REPORT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE–COMMUNITY SERVICES & ENVIRONMENT

 

 

 

 

 

TO:

Mayor and Members of Council

 

 

FROM:

Paul Ingham, General Manager, Operations

 

 

PREPARED BY:

Mark Ingwersen, District Manager, Operations

 

 

DATE OF MEETING:

February 6th, 2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

Turf Maintenance Assessment Review

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the report entitled “Turf Maintenance Assessment Review”, dated February 6th, 2006 be received;

 

AND THAT the findings from Phase 1 of the Turf Assessment Review are received as information;

 

AND THAT Council approves the hiring of Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited to an upset limit of $36,000 exclusive of GST, to undertake Phase 2 of this review.  Marshall Macklin Monaghan will be required to work with qualified consultants, the cost of which is included in the $36.000, with demonstrated expertise in pesticide-free or cultural practices for turf care as selected by the Environmental Issues Committee;

 

AND THAT staff present the findings of Phase 2 of the review in a report back to General Committee and propose standards of care for various classifications of parks, sports fields, boulevards, etc. and determine options for a comprehensive recovery plan for existing parks and long-term maintenance plans for both existing and new infrastructure.

 

AND FURTHER THAT the cost for the Turf Maintenance Assessment Review Phase 2, to an upset limit of $36,000, exclusive of GST, be funded from the 2006 Operations Department Capital Project 7133, Sports Field Maintenance and Reconstruction.

 

PURPOSE: 

This report has been prepared to update Council on the status of Phase 1 of the Operations Department’s Parks Maintenance Assessment Review, as approved by Council in 2004, and to seek Council’s approval to proceed with Phase 2 of the review.

 

BACKGROUND: 

Consultant to assess turf condition and maintenance practices

Based on feedback and comments received from the community and sports field user groups, following the summer of 2003, some concerns were raised regarding the level of service and safety with respect to the Town’s turf maintenance practices.  In order to address these concerns, staff recommended that a comparison with other municipalities regarding turf maintenance practices and park appearances was warranted.

 

At a meeting held on March 30th, 2004, Council directed Operations staff to hire a consultant to undertake the assessment of the Town’s parks, sports fields, boulevards and medians and review the Town’s maintenance practices.

 

During the summer of 2004, the Operations Department implemented the following adjustments to service delivery which seems to have had a very favorable effect on boulevard turf care.

 

  1. Adjusted level of service for Regional Roads – Operations Department reduced the number of boulevard grass cuttings on Regional Roads from 14 to 12 and utilized the resources from the remaining two cuts to perform additional boulevard and median maintenance (i.e. additional string trimming and weed removal around median islands).
  2. Performed 50% of the boulevard grass cutting operations utilizing in-house resources.  The remaining 50% was moved in-house in 2005.

 

Terms of reference for turf assessment and maintenance review RFP

During the summer of 2004 the Operations Department prepared and released an ‘Expression of Interest’ in efforts to hire a professional consultant to prepare an RFP (for release in August) for the assessment review of turf care and maintenance practices.  Unfortunately no responses were received and there was insufficient time to re-issue the RFP in 2004 before the turf became dormant.

 

In early 2005 Operations staff engaged Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited to prepare terms of reference to hire a consultant to prepare a report to compare local and acclaimed municipalities in Ontario.  The report was to be impartial, scientific and thorough, incorporating a significant cross-section of parks and boulevards in the analysis.  In March 2005 the draft RFP was distributed to members of the Town’s Environmental Issues Committee to review and comment on prior to release.

 

In April 2005, an RFP was issued with a closing date of May 13th, 2005.  The Town received two proposals, both of which were well in excess of the anticipated budget.  It was determined that the level of investigation as outlined in the RFP was not cost-effective in relation to the available funding. 

 

Consultant directed to undertake Phase 1 of the review

The window for the evaluation of turf conditions is fairly narrow.  An accurate comparison can only be done when turf is active, either in May/early June, or in September, to ensure drought or frost do not affect the results  By the time the April 2005 RFP had been reviewed and rejected due to cost, the spring 2005 window of opportunity had been missed.

 

In August 2005, staff instructed Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited to hire an independent turf expert to proceed with Phase 1 of the project, to assess selected boulevard, sports field and park turf conditions in Markham and the neighboring municipalities of Richmond Hill and Vaughan, along with the City of Waterloo.  The specific locations in each municipality were chosen by the consultant, without input from staff, to ensure impartiality in the assessment process.  The detailed report on the results of the assessments conducted by the turf expert is included in Attachment ‘B’ of this report.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Town of Markham compares favourably with its York Region counterparts with regards to turf maintenance results and practices (see table – Attachment ‘A’).  The intensively used soccer facilities in Markham have above average quality of turf. The neighbourhood parks’ turf is green and strong.  The road boulevards are subject to the problems of salt damage and disruption by utility maintenance, which Markham staff handles with the same challenges as surrounding municipalities.

 

Goals for the project:

·        To compare turf maintenance practices of Markham with Vaughan and Richmond Hill for regional context and with Waterloo for comparison of environmental practices.

·        To compare appearance and features of turf within parks of differing sizes and street boulevards.

·        Prepare an inventory report ready for a follow-up evaluation of the observations

·        To provide unbiased observations of all parks and boulevards reviewed, using one set of scales and criteria for all sites observed. The work must be completed during a two-week review period to ensure comparable conditions at the time of observation.

 

Turf Assessments Conducted in Four Municipalities

For this project, the consultants reviewed the sites of Neighborhood Parks, Sport Fields and Boulevards within the Town of Markham, City of Vaughan, Town of Richmond Hill and City of Waterloo.  Parks were selected objectively by the consultants to review maintenance in all geographical parts of the municipalities, without input from any of the respective municipal staff.  Parks maintenance managers were interviewed in each of the Cities and Towns.  A comparison was made between the municipalities from the field observations and from the interviews.  Following the reviews, consultants were also requested to review parks that have had cultural practices performed as trials for the Town of Markham.

 

Turf was evaluated as percentage of turf grass, non-turf type grass, clover and other weeds.  Generally across the municipalities, turf grasses were best on soccer and baseball fields where more emphasis is put on high quality turf maintenance.  On the other end of the scale, street boulevards tended to have poor quality turf, particularly on broad boulevards where the municipalities are required to maintain the grass.

 

Richmond Hill and Markham informally exchange information regarding cultural practices.   Accordingly, parks in the two municipalities tend to be similar in turf quality and weed percentages.  There is less exchange of information flowing between Vaughan and Richmond Hill or Markham.  Vaughan’s parks generally have poorer quality turf.  However, Vaughan has a Wet Field policy whereby user groups are not allowed on the fields during wet conditions.  This is done to protect the field from physical damage to the turf. 

 

Waterloo was reviewed because of their renown for adapting cultural practices.  Although Markham and Waterloo use similar cultural practices on sports fields, the sport fields in Waterloo have a lower percentage of weeds, due to the fact that they are not used with the same intensity.  Sport fields are not built beside schools and therefore have less stress placed on them by over use.  Where they have field space, the City of Waterloo moves portable goal posts once every two weeks to avoid wear in a single location throughout the soccer season.

 

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:

Current Pesticide Use in Markham

The current Town of Markham Pesticide Application Policy and the Integrated Pesticide Management Program (I.P.M.) have significantly reduced the Town’s application of pesticides in parks.  The current maintenance program has provided reduction in excess of 95% from the 1992 application levels.

 

The Town’s Pesticide Application Policy suggests the use of herbicides, in a park application, only when weeds comprise 40% or more of groundcover on Town owned manicured turf. Herbicides are used on a spot-spray basis only.  There are only two types of herbicides used by the Town in these conditions, Killex and Roundup. Killex is a broadleaf herbicide which kills weeds but does not affect grass.  Roundup is a non selective weed killer that kills all vegetation it contacts.

 

Over the past few years Operations staff has applied herbicides only on occasions where there was an immediate threat to public health (i.e. control of poison ivy adjacent to public sidewalks and pathways).

 

Report on the results of the turf assessment review (Phase 1)

The detailed report on the results of the assessments conducted by the turf expert is included in Attachment ‘B’ of this report.  Assessments of at least 12 parks and 12 street boulevards are included in the report for each of the municipalities.

 

Operations staff to present the findings of Phase 2 of the review in a report back to General Committee

Phase 1 of the project prepared objective observations about Markham Parks and compared them to three other municipalities.  That having been completed, Phase 2 of this undertaking is to prepare an evaluation of the information, comparing 100% cultural practices with current municipal practices of turf maintenance. Specialists in cultural practices and in pesticide use would be engaged in the review process to ensure that professional advice and information is forthcoming in the final report.

 

Staff recommends engaging the consulting firm Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited to complete Phase 2 of this the review.  The Operations Department staff will present a list of qualified consultants, with demonstrated expertise in pesticide-free or cultural practices for turf care for selection by the Environmental Issues Committee.   This specialist in cultural practices and in pesticide use would be engaged by the Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited in the review process to ensure that professional advice and information is forthcoming in the final report.  The cost of the specialists will be included in the award.

 

From these results, the Operations Department will work with the Consultants to establish specific standards of care for various classifications of parks, sports fields, boulevards, etc. and determine options for a comprehensive recovery plan for existing parks and long-term maintenance plans for both existing and new infrastructure.

 

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The cost of engaging Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited for Phase Two, including hiring qualified consultants with demonstrated expertise in pesticide-free or cultural practices for turf care and the development of a phased pesticide reduction implementation plan, will be to an upset limit $36,000.   The cost for Phase 2 of the Turf Maintenance Assessment Review will be funded from the 2006 Operations Department Capital Project 7133, Sports Field Maintenance and Reconstruction.  The balance of this project, $74,000 ($110,000 – $36,000), will be used towards sports field maintenance as outlined in the 2006 budget submission.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment ‘A’ – Turf Assessment/Maintenance Level of Service Comparison Chart

 

Attachment ‘B’ – MMM Detailed Report ‘Assessment Review of Turf Care and Maintenance Practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Loukes, P.Eng.

Director, Operations Department

 

 

Jim Sales

Commissioner, Community and Fire Services

 

 

Q:\Commission Share\Operations and Asset Management\Reports\2006\Operations\Parks\Turf Maintenance Assessment Review .doc