November 6, 1998

To:Economic Development Committee

From:Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism

Subject:Tree Maintenance Backlog

Purpose:

This report outlines city wide forestry service levels and backlogs and recommends a course of action to bring service back to an acceptable level.

Source of Funds:

Requires increased forestry operating budget.

Recommendations:

That:

1. this report be received for information, and;

2)consideration be given to increased forestry program funding during the 1999 and 2000 operating budget deliberations in order to attain acceptable service standards;

1. staff continue to investigate opportunities for efficiencies and improvements to service standards during the amalgamation process; and,
2. this report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for their consideration and deliberation.

Background:

In his memo to this committee dated September 9, 1998, Councillor Joe Pantalone requested that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism prepare a report in time for the 1999 budget cycle which enumerates the city wide forestry service levels and what needs to be done to return any backlogs to an acceptable level.

Comments:

In Toronto, there are approximately 10,000 km of streets and roads lined with trees, almost 1,500 parks and 3,000,000 city owned trees. There are approximately 200 full time equivalent forestry staff. Each year, thousands of trees are planted, tens of thousands are maintained and thousands are removed when removal becomes necessary. Current maintenance backlogs consist mainly of publicly driven requests for tree pruning and removal and represent approximately seven months of work if all existing pruning staff were dedicated to the backlog only. Mixed with incoming daily work projects and other tree service requirements such as planting, watering, storm breaks and much more, these backlogs require some callers to wait up to 18 or more months.

Urban Forestry receives tens of thousands of requests for tree service annually in addition to service orders which staff generate when they observe trees requiring maintenance. Toronto residents act as a first line of notification when they observe changes in a tree they have fronting their home or in a park which they frequent. Historically, requests for service in spring and summer far exceed the capacity of our staff while late fall and winter month requests diminish and allow forestry staff to catch up on outstanding service requests. Therefore, service backlogs hit highs in early fall and lows in late winter.

When public requests for tree maintenance are received, staff inspect the tree or request information about the severity of any reported problems in order to establish priority. Staff make every effort to communicate our priority system to the public when they call. Dangerous conditions or obvious potential hazards are attended to first while more routine requests are left to accumulate. These routine requests are grouped and assigned to crews by type of work and by geographic area which ensures the efficient and effective use of staff and equipment. This way, there is sufficient work of like nature in an area and the staff and equipment sent out are appropriate for the task and able to accomplish more work with less travel. Priority of service requests bump up as they grow older. Service request backlogs hinder staff's ability to work systematically through trees along streets or in parks as working this way further increases delays of public requests.

The table below summarizes current backlogs across the new city. This is not a straight forward comparison as many operating issues factor in. For example, a service order can be for only one tree or many trees along a street. Until one tree management information system is put in place city wide, simplified comparisons are not available.

* Work includes tree removals, tree maintenance, stumping, backfill and seeding, fertilizing etc.

** Etobicoke also does hydro line clearing work for Toronto Hydro

*** Metro uses park tree maintenance funding to attend to public requests for street trees

There are many reasons for increasing urban forest maintenance backlogs including:

1. aging tree population
2. insufficient resources to meet expectations
3. storms
4. backlog generates inefficiencies
5. public expectations for forestry services increasing
6. Aging tree population

Toronto has large areas where trees have grown mature and therefore require frequent and intensive maintenance. Many of these trees are showing stress from diminished quality of growing environment as they outgrow their location or as city infrastructure expands and density of built form increases.

2)Equipment and personnel shortages

As stated previously, Toronto has approximately 200 full time equivalent forestry staff who are responsible for planting and maintaining tens of thousands of trees annually. Approximately 33 pruning crews and various contract crews respond to public requests for tree service.

Already limited or diminished resources available to perform basic tree maintenance have hampered staff's ability to respond to public service requests as quickly as expected. Of further concern is the reduced or non existent ability to properly maintain and establish newly planted trees or trees in commercial sidewalk conditions. There is a lack of adequate resources to undertake major urban forestry initiatives such as systematic maintenance of street trees, trees in parks or ravines, or for major planting projects. Demand for urban forestry services has always exceeded the level that forestry operations can supply.

1. Storms

Every storm generates thousands of new service requests as branches fall from trees or people simply become concerned about trees near their homes and notice dead branches or structural problems that they may have previously overlooked. There have been several storms in 1998.

1. Backlog generates inefficiencies

As people become concerned about the age of their service request, increased pressure to attend to complaints results in extra phone calls and sometimes diversion of crews from one area to another causing less than optimum use of resources.

1. Increased public awareness and expectation

In recent years, public expectation for forestry services has increased dramatically. The public is gaining a better understanding of the importance of keeping the urban forest in good condition and renewing it as trees are removed. Service is often demanded rather than simply requested.

Past experience suggests that the public are generally happy with forestry service when average response times are about three months. From a risk management view point, backlogs of two to three months are reasonable in that crews can be dispatched to manage priorities with only minimal disruption to regular service. Small backlogs of two to three months also permit efficient use of resources while still leaving room for highly efficient systematic tree maintenance in winter months.

Ultimately the high value of the urban forest and the need to maintain it for health and sustainability must be recognized. The urban forest is complex and made up of living organisms which live for decades, often in harsh environments. Any work done to trees affects their long term health and maintenance costs. Neglect of proper maintenance results in higher long term costs. It is for these reasons that urban forest managers and policies take a long term approach to tree maintenance and only recommend that essential work be done which will not be detrimental to the long term health of trees. To assist in sustaining the urban forest, it is City policy to replace trees which are removed. Post planting care and maintenance of young trees is very important for the long term health of the new trees. Maintenance backlogs tend to be for large trees which can become dangerous if not attended to. This has the effect of diverting resources away from new trees and thereby an exacerbated long term maintenance backlog.

Various methods of reducing maintenance backlogs exist. The following list details some options of consideration.

Conclusions:

With current resources, the backlog of forestry maintenance work is continuing to build and staff are not able to bring the backlog to acceptable levels even in the winter months. This is having the effect of making the public very dissatisfied with forestry service, increasing complaints and claims against the city for damage from fallen limbs. The overall health of the urban forest is also negatively affected which will ultimately lead to even higher long term maintenance costs.

Once forestry operations are realigned into four districts from the present seven, certain efficiencies are expected which will have a positive impact on the backlog of service requests. Staff and equipment utilization is expected to increase. Ultimately, systematic maintenance of trees on a street by street or area basis would be the most effective method of delivering tree maintenance. This method would still need to be flexible so that customer-driven requests on high maintenance trees are attended to.

The City Forester position will ensure that various existing tree management information systems (TMIS) will be combined into one system accessible from any office which permits accurate information sharing and recording. This in turn enables management and crews to more efficiently coordinate service to the public. Funding of approximately $175,000 is required for this initiative. Having one TMIS would make it possible to have one centralized call centre for public requests which would result in improved service. Such service efficiencies will assist forestry staff in keeping up with future tree service requests and even permit some reduction in backlog but will not enable elimination of the very large backlog which exists today as a result of years of snowballing accumulation.

The current backlog of over 14,000 service orders represents enough work to keep 12 fully qualified and equipped forestry crews working full time for a period of one year for an approximate cost of 2.74 million dollars. A portion of this total has been identified as a 1999 Budget pressure for the Parks and Recreation Division. It is important that discussions take place in order that sufficient funds be provided to increase the current forestry staffing and contracting budgets to achieve a more acceptable level of service of approximately three months.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

392-1894

rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

Joe Halstead

Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism Department