Summary#

On September 22, 2026, Calgary City Council approved the Urban Forestry Level of Service Tree Lifecycle item on the consent agenda, 15–0. It directs City staff to aim for a “Good” service level for removing and replacing public trees, but only as funding allows. The stated goal is to manage public trees through their lifecycle and support a healthy urban forest.

• City staff must target the “Good” service level, in line with earlier Council-endorsed service targets and the City’s 10-Year Capital Plan.
• Council will consider funding in the 2027–2030 budget process for a staged approach. The decision does not approve that funding.
• Staff’s proposed approach would move through a “Fair” service level in 2027–2030, aiming for “Good” in 2031 and beyond. The target remains subject to funding.
• The decision concerns public trees managed by the City. It does not change rules for private trees or require residents to take action.

What it means for you#

• Calgarians: City staff will use the “Good” service level as a target for removing and replacing end-of-life public trees, subject to funding. The decision does not promise a particular replacement timeline for any tree.
• Taxpayers: Council has not approved the proposed capital funding. It will consider funding through the 2027–2030 budget process.
• City staff: The direction is to work toward the target through a staged approach informed by the 10-Year Capital Plan.

Money#

The report proposes a $54 million capital funding input for Council to consider in the 2027–2030 budget process; this decision does not approve it.

• The report says funding would also be needed after 2030 to reach the “Good” service level in 2031 and beyond, but gives no amount.
• The report describes a separate $2.4 million already allocated for repairs at 292 sidewalk/tree locations. This decision does not approve that amount again.

What is unclear#

• The materials do not explain exactly what counts as a “Good” or “Fair” service level, or how progress will be measured.
• The decision does not set an annual number of trees to remove or replace, or timelines for particular locations.
• The proposed funding amount and later funding are not guaranteed; the budget decisions are still to come.
• The report refers to funding “Option 3,” but the details of that option are not included in the supplied material.

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 lifecycle target could give the City a plan for addressing that backlog.
• Staff report that claims for property damage from falling trees and branches doubled from 2021 to 2025. They say removing trees that cannot be maintained safely could reduce risks to people and property.
• Staff say the phased approach would support tree replacement while allowing the City to plan funding through its capital budget process.

Case against#

• The target depends on funding, and Council has not approved the proposed $54 million or future funding. The decision therefore sets a direction without securing the money to meet it.
• The decision does not define the service levels or specify how quickly particular trees will be addressed, making it difficult to know what residents can expect.
• City staff identify possible localized disruption and risks from adding contracts as the program expands.