The purpose of this case is to begin a conversation on the topic of the conversion of some new or existing public lands to a ground cover that does not require weekly mowing—and to look at cultural practices like reduced mowing regimes (and visual expectations), as well as potentially the application of Plant Growth Regulators.  There are many acres of park land in the community that will and should remain as traditional turfgrass, like athletic fields, walking areas and informal play areas or leisure areas around playgrounds or the amphitheater etc.

The preponderance of those areas currently being mowed, are likely to remain so. However among the many reasons to reconsider monoculture turfgrass for ground cover in parks, cost accounting is one factor.

IF the City were to spend (now or in the future) approximately $100,000 per year annually on mowing park lands, and if the city were (over time) be able to reduce this cost by 15%, the savings to residents over a decade would be $150,000 dollars—over twenty five years, in excess of a $375,000.  These savings, realized by a small conversion of ground cover to more sustainable types, cultural changes in mowing practices, and potentially through grounds maintenance practices like the prudent application of Plant Growth Regulators, could provide for these same monies to be reinvested in the park system in ways that provide a far better public return on annual investment.  A very brief summary of some of these benefits are highlighted within this link:

https://conservationtools.org/guides/151-from-lawn-to-meadow

An additional summary of the benefits delivered by alternatives to 'traditional' turf is included within the attachment to this case

Pearson Park, the site of the Commission's regularly scheduled September meeting is an example of an alternative ground cover—that while is not cost-free, is certainly at a much less expense annually, in terms of what would be a weekly mobilization of people and equipment to mow the slopes around the playground.
 

More information and examples of what may constitute a shift in policy, resulting from the options and alternatives exploration to turfgass will be available at the meeting.

The primary topic of this case may entail a reduction in General Fund maintenance obligations (costs).

Staff recommends the exploration that is the essence of this case.

Based upon discussion, by motion or consensus— recommend Staff undertake an exploration of options and alternatives to turfgrass in public areas, that are currently being mowed.