Agenda - Council Work Session - 06/28/2011

Home

CC Work Session 2. 2. Meeting Date: 06/28/2011 By: Mark Riverblood, Engineering /Public Works Title: Discuss Mowing and Maintenance Policy for Boulevards, Vacant City -owned Lands, and `Open Space' Background: Beginning with the General Fund budget contractions in 2008, city departments identified services that could be reduced with least negative impact to residents. For parks, this included reduced mow zones (within active parks) or complete elimination of the mowing of several parks with the reduction of trail mowing from 7 + intervals, to a couple times per year. The attached 'mowing reduction map' shows a somewhat even distribution of those parks and trails within the city. The accompanying narrative details the minutes and hours for the first full year of these reductions. For the most part, residents have understood the reductions in service - however in other cases, some have expressed concern for the perceived negative impact to their neighborhoods that the unmowed parks represent. Therefore, the purpose of this case is to both inform (for those newer members) Council of the recent history on this issue, and also to receive consensus on the the policy and practice of mowing /not mowing not just underutilized parks and open space - but also other city owned properties. Observations: The following is a partial list of the various areas streets and park departments presently mow: • Maintained /active parks • Off roadway trails (E.g. Lake Itasca Trail) • Boulevard Trails (E.g. Sunwood Drive) • Open space parks (E.g. Riverwood Hills as of June 2011 twice per year) • Boulevards in urban areas (E.g. 'vacant' boulevard areas like Town Center Gardens 2nd Addition) • ROW in rural areas (twice per year) • Sed ponds, swales and around drainage structures • Low maint. city owned property (varies: everything from RALF property to lift stations to the COR) • Developed city owned property (E.g. City Hall to Old Town Hall) • T.H. #47 obligations As there is so many differing levels of mowing maintenance within the above categories, staff will attempt to summarize the level of mowing being performed for each, such that Council can discuss generally whether staff should either 'stay the course' or modify how these properties are addressed (or organize additional detail for a subsequent discussion). Specifically however, staff requests park by park consensus on the parks' level of mowing identified in the attachment (which will be presented verbally at the meeting). Additionally, staff requests consensus that, in any case, staff would have the liberty to adjust our practices to what is perceived to be in the best interest of the City (cost containment, versus public service at the neighborhood level) - or consensus as to what circumstances Council wishes to influence operations of this magnitude and cost. Funding Source: