Summary#

Council approved the Urban Forestry Level of Service Tree Lifecycle decision on September 22, 2026, on the consent agenda, with 15 votes in favour and none against. It directs City staff to target a “Good” service level for removing and replacing public trees, but only if funding is available; staff must also consider funding in the 2027–2030 budget process. The stated goal is to support a safe, well-maintained urban forest.

• The target applies to Calgary’s public trees, not private trees.
• Staff proposed a staged approach: reach “Fair” service during 2027–2030 and “Good” in 2031 or later. That timeline is in the staff report, not stated as a firm deadline in Council’s direction.
• Council did not approve the proposed $54 million capital funding in this decision.

What it means for you#

• City staff: Must work toward the “Good” target, subject to funding, and consider a funding level in the 2027–2030 budget process.
• Residents: The decision sets a target, but does not guarantee when a particular public tree will be removed or replaced. It does not change rules for private trees or require residents to take action.

Money#

The decision does not approve new funding; staff proposed a $54 million capital funding input for Council’s consideration in the 2027–2030 budget process.

• Staff say funding will also be needed after 2030 to reach the “Good” level.
• Separately, Council had already directed $2.4 million from the Fiscal Stability Reserve for work on 292 sidewalk/tree locations. That funding was not approved by this decision.

What is unclear#

• The materials do not define exactly what counts as a “Good” service level or how progress will be measured.
• The decision does not set a firm timeline, annual funding amount, or tree-removal and replacement numbers.
• It is unclear what funding Council will approve in the 2027–2030 budget process, or what happens if funding is not available.
• The staff report says 37,210 public trees are dead or in poor condition, but the decision does not set priorities for which trees are handled first.

Case for#

• City staff say 37,210 public trees—about 7 per cent of the inventoried total—are dead or in poor condition, and the backlog is growing. A target could give staff a basis for planning removals and replacements.
• Staff say the current funding limits lead them to focus on risk-related removals instead of replacing trees, and that falling trees and branches can pose safety and property risks.
• The direction makes funding a matter for the 2027–2030 budget process, while allowing work to proceed only as funding permits.

Case against#

• The “Good” target is conditional on funding, and this decision does not provide the proposed $54 million. The target may therefore not be met.
• The decision does not define the target or set deadlines and yearly results, making it hard to tell what progress would count.
• Staff say additional contracts and work could cause some localized disruption for residents; the report does not specify where or how much.