My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 04/08/2021
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2021
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 04/08/2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 11:41:09 AM
Creation date
4/2/2021 2:57:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
04/08/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Park and Recreation Commission <br />Meeting Date: 04/08/2021 <br />By: Mark Riverblood, Engineering/Public <br />Works <br />Information <br />Title: <br />Options and Alternatives for Maintaining Turfgrass in Public Spaces <br />5.2. <br />Purpose/Background: <br />Background: <br />At the September 2020 regular Park & Recreation Commission meeting, the topic of alternatives to typical turfgrass <br />maintenance was discussed, primarily in the context of cost savings that could be garnered by Plant Growth <br />Regulators (PGR's) or conversion to naturalized landscapes. The unanimous consensus of the Commission was that <br />as a matter of policy, the City should consider the conversion of some new or existing public lands to a ground <br />cover that does not require weekly mowing —and to look at cultural practices like reduced mowing regimes (and <br />visual expectations), as well as potentially the application of PGR's. <br />The above policy also recognizes that there are many acres of park land in the community that will and should <br />remain as traditional turfgrass, like athletic fields, walking areas and informal play areas or leisure areas around <br />playgrounds or the amphitheater etc. <br />Pearson Park, (the site of that Commission meeting), was an example of an alternative ground cover —that while is <br />not cost-free, is certainly at a much less expense annually, in terms of what would be a weekly mobilization of <br />people and equipment to mow the slopes around the playground. And further, that naturalized landscapes typically <br />do not require costly irrigation. <br />The preponderance of those areas currently being mowed, are likely to remain so. However among the many <br />reasons to reconsider turfgrass for ground cover in areas in parks where there is not a identifiable reason for it, cost <br />accounting is one factor. There also is the benefit of less chemicals (fertilizers and herbicides) introduced into the <br />environment, reduced pollutants (noise, water and air), and for visual interest (aesthetics —flowering plants and a <br />diversity forbs, shrubs, grasses and trees add beauty to the landscape). Additionally, habitat for all manner of <br />wildlife is greatly increased over monoculture turfgrass. <br />A very brief summary of some of the above benefits are highlighted within this link: <br />https://conservationtools.org/guides/1 5 1-from-lawn-to-meadow <br />Purpose: <br />As indicated, the Commission acknowledged the implementation of this turfgrass options and alternatives policy at <br />the end of the growing season in 2020. The purpose of this case is to report on the direction of this endeavor as <br />Staff begins the workplan and analysis. <br />Notification: <br />Observations/Alternatives: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.