenging. He
noted that work is underway to develop new tree planting standards for subdivisions, with
consideration being given to reducing the number of trees planted and placing a focus on soil quality
and volume.
In response to question regarding the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), Mr. Schmitt advised that ash trees
account for approximately 8% of the total number of the City’s street trees and 14% of the trees in the
City’s natural areas and parks. He stated that while staff is still conducting research into costs,
experience of other municipalities, such as the City of Burlington, suggest that the cost to address
EAB could exceed $10 million. He indicated that it is expected that EAB would be present throughout
the City within 5 years and all of the City’s ash trees would be dead or dying within 10 years. He
noted staff intends to bring forward a report on this matter later this year with recommendations and
budget considerations. He reviewed various means of dealing with EAB, which included: ongoing
monitoring, public education, community meetings for areas currently affected, as well as strategies
to conserve high value trees and manage the financial burden of EAB through chemical control and
proactive tree removals. He pointed out that chemical control treatment costs $150-$200 per tree
and only last for up to two years. He noted that in order to address this issue, additional funding will
need to be included in the City’s 10 Year Capital Forecast.
Councillor F. Etherington commented that, in his opinion, the City should expedite its response to the
crisis posed by the Emerald Ash Borer and asked for clarification into the amount of funding already
earmarked for this issue. Mr. Schmitt advised that $170,000. has been allocated in the 2012 Budget
to deal with EAB. He noted that an Operations Division Issue Paper on this matter is anticipated to
come forward during Council’s 2012 Budget deliberations.
Moved by Councillor B. Ioannidis
Seconded by Councillor K. Galloway
“That an in-camera meeting of City Council be held this date to consider a land acquisition /
disposition matter.”
Carried.
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
MAYOR CLERK