-----Original Message-----
From: Marie L. Stockett [mailto:mariels@swbell.net]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 7:36 AM
To: Sue Hack; mike amyx; Boog Highberger; mdever@sunflower.com; robchestnut@sunflower.com
Cc: Dave Corliss; Bobbie Walthall; Eric Weslander; jmathis@ljworld.com; clawhorn@ljworld.com; Amber Fraley
Subject: 2008 Budget Recommendations from the Pesticide-Free Parks Project
Hello Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of the Pesticide-Free Parks Project and would
like to share with you our recommendations for improving the city's
current Pesticide-Free Parks Program. We are very pleased with the
progress that has been made by the city in supporting and developing
this beneficial and successful program. I understand that the city is
facing some financial worries. However, these concerns should not
effect the Pesticide-Free Parks Program. Not only does the program
create a healthier environment for our citizens, children, animal
companions, and wildlife, but it has been implemented for the last 5
years without placing a financial burden on the city. According to a
memo by Parks and Recreation sent to the city commission in 2006, the
department determined that it could maintain 33 secondary parks and 1
high profile park without impacting its budget.
The Pesticide-Free Parks Project would also like to see this program
expand. Earlier this year, we presented to the City Commission a list
of recommendations which outlined projected costs necessary to maintain
all of the city's parks without pesticides. The information is attached
in this email. All along, the argument made by Parks and Recreation
management against adding the remaining 18 high profile parks has been
based on its fear that the city could not afford to pay for the labor
required to hand weed the flower and shrub beds. However, the data
collected from the 2-year pilot project in Watson Park dispelled this
myth. For almost two complete weeding seasons, community volunteers
maintained the flower and shrub beds in Watson Park, and the labor
needed was not excessive. The amount of labor required the first year
was quite small, and the labor needed the second year was drastically
reduced even further largely because the Parks and Recreation Department
put more emphasis on weed prevention by increasing mulch in the beds.
The labor need also decreased because volunteers began weeding earlier
in the season so weeds did not have a chance to get out of hand. The
first weeding season did not begin until well into July so weeds were
well established by that time. Parks and Recreation Landscape
Supervisor Crystal Miles thanked our volunteer coordinators several
times for our efforts and said that the park looked great.
In the same Parks and Recreation memo mentioned earlier, the department
claimed that staff labor nearly tripled during the first year of the
pilot project. There are 3 problems with this figure.
First, the number of hours that the department claims that staff spent
in years prior to the pilot project is only an estimate because accurate
records had not been kept. When I contacted Interim Director Ernie Shaw
and asked him how the department arrived at this estimate, I was told
that getting that information to me wasn't a priority for the
department. So as far as I can tell, either the estimate isn't based on
anything factual or the department isn't willing to work with the
community it is supposed to be serving.
Second, the department continues to resist shifting its maintenance
strategy toward weed prevention, which involves techniques like using
heavy mulch, sand, rock, or scape lime to name just a few. Instead, the
department has preferred the technique of allowing weeds to grow and
then spraying pesticide at the problems every few weeks. Parks and
Recreation has chosen to waste time and money on expensive organic
chemicals in hopes to replace Roundup so that the department can
continue to carry out this inefficient practice. When Roundup and other
spray-on chemicals are applied to unwanted plants, they do tend to kill
back the above-ground portions of the plants. However, often times
these chemicals do nothing to kill the root system so these weeds live
on to grow again, which increases the need for more labor and more
chemicals.
Shifting the focus toward weed prevention does require minimal hand
weeding. In 2005, Parks Manager Mark Hecker said to the City Commission
that no one in his department wants to hand weed. I think that his
declaration sums up where the department is today in its attitude toward
pesticide-free maintenance.
Third, these figures are from the first year of the pilot project. As
time goes on and the Parks and Recreation Department becomes more and
more familiar and experienced with pesticide-free maintenance, labor and
expense should decrease. This seems to be the case when comparing the
figures of the first year to the second year.
I must point out that Watson Park has a few areas with Bermuda Grass
problems. When the pilot project began, it was obvious that these
Bermuda Grass infestations had been well established over many seasons.
The maintenance practices up until that point, which involved applying
pesticides to these kinds of areas every three weeks or so, did nothing
to rid the park of Bermuda Grass. If anything, this practice only
browned off the tops while leaving the root system in tact and allowing
the problem to grow and spread. This kind of situation provides an
excellent opportunity for Parks and Recreation management to reach out
to experienced and dedicated pesticide-free experts outside their
department and to obtain the information that they need to efficiently
and effectively deal with specific issues like these.
Furthermore, we ask the City Commission to hold the Parks and Recreation
Department accountable to its commitment to make the Pesticide Record
available to the public. The Parks and Recreation Department promised
to provide the pesticide record to the the public 2 years ago, and it
was a promise that has not been kept. The citizens of Lawrence have
the right to know where, when and what pesticides have been applied to
public property so that they and their children can have the opportunity
to avoid exposure if they choose.
I respectfully ask that Commission review the complete list of
recommendations attached in this email, which includes issues ranging
from pesticide-free playgrounds to uniform citywide pesticide standards,
and seriously consider incorporating these ideas into city policy. I
have also attached the 2007 Pesticide-Free Parks Project presentation
outline which was given to the Commission in March of this year.
Because of its size, I will also send in a separate email the 150+ page
packet that the Pesticide-Free Parks Project presented to the City
Commission in 2005. There is a great deal of background information
provided in the document regarding pesticide dangers, pesticide-free
maintenance techniques, and cost-effectiveness, which may be of benefit
to new commissioners.
I want to remind the Commission that the Pesticide-Free Parks Program
has received overwhelming community support. The Lawrence Association
of Neighborhoods, 6 individual neighborhood associations, 3 community
organizations, an area physician, and the city's own Sustainability
Advisory Board have all come forward to officially endorse
Pesticide-Free Parks in Lawrence. Attached is a complete list of
organizational and physician support.
I have to say, the Parks and Recreation Department has a lot to be proud
of. They have accomplished a great deal and have maintained the city's
Pesticide-Free Parks quite well. This year, the department is
maintaining Watson Park without the help of a volunteer program and the
park looks absolutely fantastic. It looks even better than when it was
maintained with pesticides. My hat goes off to the department.
Sincerely,
Marie Stockett
Co-Coordinator of the Pesticide-Free Parks Project
Attachments: 2007 Recommendations