Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil - 2012-06-11 SSPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 11, 2012 CITY OF KITCHENER A special meeting of City Council was held at 4:00 p.m. this date, chaired by Mayor C. Zehr with all members present. 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 was presented with an Urban Forest Update by Mr. D. Schmitt, Environmental & Urban Forest Project Manager, regarding Kitchener’s Urban Forestry Strategy that was originally presented to Council on October 3, 2011. Mr. D. Schmitt gave a presentation entitled “Urban Forest Update, Benefits, Best Management Practices, Emerald Ash Borer”, divided into two sections. The first section detailed the benefits of the public urban forest, the Kitchener iTree Eco study which will quantify the environmental benefits of urban trees, and the new Best Management Practices. The second section of the presentation included an update and information on the impact of the Emerald Ash Borer and the replacement value of the community’s urban forest. Mr. Schmitt reviewed the benefits of urban forest noting that larger trees provided the most environmental and community benefit. The Best Management Practices (BMP) as presented by Mr. Schmitt detail methods to create a healthy and sustainable urban forest to maximize the benefits to the community while minimizing cost in a long term and sustainable way. The success exhibited in the Westmount Neighborhood Association pilot project Street Tree Management Plan can be expanded and standardized. Implementation of structural pruning techniques, a watering plan and improved planting to provide adequate soil volume are key in the BMP. Mr. Schmitt indicated that the challenge in newer subdivisions (post 1980) is poor soil quality and lack of space for growth resulting in high tree mortality. In order to combat high tree mortality and reduce the cost required for tree replacement, the manual for subdivision development is being modified with consideration to concerns that have been heard most from citizens. The City faces a challenge in that agreements that are currently in force did not include best practices and a significant number of trees have to be replaced after expiration of the maintenance period. Implementation of BMPs will require developers to plant trees in a sustainable manner with a commitment to effective watering. The goal for the City is to have healthy vigorous trees with cost savings through the implementation of these new standards. In answer to questions, Mr. Schmitt indicated that the City policy has not changed with regard to paying for trees. The developers are required, as part of the subdivision agreement, to plant street trees. The current requirement is for one tree per lot. Mr. J. Witmer, Director of Operations, indicated that the cost to the City is high after the two-year maintenance period required in the development agreement. The planting conditions are not sustainable with a significant number of trees having to be replaced. Mr. Schmitt noted that between 50 – 75% of trees in existing subdivisions likely have to be replaced after the two-year maintenance period with the cost of inspection, removal and replacement at approximately $450. per tree. Operations staff has communicated and have worked with developers to determine best practices to improve the lifecycle of the trees. Members of the development industry are in agreement with the changes to the development manual. In order to encourage healthy tree growth with adequate space for vigorous trees, one tree per two residential units will be planted and the extra trees will be planted elsewhere or cash in lieu will be paid to the City. Operations staff is working with developers to encourage planting the extra trees on public space. Mr. Schmitt noted that communications through marketing and promotion of improved growth conditions for trees is part of the commitment with developers to ensure success of the sustainable trees. Councillor J. Gazzola requested clarification on the impact of the Best Management Practices noting that at times the most feasible option due to costs is between better and best. Mr. D. Schmitt responded that there are various alternatives such as not planting trees. He noted, however, that discussions with citizens and developers have indicated that tree planting is desirable. Mr. J. Witmer commented that if structural pruning and BMP is utilized, significant savings in effort, time and money are realized. Although there are startup costs during the transitional period, the environmental benefits and savings are realized in the long term. Mr. Schmitt clarified that within the BMP are options that present lower cost such as a resident watering program utilizing gator bags rather than hiring a watering contractor. SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 11, 2012 - 144-CITY OF KITCHENER Councillor D. Glenn-Graham inquired into the financial implications related to implementation of the BMP on Regional Roads. Mr. J. Witmer responded that expectations will be defined and contracts will be negotiated for any work that is not contained within existing maintenance agreements. Notifying the Region of the BMP is in the next steps of implementation. Councillor Glenn-Graham asked if part of the strategy includes strategic placement that may include larger but fewer trees which was confirmed by Mr. Schmitt. In answer to questions, Mr. Schmitt noted that, at this time staff has not identified a budget and that at this juncture, the BMP is being presented for awareness. Councillor Glenn-Graham asked where trees are obtained. Mr. Schmitt noted that there is no current regulation for tree quality and at this point some trees are planted by developers and owners. The master tree planting plan dictates that there is a 20% maximum for any one tree genus in order to ensure biodiversity. Councillor Z. Janecki asked for clarification regarding responsibility of the tree once planting has taken place. Mr. Schmitt responded that for the first two years, the maintenance is the responsibility of the developer. The expectation is defined in the agreement about tree health and required maintenance. Councillor Janecki inquired as to the existence of a stewardship program to encourage home owners to water the trees. Mr. Schmitt indicated that although a stewardship program has not be established, there has been educational material produced for the Westmount pilot project that will be developed for City-wide distribution within the next six months. Councillor K. Galloway asked if there is any recourse to obtain money back from developers for trees that require replacement. Mr. D. Schmitt indicated that at this time staff has not asked the developers for money to help combat the problem of high fatality rate in trees. Mr. Schmitt pointed out that the new standards strive to ensure trees are healthy and substantial under terms of the agreement and include two inspections verifying the conditions are met. Mr. J. Witmer further clarified that if the tree fails within two years, it must be replaced by the developer and the maintenance cycle continues. Mr. Witmer agreed to take Councillor Galloway’s concerns back to the development industry to ascertain their willingness to enhance the tree maintenance period. Councillor B. Vrbanovic asked for clarification on the cost of the watering bags on the Tree Watering BMP. Mr. Schmitt responded that stemming from the Westmount Neighborhood Association pilot project; residents were provided with watering bags for a period of two years which presented high cost savings compared with the cost of replacing a tree. He noted that there was only one tree lost and that there is a profound difference in tree health using watering bags. During a period of drought, residents were asked to fill the watering bag more frequently, such as twice per week. Currently information is available on the website to remind residents to fill the water bags. Councillor Vrbanovic suggested increasing communications such as broadcast emails to remind residents to fill the watering bags. Concerns were raised regarding the reduction of trees to every other residential lot noting that benefits are minimized when the number of trees planted is reduced. Mr. D. Schmitt responded that in newer subdivisions with 4.5m setbacks the entire boulevard plus the front yard of the lot is needed to service 1 tree and becomes a matter of insufficient physical space to support more than 1 tree per 2 residential lots. Whereas, older residential subdivisions or those with wider lots allow for more trees due to increased soil volume. Mr. Schmitt added that developers are being asked to be creative in considering options for tree placement on public property in order to maximize the tree canopy. Councillor Y. Fernandes inquired as to why the City of Kitchener is not using Silva Cells. Mr. D. Schmitt responded that although there is a high effective rate with this product, there is also a very high cost at $10,000 to $15,000 per tree and to his knowledge no municipality in North America is using Silva Cells in residential areas. Councillor Y. Fernandes expressed concern that replacement trees are at times incompatible and that over-mulching is a problem. Mr. Schmitt responded that Operations staff is not responsible for over- mulching, which is a problem created by private industry is no longer being permitted in the new standards. Mr. Schmitt added that costs for the City to examine issues of curb appeal cannot be justified as return on such investment would be limited, in that the owner can do whatever planting they wish to do on their private property. He noted, however, that through the new BMP standards staff can limit what is planted on City property (i.e. boulevards). Mr. J. Witmer responded to concerns about the high mortality rate for trees within the new subdivision developments. He assured Council that there will be a discussion to determine and negotiate SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 11, 2012 - 145-CITY OF KITCHENER implications of high tree mortality with the developers, consultants and builders and that implementation of the BMP standards would place the City in a much better position. Mr. D. Schmitt then provided an update on the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB). Evidence of the EAB has been confirmed in the center of the City. With confirmation in Wards 4 and 6, infestation is likely located in Wards 3, 5, 7, 9. The Ash tree represents 9% of the street tree population and 13% of the active parkland trees. Mr. Schmitt presented three management options: Non-Essential Service option provides less than the City’s current practice in tree management. It includes removed dead trees with no stumping or replanting to see short term cost savings. The urban forest is not identified as an asset. The estimated cost over 10 years is $2.4 million. Reactive option is reflective of current City practice with removal, stumping and replanting of dead trees. With no tree management plan, risk and mortality of trees continues. The estimated cost over 10 years is $6.6 million. Sustainable Urban Forest option recognizes the urban forest as one of the 12 corporate assets. It includes an injection program of trees >30 cm in diameter, master planting plans, employment of an EAB coordinator, community leadership and education. The estimated cost over 10 years is $7.5 million. Concerns were raised on the efficacy and funding required for injection. Mr. D. Schmitt advised that costs can vary dependent on the size of trees that are injected. Injection would be required every two years. The Sustainable Urban Forest Option provides for $1.1 million over 10 years for injection, 10 years being the length of the Capital Program. As different pesticides become available, costs can change and savings can be realized. Current EAB management includes ongoing monitoring, corporate risk assessment of EAB, and removal of infested trees, communications and education, as well as chemical injection of 300 ash trees larger than 30cm in diameter. The EAB program represents the $175,000 of budgeted funding for 2012. Mr. Schmitt confirmed that chemical injection is sustainable when the programs are started at the right time. This has been demonstrated by the success of The Town of Oakville and City of Burlington, both of which are 2-3 years ahead in their programs. The impact of infestation on street trees is 99% (except for blue ash) without action; however, research has shown that with injection the infestation continues but the borer is killed. Mr. Schmitt further confirmed that there is strong argument for injection which is viable as long as municipalities take action at the right time and the City of Kitchener is in a good position. The USA has introduced an Asian insect that dines on the EAB; however, it is in the experimental stage of a federally regulated process. Councillor B. Vrbanovic stated that he would like to see further options around the injection process and studies on this and other bugs, particularly the US Asian insect, before budget deliberations take place. Councillor Y. Fernandes suggested consideration of the EAB as an infrastructure issue, equating it with the Block Line Road project, the funding for which could be used to protect the trees if the road project was delayed. Mr. D. Chapman indicated that Block Line Road was funded through development charges and that very little funds are available through infrastructure funding. Councillor Fernandes further suggested that Council should engage the public to ascertain their level of acceptance to deferring a road project to deal with the urban forest asset. Councillor Y. Fernandes asked if staff have considered a process to allow residents who are willing to do so to remove ash trees now and replace them at their own cost. Mr. Schmitt stated that a citizen program could be looked at; however, having just introduced the new BMP standards staff would want to maintain control of the type of trees and diversity of species being planted on City boulevards. Councillor J. Gazzola inquired if the senior levels of government have been engaged. Mr. Schmitt indicated that letter writing campaigns have taken place with no response from either the Federal or Provincial levels of government. Councillor Gazzola asked if either the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) or the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) had been engaged regarding the EAB. Councillor Vrbanovic commented that the EAB has been a regional issue in nature rather than of national priority. He noted, however, that discussions at the Federal level are in progress regarding the future of infrastructure funding and input is being sought at which time this issue could perhaps be raised. Councillor Gazzola would like follow-up once the long term infrastructure planning and priorities are underway. Councillor J. Gazzola raised concerns about planting trends in older parts of the City where trees are being cut back around hydro lines. Mr. D. Schmitt responded that there are a variety of trees across the City due to planting trends and in respect to hydro lines there are two options: where three phase SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 11, 2012 - 146-CITY OF KITCHENER wire is present, planting of large or medium sized trees will not take place; single lines allow trees to grow around the wire. In response to Councillor B. Ioannidis, Mr. Schmitt confirmed that one must be a licensed Qualified Bioforest Injector in order to be authorized to inject the trees. Future funding for EAB is not earmarked and recognizing that Council is considering remaining LEAF funding in upcoming budget discussions, Mr. J. Witmer acknowledged the importance of reinforcing collaborative efforts between Council and Operations staff on this issue. Moved by Councillor K. Galloway Seconded by Councillor F. Etherington “That an in-camera meeting of City Council be held this date to consider two land acquisition / disposition matters and a litigation / potential litigation matter.” Carried. On motion the meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. MAYOR CLERK