Report to/Rapport au :

Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee/

Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux

And Council/et au Conseil

203 October 2004/ le 20 octobre 2004

Submitted by/Soumis par: R.T. Leclair, Deputy City Manager,

Department of Public Works & Services / Directrice municipale adjointe, Services et Travaux publics

Contact/Personne ressource: Dale Philpotts, Director of Surface Operations/

Directeur, Opérations de surface

580-2424 ext./poste 25543, Dale.Philpotts@ottawa.ca

Ref N°: ACS2004-PWS-SOP 0005

SUBJECT: MAINTENANCE QUALITY STANDARDS – PARKS, SPORTS FIELDS AND TREES

OBJET : NORMES DE QUALITÉ EN MATIÈRE D’ENTRETIEN DES PARCS, DES TERRAINS DE SPORT ET DES ARBRES

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend Council approve the maintenance quality standards for parks, sports fields and trees as set out in Annex B.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver les normes de qualité en matière d’entretien des parcs, des terrains de sport et des arbres telles qu’elles sont décrites dans l’annexe B;

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis

The municipal amalgamation process brought together 12 municipal authorities providing similar road, park and tree maintenance services defined and delivered to varying levels across the former jurisdictions. The Department commenced the process of consolidating, rationalizing and harmonizing the services to be provided by seeking Council’s approval of the guiding principles for the harmonization process on August 8, 2001.

The approved Service Level Harmonization Strategy included the key elements of community and stakeholder consultation, former jurisdictional service comparison and peer community review, development of new maintenance classification systems, and development of relevant service level standards.

On October 23, 2002 the Department provided Council with a Status Report highlighting progress on the harmonization process and subsequently on June 11, 2003 Council was presented with and approved the Maintenance Quality Standards for Roads and Sidewalks/Pathways.

The Department continued to implement the approved harmonization strategy to develop the proposed maintenance quality standards for parks, sports fields and trees that are contained herein for Committee and Council’s approval.

On March 26, 2004, City Council completed a comprehensive review of City programs and services resulting in the adoption of the 2004 operating and capital budgets. Service reductions as a result of council budgets decisions, have been reflected in the proposed maintenance quality standards for parks, sports fields and trees.

The recommended standards for turf and for sports field maintenance standardizes the delivery of many ~~repitoire~~ services, which, collectively, constitute the Department’s turf management program. Coinciding with the preparation of these proposed standards was the development of the Sportsfield Strategy by Parks and Recreation (approved by Council June 9, 2004) and the Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property developed by Environmental Management (approved August 25, 2004). In keeping with these policies, the proposed maintenance quality standards support the recreation, health and community infrastructure objectives of these policies in promoting turf conditions through appropriate maintenance levels.

Financial Implications

The recommended maintenance quality standards for parks, sports fields and trees can be accommodated within the existing budget.

Public Consultation/Input

In order to understand the views and expectations of residents, the City undertook extensive community consultation including a public opinion survey conducted by Decima Research Inc. on the City’s behalf. Details of the consultation process were provided to Council in October 2002; complete details are included in Annex C.

Service reductions approved as part of the 2004 budget process were the subject of budget consultation at Standing Committee meetings in late 2003.

In addition, the Department participated in the consultation processes for initiatives led by other departments, such as the sports field strategy and the allocation policy with People Services, and the pesticide policy with Development Services.

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse

Les 12 municipalités qui ont fusionné pour former la nouvelle Ville d’Ottawa assuraient divers services d’entretien des routes, des parcs et des arbres. La première étape du processus de rationalisation et d’harmonisation des services entrepris par Services et Travaux publics a consisté à demander au Conseil municipal, le 8 août 2001, d’approuver les principes directeurs liés au processus d’harmonisation.

La Stratégie d’harmonisation du niveau de service approuvée présentait les éléments-clés de la consultation avec les parties intéressées et les membres de la collectivité, la comparaison des services assurés par les anciennes compétences et l’évaluation par les pairs dans la collectivité, la création de systèmes de classification des services d’entretien ainsi que la mise en place de normes de qualité de service pertinentes.

Le 23 octobre 2002, Services et Travaux publics a remis au Conseil municipal un rapport d’étape sur l’avancement du processus d’harmonisation. Le 11 juin 2003, le Conseil a approuvé les Normes de qualité en matière d’entretien des routes et trottoirs ou sentiers qui lui avaient été présentées.

Services et Travaux publics a poursuivi la mise en place de la stratégie d’harmonisation approuvée afin de mettre au point les normes de qualité en matière d’entretien des parcs, des terrains de sport et des arbres et de les soumettre à l’approbation du Comité et du Conseil municipal.

Le 26 mars 2004, le Conseil municipal achevait un examen complet des programmes et services offerts par la Ville, lequel a donné lieu à l’adoption des budgets de fonctionnement et des immobilisations de 2004. Les réductions de services découlant des décisions budgétaires prises par le Conseil ont eu des répercussions sur les normes de qualité proposées en matière d’entretien des parcs, des terrains de sport et des arbres.

Les normes recommandées en matière d’entretien de la pelouse et des terrains de sport visent à uniformiser la prestation des nombreux services visés par le programme d’entretien de la pelouse géré par Services et Travaux publics. La Stratégie pour les terrains de sport adoptée par Parcs et Loisirs (approuvée par le Conseil le 9 juin 2004) et la Politique concernant l’utilisation de pesticides sur les propriétés de la Ville d’Ottawa conçue par Gestion de l’environnement (approuvée le 25 août 2004) ont été mises au point au moment même où les normes proposées étaient élaborées. Les normes de qualité proposées en matière d’entretien appuient les objectifs définis dans la Stratégie et la Politique en matière d’infrastructure communautaire, de santé et de loisirs en favorisant des niveaux d’entretien appropriés pour assurer le bon état des pelouses.

Répercussions financières

Les normes de qualité recommandées en matière d’entretien des parcs, des terrains de sport et des arbres peuvent être satisfaites à partir du budget actuel.

Consultation publique et commentaires

La Ville a organisé des consultations à grande échelle auprès de la collectivité, y compris un sondage d’opinion réalisé par Decima Research Inc. au nom de la Ville, afin de connaître le point de vue et les attentes des résidents en ce qui concerne ce dossier. Les modalités du processus de consultation ont été présentées au Conseil en octobre 2002 (et figurent intégralement à l’annexe C).

La consultation budgétaire menée au cours des réunions du comité permanent à la fin de 2003 portait sur les réductions de services approuvées dans le cadre du processus budgétaire de 2004.

De plus, Services et Travaux publics a participé aux processus de consultation dans le cas de projets menés par d’autres services, telles la Stratégie pour les terrains de sport et la Politique d’attribution des installations des Services aux citoyens ainsi que la Politique concernant l’utilisation des pesticides des Services d’aménagement.

BACKGROUND

During the harmonization process, a need to develop a consistent platform for the delivery of maintenance service for roads, sidewalks, parks and trees was identified. Subsequently, on 08 August 2001, Council approved a Service Level Harmonization Strategy that included the following components:

1. Community and stakeholder consultation to ensure that the needs of residents and key stakeholders were identified and addressed.

2. The collection of background information including: a review of service level standards of the former municipal jurisdictions to document the levels of service in rural, suburban and urban areas; a peer comparison with other comparable municipalities; and, a review of legislated standards.

3. The development of new maintenance classification systems for roads, sidewalks, parks and trees that would group similar amenities into classes to ensure consistent service delivery across the City.

4. The development of service level options and financial implications for key service standards.

5. A report to appropriate Standing Committees and Council.

An extensive process was undertaken, including a review of practices of former municipalities, peer comparison with other municipalities, and seeking community input, resulting in the Maintenance Standards for Roads and Sidewalks/Pathways being presented to the then Transportation and Transit Committee and approved by Council under a separate report in June 2003.

This report recommends service levels and maintenance quality standards for parks, sports fields and trees for Committee and Council approval. These proposed maintenance quality standards reflect the 2003/2004 budget service reductions.

DISCUSSION

Ottawa 20/20

In June 2002, Council adopted seven principles to guide growth and long-term decision making within the City. These guiding principles are based on extensive public consultation. The seven principles and accompanying objectives have been recognized in the development process for the City’s maintenance quality standards. The relationship between the principles and the proposed maintenance quality standards is demonstrated as follows:

A Responsible and Responsive City – by setting maintenance levels that are safe, dependable and affordable for the community.

A Caring and Inclusive City – by inviting the full community to be involved in the development of the maintenance standards.
A Creative City Rich in Heritage, Unique in Identity – by recognizing the distinctiveness of being a capital city and the urban-suburban-rural environment in the development of the maintenance standards.
A Green and Environmentally Sensitive City – by developing maintenance standards that are responsive to walking, cycling and public transit, that recognize the value of the City’s trees, parks and natural areas, and that protect the natural environment by maintaining turf without the use of chemical pesticides.
A City of Distinct, Livable Communities – by developing maintenance standards that recognize rural-suburban-urban distinctions and the value of Ottawa’s many communities and the need to keep them clean, green and accessible.
An Innovative City Where Prosperity is Shared Among All – by recognizing the distinct maintenance requirements of tourism and commercial areas, the importance of maintenance to the movement of people and goods, and the positive image a clean and green City projects as a livable city.
A Healthy and Active City – by developing maintenance standards that promote the use of the City’s parks and sports fields, pathways and cycling facilities.

Description of the Proposed Maintenance Quality Standards

The maintenance quality standards (details in Annex B and summarized in Annex A) have been developed with input from the community, through peer comparison of other municipalities and through the review of provincial guidelines. Through this process the following objectives for the standards were defined:

· To provide safe, dependable and affordable service levels;

· To preserve the infrastructure assets;

· To protect the natural environment;

· To enhance the appearance and health of the community;

· To provide a reference framework to measure performance;

· To provide a basis of “Peer Review” with other comparable cities; and

· To provide Council and citizens with a reference of expectations.

The maintenance quality standards have been written with the perspective of the user in mind. As much as possible, they anticipate the end result of maintenance services – the benefits to users. The standards outline the time and extent of a particular maintenance activity. They also link directly to larger, measurable objectives – a clean city, safe parks, healthy trees and forests, etc.

The standards do not prescribe how to deliver services. How services are delivered forms part of an operations manual (to be developed after standards have been approved) as delivery may evolve over time with changes in equipment, materials, innovation and technology. This is a change from many of the standards of the former municipalities, which focused on how to deliver services rather than defining the timing and extent of these services. Having measurable outcomes is also consistent with the Ottawa 20/20 vision.

While the implementation of the maintenance quality standards will begin after being approved by Council, it will take a few years for the service levels to be fully implemented, monitored and evaluated. Monitoring and tracking systems will need to be developed to support the new standards. Once these systems are in place, the intent is to provide Committee with an observation of the effectiveness of the standards.

Community Input

In order to understand the views and expectations of residents, the City undertook extensive community consultation (refer to Annex C for details).

The consultation process included a public opinion survey. Based on the results of the random telephone survey conducted by Decima Research Inc. on the Department’s behalf, almost 9 in 10 were generally, if not very, satisfied with the overall level of service provided by the City’s maintenance operations. Input also indicated that residents consider important services that involve the care and management of green spaces and aesthetic clean up.

In addition, the following are some of the more significant issues that were raised during the consultation process (refer to Annex C for other consultation process details):

· While the majority of residents support the City’s initiative to discontinue the use of chemical pesticides, many residents expressed concerns that the quality of parks and boulevards has deteriorated.

· The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee expressed concerns with the quality of the existing fields and the need to upgrade some of them before the proposed standards can be considered effective.

· Many residents and the Ottawa Forest Advisory Committee expressed concerns with the care of newly planted trees and the need to provide additional maintenance in the early years until they are established.

Community expectations and the issues they identified during the consultation process have been taken into consideration and reflected, wherever practical, in the development of the quality maintenance standards.

Practices of Former Municipalities

The development of the proposed maintenance quality standards included a review of the practices of the former municipalities. All of the former municipalities were responsible for similar maintenance activities. However, as noted earlier, the means by which they defined their standards and by which they delivered the services did vary. In some instances some of the former municipalities did not have defined standards, and services were delivered based on past practices that were consistent with community expectations. Annex A provides an overview of the proposed maintenance standards compared to the practices of the former municipalities.

Peer Comparison with Other Municipalities

The development of the proposed maintenance quality standards also included a review of the standards of other comparable municipalities. A summary of findings is presented in Annex D.

Challenges with the peer comparison included the number of standards involved and the difficulty in finding municipalities that shared all of Ottawa’s distinctive characteristics. For example, very few municipalities have developed “outcome” based standards that could be compared directly, some have no documented standards, few have a similar urban-suburban-rural component, and few are subject to the same weather conditions and profile as Ottawa. As a result, the review focused on specific areas where Ottawa compared with the other municipalities.

Contacts were made with a number of municipalities. Information was received from those listed below.

· Capital Cities: Quebec City, Halifax, Winnipeg, Washington DC

· Canadian Cities: London, Thunder Bay, Waterloo

· Other Agencies: National Capital Commission

Overall, the level of service proposed for the City of Ottawa is comparable to other similar municipalities. Of the capital cities consulted, it was observed that a higher level of service is provided in tourism areas (i.e. street trees, turf maintenance in high profile parks and sports fields). However, the level of service provided to other areas of the city is generally not much different than with other typical cities. As with other capital cities, it is proposed to continue with a higher level of service for tourism and high profile areas of the City of Ottawa.

Maintenance Classification

Maintenance classifications are used to categorize parks, sports fields and trees of similar characteristics, function and level of use into similar classes. These classes are used to prioritize the delivery of maintenance activities. A summary of the maintenance classes was presented in the October 2002 committee report and details are included in Section 201.01 of Annex B.

Recommended Maintenance Quality Standards

The proposed maintenance quality standards have been developed with the intention of providing a consistent and appropriate level of service to all citizens of the City of Ottawa, within the current funding envelope, while focusing on preserving the quality of the assets. They have been crafted based on an extensive community consultation process, the review of the standards of the former municipalities and of other comparable external municipalities. The proposed standards respond to the principles outlined in the Ottawa 20/20 growth plans, especially as they concern the management of green assets.

Given the diversity and extent of information covered under the proposed maintenance quality standards (Annex B), the following highlights services that either had significant service level variations between former municipalities or that were subject of greatest public interest. A more detailed overview of these proposed maintenance quality standards, compared to the practices of the former municipalities is provided in Annex A.

Turf Management in Parks

During the community consultation process many residents indicated that parks were important assets; however, when deciding on how to allocate funds, it was generally agreed that a higher level of maintenance should be provided on high use/profile parks and on sports fields, given that these are generally more intensively used and more frequently permitted facilities warranting higher service levels.

The community consultation process also indicated a very strong support for the city’s initiative to maintain city parks without the use of chemical pesticides. Prior to amalgamation, it is estimated that approximately 40% of the City’s parks were sprayed with chemical pesticides as part of an integrated pest management program. However, as a result of the interim pesticide policy adopted by Council in 2001 discontinuing the use of pesticides, pesticides were no longer applied in those former municipalities (Kanata, Gloucester, Goulbourn, West Carleton) that included this practice as part of their turf management regime. With the recent Council approval of the new Corporate Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property on August 25, 2004, pesticides will continue to be banned for use during routine maintenance relying instead on cultural methods to manage turf.

The recommended turf management program in parks is comparable to the level provided in most of the former municipalities by providing bi-weekly grass cutting and spot topdressing/overseeding. Aeration will continue to be provided in higher profile/used parks (i.e. Heritage, Brewer, Britannia) and spot application in other lower profile parks primarily as a remedial measure. An annual application of fertilizer in passive park areas, which was previously undertaken only in former Gloucester, was eliminated during the 2004 budget process.

It is recognized that weeds will continue to be present in most parks, especially given the fact that many parks have been pesticide free for a number of years. Attempting to maintain parks free of weeds would be financially prohibitive. For example, the City has over 750 parks for a total area in excess of 2,000 hectares; the cost to provide aeration, fertilization and more frequent grass cutting to help sustain turf better able to compete with weeds is estimated in the order of $1,900 per hectare for an aggregate amount in excess of $3.5 million. This would not totally eliminate the potential weed problem as the turf would still go dormant during drought conditions and this is the time when weeds become more prominent.

The Department will continue the current trend toward increased areas of naturalization. Environmental concerns have compelled responsible public agencies to increase naturalized areas free of insecticides and herbicides and to reduce the frequency of grass cutting in passive park areas. This reduction in the amount of turf area results in a greater number of areas that support a wide variety of indigenous plant species. In time, domestic grass previously manicured in these newly establishing naturalized areas will gradually yield to wildflowers as indigenous plant species adapt and the area returns to its natural state. This would leave designated areas in a more natural state, reduce the prominence of unsightly weeds and allow existing limited resources to redirect efforts on the remaining regularly maintained portions of the parks.

Also, the Department will continue to review emerging alternatives, through local universities/colleges and other agencies, to research, and perhaps pilot, alternatives to chemical pesticides, alternative ground covers and grass seed mixtures that may be more resistant to drought, thus maintaining a competing environment against weeds. Examples of previous trials include, with limited success, alternative use of nematodes and pepper extracts for the control of grubs, the use of a high-pressure steam and a salt/vinegar mixture for the control of weeds.

Turf Management in Sports Fields

The community consultation process indicated a strong support for the management of the City’s sports fields and a very strong support for the city’s initiative to maintain city fields without the use of chemical pesticides. Prior to amalgamation, it is estimated that half of the City’s sports fields were sprayed with chemical pesticides as part of an integrated pest management program. However, as a result of the interim policy adopted by Council in 2001 and the recent Council approval of the new Corporate Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property on August 25, 2004, this practice remains discontinued.

As part of the 2002 budget, Council approved an additional $565,000 to implement an interim turf management strategy that would see high profile sports fields receive the following level of maintenance:

· 4 aerating cycles

· 3 fertilizing cycles using a premium grade fertilizer

· 1 overseeding cycle

· 1 topdressing cycle

· grass cutting on a weekly or bi-weekly cycle subject to growth conditions.

These service levels remained intact throughout the 2004 budget process.

As part of the harmonization process, the Department has refined the maintenance regime based on the class of sports fields in order to provide a higher level of attention to the City’s high profile facilities (summarized in Annex A with details defined in Annex B). It is worthwhile noting that since the implementation of the interim turf management program there have been noticeable improvements in the quality of some fields that did not previously use pesticides (i.e. reduction in bare spots, reduction of weeds and stronger turf that recovers more quickly after use). While the current improvements are not drastic, it is anticipated that many fields will continue to see gradual improvements through the recommended turf management program. However, it is also recognized that others will only benefit from the program after having been either reconstructed or rehabilitated (i.e. Brewer, Brookfields, etc).

Some sports field users and some of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee members have expressed concerns with the condition of small number of existing fields and how the recommended turf management program will improve these fields. As noted earlier, there have been noticeable improvements to the quality of some fields as a result of the interim program and this is expected to continue under the recommended turf management program. That said, there is recognition that some of the fields may require improvements in order for the turf management program to be the most effective. There are many factors resulting in the condition of the existing fields, including the standard of construction, prior level of maintenance, usage, lack of rest periods, age and so on. An additional factor is the result of grubs and other pests. It is estimated that in the order of 1% of City fields are down due to grub damage. This situation will continue to be monitored and Council will be advised if this problem continues to rise. The intent of the recommended turf management strategy is to provide an environment whereby the turf can compete with the weeds and by doing so reduce the weed coverage. However, it is recognized that it will not be feasible to eliminate all of the weeds, but the objective is to establish a safe playing surface. Water is a key element required to favour optimum turf growing conditions. However, there are only a little over a dozen fields city wide that are irrigated and the capital cost to irrigate a field is in the order of $20,000 to $25,000 plus the annual operating cost making this option cost prohibitive for all fields. The Department’s desire for inclusion of irrigation systems for new or reconstructed fields has been raised to the attention of the Parks and Recreation Branch of the Department of Community and Protective Services for consideration in future sports field development.

As noted earlier, the Department will continue to research emerging alternatives to chemical pesticides, alternative ground covers and grass seed mixtures that may be more resistant to drought, thus maintaining a competing environment for the weeds. The Department will also continue to support Parks and Recreation Branch in the development of a condition assessment process that would consider all sports fields to determine life cycle strategy and identify immediate rehabilitation needs along with associated costs and funding gaps.

It is important to note, that the new Sportsfield Strategy developed by Parks and Recreation and approved by Council on June 9, 2004 provides the framework to develop and improve sports fields to meet existing and futures needs while allocating fields in a manner that supports responsible use, thus reducing unnecessary stress on the asset. This strategy, coupled with the new Parks and Facilities By-law approved by Council on June 23, 2004, provides the necessary means to ensure sports fields are utilized in a manner appropriate to the condition and purpose of the field as well as ensuring sports fields receive adequate periods of rehabilitation to sustain the benefits of the turf management practices to preserve the asset.

Lifecycle inspections and maintenance for trees

As reflected in the Ottawa 20/20, trees are important city assets. There are differences between the former municipalities in the maintenance levels for trees. The Ottawa Forest Advisory Committee also expressed this concern. With the exception of the former City of Ottawa and Region, which had a tree maintenance program in place, tree maintenance in other former municipalities was delivered primarily on an as required basis and subject to service requests. As a result of the differences in service levels between the former municipalities, the large and diverse inventory of trees, maturing trees in the suburbs, climate changes (i.e. drought) increasing the need for maintenance, much of the resources are currently being used on a priority bases.

Based on the input of the community, the recommended maintenance standards define a minimum level of care for all newly planted trees during the first three years after planting. This will provide the additional level of care required for newly planted trees to get adjusted to their new environment. The mulching of established trees, in excess of 10cm in diameter, was eliminated during the 2004 budget.

Additionally, the 2004 budget resulted in a 50% reduction of shrub maintenance activities with work to be carried out on a reactive basis only. Also, some maintenance activities in community forests have also been eliminated; those activities that address hazards that may pose a safety risk continue to be undertaken. These service changes are all reflected in the proposed quality standards.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The Department, in consultation with other departments and in keeping with the City’s pesticide policy, will continue to manage the maintenance of parks, sports fields and trees in an environmentally responsible manner.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

A unique characteristic of the new City of Ottawa is its distinctive rural-suburban-urban setting. This was identified through the extensive public consultation process and has been reflected in the proposed maintenance quality standards. The objective of the service level harmonization strategy was to bring consistency both to the most densely populated urban areas and to the smallest rural villages.

CONSULTATION

As noted earlier, details of the consultation process were provided in the October 2002 status report. Complete details are included in Annex C. The proposed service level enhancements are directly a result of the community feedback provided through this consultation process.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The recommended maintenance quality standards for parks, sports fields and trees can be accommodated within the existing budget.

ATTACHMENTS

Annex A – Overview of Maintenance Quality Standards Compared to Practices of Former Municipalities

Annex B - Recommended Maintenance Quality Standards for Parks, Sports Fields and Trees

Annex C - Summary of Public Consultation Process

Annex D – Summary of Peer Comparison with External Municipalities

DISPOSITION

Upon approval by Council, the Public Works and Services Department will begin to implement the new maintenance quality standards.

ANNEX A

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED MAINTENANCE QUALITY STANDARDS

COMPARED TO PRACTICES OF FORMER MUNICIPALITIES

Service	Proposed Maintenance Standards	Cumberland	Gloucester	Osgoode
Turf maintenance of sports fields	- grass cutting every 3-7 days depending on sports field class - aeration 2-4 times per year depending on sports field class - fertilization 2-3 times per year depending on sports field class - topdressing and overseeding once per year or as required depending on sports field class	Proposed standard was implemented in 2002 when Council approved the turf management strategy for sports fields as a result of the discontinued use of chemical pesticides.	Proposed standard was implemented in 2002 when Council approved the turf management strategy for sports fields as a result of the discontinued use of chemical pesticides.	Proposed standard was implemented in 2002 when Council approved the turf management strategy for sports fields as a result of the discontinued use of chemical pesticides.
Turf maintenance of parks	Parks - grass cutting every 5-14 days depending on park class - topdressing and overseeding once per year of city level parks and spot application as required of other parks	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Grass cutting and topdressing/overseeding is comparable to proposed standards. Aeration and fertilization to be applied on an annual basis only on high profile/use (i.e. class 1) parks. Other class of parks to be done on an as required basis for remedial repairs instead of on a regular cycle as is currently the practice.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
Tree maintenance	- Newly planted to receive a regular level of maintenance during the first 3 years, including watering, fertilization, mulching, etc. - Hazards to be addressed within 24 hours. - Further review is ongoing on the development of a lifecycle inspection and maintenance program.	No formal tree maintenance program. The proposed standard will provide a higher level of service for newly planted trees.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	No formal tree maintenance program. The proposed standard will provide a higher level of service for newly planted trees.
Collection of litter containers	Litter containers to be emptied 1-7 times per week depending on location. Reduced frequency and number of locations during the winter season.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.

Service	Proposed Maintenance Standards	Kanata	Nepean	Goulbourn
Turf maintenance of sports fields	- grass cutting every 3-7 days depending on sports field class - aeration 2-4 times per year depending on sports field class - fertilization 2-3 times per year depending on sports field class - topdressing and overseeding once per year or as required depending on sports field class	Proposed standard was implemented in 2002 when Council approved the turf management strategy for sports fields as a result of the discontinued use of chemical pesticides.	Proposed standard was implemented in 2002 when Council approved the turf management strategy for sports fields as a result of the discontinued use of chemical pesticides.	Proposed standard was implemented in 2002 when Council approved the turf management strategy for sports fields as a result of the discontinued use of chemical pesticides.
Turf maintenance of parks	Parks - grass cutting every 5-14 days depending on park class - topdressing and overseeding once per year of city level parks and spot application as required of other parks	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
Tree maintenance	- Newly planted to receive a regular level of maintenance during the first 3 years, including watering, fertilization, mulching, etc. - Hazards to be addressed within 24 hours. - Further review is ongoing on the development of a lifecycle inspection and maintenance program.	No formal tree maintenance program. The proposed standard will provide a higher level of service for newly planted trees.	No formal tree maintenance program. The proposed standard will provide a higher level of service for newly planted trees.	No formal tree maintenance program. The proposed standard will provide a higher level of service for newly planted trees.
Collection of litter containers	Litter containers to be emptied 1-7 times per week depending on location. Reduced frequency and number of locations during the winter season.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Inventory of litter containers maintained by the City is relatively low. No change in service level.

Service	Proposed Maintenance Standards	Ottawa	Vanier	Rockliffe Park
Turf maintenance of sports fields	- grass cutting every 3-7 days depending on sports field class - aeration 2-4 times per year depending on sports field class - fertilization 2-3 times per year depending on sports field class - topdressing and overseeding once per year or as required depending on sports field class	Proposed standard was implemented in 2002 when Council approved the turf management strategy for sports fields as a result of the discontinued use of chemical pesticides.	Proposed standard was implemented in 2002 when Council approved the turf management strategy for sports fields as a result of the discontinued use of chemical pesticides.	Not applicable as there are no sports fields in Rockliffe Park.
Turf maintenance of parks	Parks - grass cutting every 5-14 days depending on park class - topdressing and overseeding once per year of city level parks and spot application as required of other parks	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
Tree maintenance	- Newly planted to receive a regular level of maintenance during the first 3 years, including watering, fertilization, mulching, etc. - Hazards to be addressed within 24 hours. - Further review is ongoing on the development of a lifecycle inspection and maintenance program.	Resources that carried out lifecycle inspection and maintenance are currently being redeployed across the new City to address ongoing service requests.	No formal tree maintenance program. The proposed standard will provide a higher level of service for newly planted trees.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.
Collection of litter containers	Litter containers to be emptied 1-7 times per week depending on location. Reduced frequency and number of locations during the winter season.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Inventory of litter containers maintained by the City is relatively low. No change in service level.	Inventory of litter containers maintained by the City is relatively low. No change in service level.

Service	Proposed Maintenance Standards	Rideau	West Carleton	Region of Ottawa-Carleton
Turf maintenance of sports fields	- grass cutting every 3-7 days depending on sports field class - aeration 2-4 times per year depending on sports field class - fertilization 2-3 times per year depending on sports field class - topdressing and overseeding once per year or as required depending on sports field class	Proposed standard was implemented in 2002 when Council approved the turf management strategy for sports fields as a result of the discontinued use of chemical pesticides.	Proposed standard was implemented in 2002 when Council approved the turf management strategy for sports fields as a result of the discontinued use of chemical pesticides.	Not applicable. Service delivered by former local municipalities.
Turf maintenance of parks	Parks - grass cutting every 5-14 days depending on park class - topdressing and overseeding once per year of city level parks and spot application as required of other parks	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Not applicable. Service delivered by former local municipalities.
Tree maintenance	- Newly planted to receive a regular level of maintenance during the first 3 years, including watering, fertilization, mulching, etc. - Hazards to be addressed within 24 hours. - Further review is ongoing on the development of a lifecycle inspection and maintenance program.	No formal tree maintenance program. The proposed standard will provide a higher level of service for newly planted trees.	No formal tree maintenance program. The proposed standard will provide a higher level of service for newly planted trees.	Resources that carried out lifecycle inspection and maintenance are currently being redeployed across the new City to address ongoing service requests.
Collection of litter containers	Litter containers to be emptied 1-7 times per week depending on location. Reduced frequency and number of locations during the winter season.	Comparable to proposed standard. No change in service level.	Inventory of litter containers maintained by the City is relatively low. No change in service level.	Not applicable. Service delivered by former local municipalities.

Term	Definition
*“Aeration”* *“Alligatoring”*	tractor mounted aerating equipment that cores, spikes, sits, tines or vertidrains soil in order to reduce compaction. a pattern of cracks on pavement that are interconnected and form a series of small blocks resembling an alligator’s skin.
*“As Practicable”*	the period of time from being made aware of the problem until the time when action and repairs can be implemented.
*“As Soon As Practicable”*	the period of time from being made aware of a problem until the time when action and repairs can be taken at the site of the problem.
*“Bleachers”*	spectator seating as sports fields.
*“Culvert”*	a structure designed to allow the passage of surface water in ditches or streams, or of livestock or pedestrians under a roadway or roadside entrance.
*“Ditch”* *“Drainage Inlet”* *“Duration Time”* *“Fertilization”* “Gilling”	an open facility constructed to carry water to an outlet. a structure designed to allow the passage of surface water in ditches or streams. the length of time required to complete a particular maintenance activity. Fertilizer applied in a granular form using a tractor pulled hopper. Adds nutrients to the soil. activity performed using specialized machinery. Intended to loosen compacted infield sand at baseball diamonds.
*“Hazard”*	any object or condition that may represent a threat to public or personal safety.
*“Integrated Turf* *Management”* *“Irrigation”*	a system of turf related activities (including mowing, aeration, topdressing, etc.) designed to promote healthy turf and to reduce the reliance or need for chemical inputs. applied via underground systems; or above using hoses and sprinklers; or using a water truck.
*“Ironworks”* *“Light Standard”*	the frames and covers or frames and grates of maintenance holes, catch basins, ditch inlets and culvert grates free standing lighting feature.
*“Made Aware Time”* *“Mowing”* *“Mulching”* *“Mulch”*	the clock time of day that a problem call is received by Surface Operations. This is the logged clock time that information calls from patrols, active operators or the public are received. the cutting of grass using rotary or reel tractor mounted mowers. placement of material around young trees a protective covering, usually of organic matter such as leaves, straw, or peat, placed around plants to prevent the evaporation of moisture, the freezing of roots, and the growth of weeds
*“Planned Maintenance”* *“Play Structures”*	maintenance carried out on a planned or regular basis to ensure that roadway and structural components continue to function as far as practical to end of life. play equipment in parks requiring specialized inspections and remedial in order to meet CSA requirements.
*“Response Time”*	the maximum length of time required to attend to a situation requiring specific maintenance practices.
*“Site Furniture”* *“Sodding”*	includes benches, fences, waste receptacles and… worn out or bare areas are cut out and new sod is laid. Often needed at goal mouths of soccer fields or pedestrian desire lines of public spaces.
*“Soil Testing”*	small core samples or soil are taken from the turf areas, this is typically done when turf is exhibiting some deficiency.

Scope

This section (200 series) of the Maintenance Quality Standards applies to maintenance operations in parks, sports fields, boulevards and trees.

Maintenance Classifications

Maintenance classifications are used to categorize parks, sport fields and trees of similar characteristics and function into similar classes. These classes are used to prioritize the delivery of maintenance activities. The maintenance classes are defined in Tables 201.01.01, 201.01.02 and 201.01.03. These may be adjusted from time to time to reflect changing usage and need requirements.

Table 201.01.01 – Park Maintenance Classification

Primary Classification	Secondary Classification
Primary Classification	A	B
1	Level of Use venue for major events (Folk Festival, Hope Beach Volleyball) draw from whole City and beyond (i.e. Britannia, Mooney’s Bay) Location waterfronts and beaches Amenities washroom/change rooms parking may include sports fields	Level of Use occasional venue for events booked for corporate picnics and the like Location combined with other facilities such as a pool or arena Amenities washroom/change rooms parking may include sports fields or unique attractions, like a skateboard area (i.e. Brewer Park)
2	Level of Use venue for several community scale events Location combined with a school or community center inner city sites heritage sites Amenities washrooms parking may include sports fields or a wading pool play structures	Level of Use occasional venue for community events Location Amenities washrooms parking may include sports fields or a wading pool play structures
3	Level of Use used for leisure by nearby residents Location inner city sites heritage sites Amenities play structures may have a parking lot	Level of Use used for leisure by nearby residents Location Amenities may include a play structure

Table 201.01.02 –Sports Field Maintenance Classification

Primary Classification	Secondary Classification
Primary Classification	A	B
1	Level of Use venue for national or international events (i.e. Minto Field) Location Amenities · show piece field, may include artificial turf irrigated fields lighting, bleachers washrooms, field house parking	Level of Use draws competitive level players from across city and beyond for matches and tournaments (i.e. Shefford Rd Park) Location Amenities washrooms, field house lighting, bleachers may be irrigated parking
2	Level of Use adult and youth competitive leagues Location Amenities may have lighting, bleachers may be irrigated washrooms, field house parking	Level of Use youth and adult recreational leagues Location Amenities may have washrooms or a field house may have bleachers parking
3	Level of Use youth leagues Location adjacent to a school Amenities · single field, may be of regulation size may include parking	Level of Use entry level developmental leagues or informal practice Location Amenities single field, may be of regulation size

Table 201.01.03 – Tree and Natural Area Maintenance Classification

Primary Classification		Secondary Classification
Primary Classification		A	B	C
1	Road Corridors	Core urban areas and Village main streets, hard surface plantings, Elm trees, significant/heritage trees, (trees in sensitive clay soils)	Along urban arterials and collectors streets, urban/rural residential streets, trees in medians (i.e. Heron Road), trees in soft surface boulevards (i.e. Jeanne d'Arc Blvd, Strandherd Road East), Naturalization (i.e. West Hunt Club Road)	Trees and hedgerows along rural arterial and collectors roads (i.e. Dwyer Hill Road, Century Road, Anderson Road and Russell Road), roadside brushing

2	Parks, Sports Fields and Facilities	Key locations (City Hall, Brewer Park), trees planted for shade beside play structures, commemorative trees, significant/heritage trees, Elm trees	Individual trees in parks or at municipal facilities	N/A

3	Conservation Lands	Edge conditions adjacent to schools, trails and private properties	Ravine lands-inside conditions (i.e. Graham Creek, Bilberry Creek, Sawmill Creek)	N/A

4	Community Woodlots and Forests	Forests with walking trails or adjacent to a community (i.e. Torbolton Forest)	Community Forests (i.e. Carp Hills, Marlborough Forest, Cumberland Forest, etc.)	N/A

ANNEX C

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS

Background

The City of Ottawa’s Department of Public Works and Services has proceeded with a major study to examine consolidating, rationalizing and harmonizing park, sports field and tree maintenance standards. The objective is to develop service standards that will be applied in a consistent manner across the new City. These will need to reflect the City’s urban-suburban-rural distinctions, vibrant downtown core, climactic conditions and tourism areas while still being affordable.

Standards needed to be developed with the active participation of all stakeholders (i.e. residents, community groups, NCC, other City departments, etc.) to establish the appropriate service levels for the City of Ottawa. Once service standards are established, they will set the framework for allowing the department to consider service delivery options that will produce the most efficient and cost effective operations.

As part of this process, the department asked citizens to help establish maintenance priorities and to indicate the degree of satisfaction with current levels of services. In order to better understand the views and expectations of residents, the City has undertaken an extensive public consultation program to solicit citizen input into what these new municipal standards should be for parks, sports fields and trees.

The public consultation process that was approved by Council had a number of distinct components:

· Two sets of open houses, each with seven meetings;

· Three focus groups;

· A telephone survey;

· Two sets of information sessions with sports field users; and,

· Additional City staff meetings with key stakeholders

Consultation Activities

1. Open Houses

Between November 19 and December 4, 2001 the first set of open houses were held in or near client service centres across the City to provide residents with the opportunity to comment on the City of Ottawa’s harmonization of road, sidewalk, park and tree maintenance. In addition to the first set of open houses, residents were also encouraged through advertisements to send e-mails to the City concerning the harmonization of service standards.

Over the seven open houses, 159 residents attended. A total of 46 comment sheets were completed and two groups, the Rockcliffe Residents Association and the Kanata Lakes Community Association submitted briefs.

As well as comment sheets, residents were asked to fill in a questionnaire, one on parks and trees, the other on roads and sidewalks. 143 completed questionnaires were received. To complete the consultation process, 39 e-mails were received from across the City detailing questions and comments about service harmonization. Of the 39 e-mails, 32 responses were from individuals, six were from special interest groups and one was from a local company.

In terms of issues raised in comment sheets, e-mails and the questionnaires, a number of key considerations emerged:

· The use of pesticides and herbicides is an issue for many residents who wish to see it banned. At the same time however, many users of sports fields feel that it is a necessary part of field maintenance. As such, there is not universal support for an outright ban.

· When asked about parks and trees, public safety was again a high factor in deciding maintenance levels.

· In rural areas, there is a desire to continue the volunteerism surrounding the maintenance of sports fields and parks through community associations.

Between June 3 and June 13, 2002 the second set of open houses were held in or near client service centres across the City. At each open house, information panels outlined the feedback from the first phase of the public consultation process and some of the best practices found in other cities as they relate to park, sports field and tree maintenance. At the Kinburn Open House and the Ottawa City Hall Open House, staff outlined the consultation process and service level options.

During the second series of open houses, 61 residents attended at the seven different locations. A total of 16 comment sheets were completed.

In terms of issues raised during the second series of open houses, a number of common views did emerge. However, given the low number of completed comment sheets, these views should not be seen as indicative of the community at large but rather a small sampling of those who attended the open houses.

· Some residents support limited use of pesticides and herbicides (spot treatment). The alternative such as turf replacement is seen as too expensive.

· Some residents feel that pesticides and herbicides protect trees and help hay fever sufferers.

· Some residents feel graffiti needs to be cleaned up quicker.

2. Sports Field Users Meetings

In addition to the open houses, two separate meetings were organized with sports field users to obtain direct feedback on service standards from these key stakeholders. These meetings were not advertised to the public and groups were invited by direct mail from the City. In many cases, e-mails were also sent to ensure that sports field users attended at least one meeting of the series.

Between February 25 and March 4, 2002 a series of four meetings with sports field users were organized to review draft findings and recommendations.

32 individuals attended the meetings representing a variety of local sports associations. Given the small number of attendees at each meeting, a more informal approach was used allowing for a freer exchange of ideas and comments.

Although the sessions were organized to discuss maintenance standards, many of the comments received related to allocation of fields. In summary, the following issues and comments were common to most meetings:

· If we pay user fees, fields should be maintained even after the end of the school year

· Volunteers willing to fix, but unsure of City stand

· If we need topsoil/gravel, City accommodates

· Conscious of “down time” required before special events - Tournaments

· Excellent partnership with City Staff – ongoing dialogue

· Cutting grass once/week is not enough at times – baseball grass must be a certain length

· Trimming once/month – it is not enough

· Trim cuttings must be cleared more often

· Maintenance level is horrendous

· Maintenance is School Board responsibility – some use contractors - some hire the city to cut the grass, but not maintain as such

· Some school fields in Nepean were redone for school use only

· Need to protect school fields and parks

· Soccer: Big user cost – little grass. When there’s no grass, lines need to be repainted; looking for injuries to happen as cleats don’t have anything to hold on to, therefore, slips and falls

· Aerate 5 times/year would not help, especially during heat. Late Spring & early Fall sufficient

· Turf is a crop – needs water and seeding

· 2.5 hours/night during the week is reasonable

· 6 times/week – 1 night no usage

The second set of meetings with sports field users took place between February 1 and February 5, 2003 and was organized at four different locations across the City. These meetings were organized and the invitations sent out by People Services at the City of Ottawa. To avoid the need for additional meetings, the People Services Department provided time at the end of each open house for a presentation on park classifications.

Questions and answers followed a brief presentation at each session. An “As it was Said” report was prepared after each meeting.

In general, sports field users expressed views as follows:

· Line marking must be done every week

· “Infield gilling” should be done once/day to keep the field in shape

· Schools should not be allowed to use City facilities for practices in order to keep their own fields in good shape

· Volunteerism should continue in maintaining sports fields

· Changes in user fees should be announced early enough to allow associations to adjust fees to sports groups during their budget planning exercise

· Must enforce rest periods for fields

· City should still consider work share proposals for such things as bleachers

· Irrigation is important but consultation is necessary prior to deciding on what method to use across the City

· User fees should be directly related to the classification of fields

3. Telephone Survey

The telephone survey consisted of telephone interviews conducted in either English or French with a representative sample of 1,011 City of Ottawa residents (18 years and older), between December 11 and 30, 2001 (excluding holidays). The purpose of the survey was to gauge citizens’ opinions about the level of service provided in the areas of surface maintenance operations (including park, sports fields and tree maintenance), in terms of their current level of satisfaction and their expectations for what should be provided under the new City.

Importance of Maintenance Services

Surface operation maintenance services, such as green space management are not of particular interest to City residents, except when something goes wrong or there is a problem affecting them directly. Yet the survey results show that citizens place a considerable degree of priority on these types of services, particularly when they have a potential impact on safety.

The results show clearly that the City (and former municipalities) have been largely successful in meeting the expectations of most residents in providing the types of maintenance services covered in this survey. Overall, almost nine in ten are generally, if not very, satisfied with the overall level of service provided, and similarly strong ratings are given to most specific types of service as well. The City receives the strongest marks for the job being done in the care and management of green spaces.

Decima Research Inc.

Amalgamation and Future Service Delivery

While residents are hopeful about the benefits of amalgamation in terms of improved efficiencies, lower taxes and possibly better services, there is also a generalized concern about negative consequences as well. About half of those surveyed expect amalgamation will in some way affect maintenance service levels, and this group is twice as likely to anticipate that the change will be for the worse than for the better.

Change in service levels has not yet become a noticeable public concern, but could well become one depending on the types of changes identified or proposed by the City. While residents are largely satisfied with what they are now receiving, they are looking for improvements rather than reductions in service levels, and will likely resist whatever might be seen as cutbacks in areas that really matter to them. At the same time, the public also shows a willingness to take greater direct responsibility in helping to maintain their neighbourhoods. Three in four support the type of City-funded programs that get residents actively involved in helping to look after such areas as litter clean-up, graffiti removal and maintaining flowerbeds.

Pesticide-Free Management of Parks and Sports Fields

The survey reveals strong public support for the City’s policy of managing sports fields and green spaces without the use of chemical pesticides. This endorsement is evident across the population, and includes users as well as non-users of these types of outdoor public spaces.

4. Focus Groups

Three focus groups tests were held in Ottawa on December 5^th and 6^th,2001. The December 5^th meeting was conducted in French while the two other focus groups on December 6^th were carried out in English. In the three focus groups, 21 residents took part. The overall objective of the focus groups was to allow City staff and researchers to hear from citizens their expectations about amalgamation and its impact, if any, on surface operations and maintenance standards.

The focus groups indicated that in the short term, participants hoped to realize greater efficiencies through amalgamation resulting in better services or lower taxes, or both. In the long term, participants hoped that the amalgamation would result in a more strategic approach to governance resulting in the realization of more infrastructure projects.

The focus group results indicated that residents are cautiously optimistic about their City. The key concerns raised during the focus groups included:

· The loss of a certain small-town charm and flavour;

· The loss of some historical connections;

· A fear that services can become less responsive as decision-making becomes more remote from the citizenry particularly rural residents; and,

· A fear of increased bureaucracy and government.

Overall, the focus groups also identified key values concerning maintenance operations, these included:

· Security and safety issues; and,

· Mobility and access of people (on foot or in cars)

Additional City Meetings

In addition to the consultation process carried out by the consulting team, the City of Ottawa undertook a number of meetings with key stakeholders to obtain additional feedback and views on park, sports field and tree maintenance. Since these meetings were smaller and less formal, they presented opportunities to explain the objectives of the harmonization process and educate key stakeholders.

At various stages of the process staff circulated offers to make presentations to the following committees in order to seek input into the harmonization process:

· Ottawa Forest Advisory Committee

· Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee

· Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee

The following is a summary of the committees where presentations were made by City of Ottawa staff:

January 28, 2002—Ottawa Forest Advisory Committee

· Made presentation to Committee and provided all members with copies of the information presented at the first round of Open Houses.

· Committee was informed on ways of providing input into the harmonization process.

February 26, 2002—Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee

· Made presentation to Committee and provided all members with copies of the information presented at the first round of Open Houses.

· Committee was informed on ways of providing input into the harmonization process.

September 16, 2002—Ottawa Forest Advisory Committee

· Made presentation to Committee based on information presented at the second round of Open Houses.

· Committee was informed on ways of providing input into the harmonization process.

September 24, 2002—Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee

· Made presentation to Committee based on information presented at the second round of Open Houses.

· Committee was informed on ways of providing input into the harmonization process.

April 22, 2003—Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee

· Made presentation to Committee with a review of the consultation process, draft classification systems for parks and sports fields and the proposed maintenance standards. A draft copy of the consolidated maintenance standards was provided to some members of the committee prior to the meeting

· The response from the committee on the information presented was positive.

· The committee provided draft comments on the maintenance standards at the meeting.

Sept 30, 2003—Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee

· Re-presented to Committee with a review of the consultation process, draft classification systems for parks and sports fields and the proposed maintenance standards. The response from the committee on the information presented was positive.

· Provided update on timing of Report to Committee and Council as it related to Sports field Report (People Services) and the Pesticide Policy (Development Services).

· Follow-up included providing list of classified parks.

Dec 8, 2003—Health Dangers of Urban Use Pesticides

· Met with Peggy Land and John Sankey; provided overview and copy of presentation made to Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee with a review of the draft classification systems for parks and sports fields and the proposed maintenance standards particularly as they align with the corporate pesticide policy.

· The response from the committee on the information presented was positive particularly the adherence to the corporate pesticide policy.

April 26, 2004—Ottawa Forest Advisory Committee

· Reviewed and addressed previous concerns expressed by Committee.

· Received suggestions for minor revisions to draft Standards 205.01 Newly Planted Trees and 205.02 Tree Maintenance.

Conclusions

In reviewing the feedback from the open houses, sports field sessions, the qualitative and quantitative research carried out in the focus groups and telephone survey, a number of key factors concerning service harmonization are apparent.

Firstly, all four elements of the consultation program point to a largely satisfied population when asked about park, sports field and tree maintenance. There are some exceptions that were apparent in all four components of the process and these included the quality of some of the sports fields.

Secondly, in all four elements of the consultation process, safety and security concerns rated as very high factors when reviewing maintenance.

Thirdly, while the telephone survey showed strong support for the banning of pesticides, the feedback from open houses indicated that while a majority of residents supported this ban, some sports field users did not and others supported it only as long as it had no public health impacts.

Finally, in terms of classification of sports fields, many users demanded that enforcement be used to ensure that sports fields are not allowed to degrade as a result of improper use. This is especially true of fields that are located close to schools.

ANNEX D

Summary of Peer Comparison with External Municipalities

Parks, Sports Fields, Boulevards and Trees

The cities consulted were Halifax, London, Thunder Bay, Waterloo, Winnipeg, Quebec City, National Capital Commission and Washington D.C. They were chosen because they best reflected certain aspects of Ottawa; either they were similar in size, climate or national significance. The survey took place in the fall of 2001.

While the survey was designed to expose maintenance practices and regimes, it revealed the fact that most of the cities surveyed had not yet developed written guidelines or service levels. Halifax was the exception and has developed a combination of performance standards and service levels for grass cutting and landscape maintenance. Furthermore, Halifax has developed service levels and maintenance activities for the upkeep of its baseball diamonds and sports fields, where maintenance regimes are based on levels of play. The City of Kitchener was in the process of producing such a document, while in other instances service levels existed, but were simply not formalized in a written document. Landscape maintenance standards for rights-of-way have been developed for four of the six Canadian cities surveyed.

Park and Sports Field Maintenance

All cities surveyed fertilized and aerated turf grass, however, rates and programming varied. Winnipeg aerated on a site-specific basis and Thunder Bay aerated once per season. Quebec City and London limited aeration to sports fields only. Kitchener aerated sports fields and high use parks twice per year and lower use parks once per year. Some cities limited fertilization to only sports fields (Quebec City and London) while others fertilized both. In London, fertilizer application varied and was site-specific, depending on the manager’s determination of need. Regional parks received fertilization once per season in Kitchener, and primary sports fields are fertilized fours times per season and secondary fields twice per year. In Halifax, sports fields and baseball diamonds were classified into categories. Each category then receives service levels specific to that designation. For sports fields, those in category A are fertilized three times per year based on soil testing, and those in category D are fertilized once per year.

Mowing frequencies varied considerably from city to city. London and Winnipeg indicated that they mow every two weeks in parks, with London also using an outcome base criteria of 6 cm. Kitchener and Thunder Bay stated that they mow on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the location and Quebec specified that they mow lawns in parks weekly. As mentioned, Halifax has designed performance standards for its parks and open spaces. Turf areas are designated into categories that receive either low, medium or high maintenance regimes. For example, formal parks are designated as having a high maintenance regime, which among other things, implies that grass is cut at a frequency that maintains it at a height between 6-7.5 cm. ‘Medium’ designates that grass is cut at a frequency that maintains turf to a height between 6-10 cm”. This includes informal parks, playgrounds, cemeteries, boulevard islands and beach parks. Finally, greenbelts and walkways are designated as having a ‘low’ maintenance standard. Grass in these areas is trimmed once it reaches a maximum of 13 cm.

All cities surveyed have special summer maintenance programs in which sports fields received more attention, or have their own programs (London and Halifax). Kitchener and Quebec City irrigate sports fields, baseball diamonds and high profile parks. London irrigates sports fields and baseball diamonds. Winnipeg and Thunder Bay do not irrigate parks or sports fields. Halifax irrigates sports fields based on their classification and as budgets permit.

Tree, and Shrub Maintenance

Maintenance of annuals occurred on a weekly basis in Winnipeg and Kitchener and across all cities shrub beds received treatment once per year. Kitchener noted that high maintenance shrub beds and perennial beds received attention monthly, while low-maintenance shrub beds and naturalized areas were maintained on an annual basis. All cities had programs in place to implement life-cycle replacements of trees. Quebec, Winnipeg, Kitchener and Thunder Bay replaced trees on a yearly basis, while London had a limit of replacing 650 trees each year (currently back logged). As part of their grass-cutting contracts, the City of Halifax has developed service levels and maintenance activities for annual and shrub bed maintenance.

Pruning of plant material was specific to each city. London, Thunder Bay and Winnipeg indicated that they prune each year, while Kitchener and Quebec offered more detailed information as to their pruning practices. Kitchener pruned high-maintenance shrub beds annually to every three years and street trees, in their active growing stages, every four years. Similarly Quebec City pruned trees less than 13 cm in diameter once a year, and larger trees every seven years.

Graffiti

The cities in the survey had various ways of dealing with graffiti. Winnipeg operates city-wide anti-graffiti patrol and Kitchener has a graffiti reporting hotline and removals programs. Other cities simply power washed or painted over graffiti once it had been reported.

Play Structures

Inspections of play structures varied from city to city. London operates 110 structures that were visited weekly in the summer and monthly in the winter. Kitchener had monthly inspections, Thunder Bay inspected every three to four weeks, and Winnipeg estimated that it inspects play structures every two weeks. Halifax has recently completed a comprehensive inventory of compliance conditions and inspects play structures at least every two weeks.

Facility Classification		Parks Frequency	Sports Fields Frequency
1	A	5 to 7 days	Every 3 days
	B		Every 3-5 days
2	A	10 to 14 days	Every 5-7 days
	B
3	A
	B

Facility Classification		Parks	Sports Fields
1	A	Up to 3 times per season	4 times per season
	B	Up to 2 times per season
2	A	Spot Treatment as required	3 times per season
	B
3	A	Spot treatment as required	2 times per season
	B

Facility Classification		Sports Fields
1	A	3 applications per season
	B
2	A	2 applications per season
	B
3	A	2 applications per season
	B

Facility Classification		Topdressing		Overseeding
		Parks	Sports Fields	Parks	Sports Fields
1.	A	Spot application as required	Once per season	Spot application as required	Once per season
	B
2.	A		Once per season		Once per season
	B
3.	A		Spot application as required		Spot application as required
	B

Priority of Damage	Action	Time
A	Make safe by repairing or removing hazardous conditions	Within 4 hours
B	Remove broken item to prevent further damage or potential hazard, or repair	Within 5 working days
C, D	Schedule into planned maintenance	As soon as practicable

Description	Frequency
Parks and Sports Fields	Weekly as damage reports. Monthly as full visual inspection reports.
Parks and Sports Fields
Conservation Lands	As required – or as per damage reports
Community Woodlots	As required – or as per damage reports
Forests	As per management plan.

Priority of Condition	Action	Time
A	Make safe by repairing or removing hazardous conditions	Within 4 hours
B	Remove broken item to prevent further damage or potential hazard, or repair	Within 5 working days
C, D	Schedule into planned maintenance	As soon as practicable

Facility Classification		Parks	Sports Fields
1	A, B	5 working days	3 working days
2	A, B	10 working days	5 working days
3	A, B	10 working days	10 working days

Priority of Condition	Action	Response Time
A	Clearly mark as a hazard and undertake action to remove the hazard	As soon as practicable but not to exceed 4 hours
B	Undertake action to repair/correct the deficiency	Within 30 days
C	Schedule into planned maintenance or rehabilitation programs	As practicable

Classification*		Description	Removal of Conditions That Pose an Immediate Hazard	Response to Pest/Disease Infestations	Lifecycle Inspections and Evaluations *******	Lifecycle Maintenance (trimming, tree guards, trees in grates, trees in planters)***	Watering and Root Fertilization	Pesticide Drip (Dutch Elm Disease)
1	A	Road Corridors**	24 hours	24 hours	Once per 2 years	Once per 7 years	205.01 “Newly Planted Trees” only	Once per year on Elm Trees only
	B				Once per 5 years		N/A	N/A
	C			As required
2	A	Parks, Sports Fields and Facilities		24 hours				Once per year on Elm Trees only
	B			As required				N/A
3	A	Conservation Lands		24 hours
	B		As required	As required	As required	N/A
4	A	Community Woodlots and Forests	24 hours		Once per 5 years	Once per 7 years
	B		As required		As required	N/A

Facility Classification		Description	Summer	Winter
1	A	City Level	Daily	As required based on reduced number of litter containers
	B
2	A	Community Level	2-3 times per week
	B		1-2 times per week
3	A	Neighbourhood Level	Once per week
	B

Park Classification		Description	Raking of Play Areas at Play Structures	Racking at Beaches
1	A	City Level	Once per week	5 times per week
	B		3 times per year	N/A
2	A	Community Level
	B
3	A	Neighbourhood Level
	B

Facility Classification		Description	Grooming of Infield
1	A	City Level	5 times per week
	B
2	A	Community Level
	B		3 times per week
3	A	Neighbourhood Level	1 time per week
	B

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis

Financial Implications

Public Consultation/Input

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse

Répercussions financières

Consultation publique et commentaires

BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

Ottawa 20/20

Description of the Proposed Maintenance Quality Standards

Community Input

Maintenance Classification

Recommended Maintenance Quality Standards

CONSULTATION

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

ATTACHMENTS

DISPOSITION

Executive Summary

Glossary

204.00 Remedial Repairs

205.00 Trees and Shrubs

206.00 Cleanup (Parks and Sports Fields)

Outcome

Description

Standard

Service Level

The frequency of visual inspections is defined in Tables 202.01.01. These inspections are to be carried out between April and November, subject to seasonal weather conditions.

Related Standards

Table 202.01.01 General Visual Inspections

Outcome

Description

Standard

Service Level

Related Standards

Outcome

Description

Standard

Service Level

Related Standards

Table 203.01.01 Parks and Sports Fields - Mowing and Trimming

Outcome

Description

Standard

Service Level

Related Standards

Outcome

Description

Standard

Service Level

Related Standards

Table 203.03.01 Parks and Sports Fields – Aeration

Facility Classification

Outcome

Description

Standard

Service Levels

Related Standards

Table 203.04.01 Sports Fields Fertilization

Facility Classification

Outcome

Description

Standard

Service Level

Related Standards

Table 203.05.01 Parks and Sports Fields - Topdressing and Overseeding

Outcome

Description

Standard

Service Level

Related Standards

Table 204.01.01 Remedial Repairs of Site Furniture and Fencing

Priority of Damage

Time

Outcome

Description

Standard

Service Levels