School District (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

Now, as to further /wider cooperation between the City and District 4J. This is attractive in a theoretical sense, and there is no theoretical reason why it could /should not be done, but there are a few significant and serious roadblocks to effective implementation. What follows will be very candid, so please use discretion in sharing it with anyone, especially in the upper echelons of 4J's Administration: DISSIMILAR STANDARDS OF MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION: For brevity sake, I will generalize. There are understandable reasons why, but the "bottom line" is that the City has higher standards for grounds construction and maintenance than 4J and that this is continuing even though the District is improving their standards and practices. For example, in irrigating previously un- irrigated areas 4J has been following practices that we abandoned years ago because of long -term maintenance problems. They are using components that we would not purchase and building systems that we would not install in City park areas. In some cases, we have been working for years to get such designs and components out of City areas. Naturally, this does not make us excited to adopt an "irrigation maintenance agreement" with 4J when, from our perception, we would be giving them good functional systems while taking responsibility for their poorly designed & built ones. It's especially unfortunate since they could have systems fully up to City standards for the same effort/expense. We have offered to give input, but our contacts are with the maintenance staff rather than those administering these contracts. Apparently they have little ability to influence the process (one of the mistakes we now avoid). If wider cooperation is to be established, some uniformity of standards must be worked out. The sooner this takes place, the more readily wider cooperation will be facilitated. The NRPA's Park Maintenance Standards may offer a vehicle for beginning the process of adoption of similar standards, but issues such as use of the City's "Standards for Park Construction" also should be addressed. 4J's "IPM" (PESTICIDE LIMITATION) POLICY AND ITS NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON MAINTENANCE: During the "pesticide wars" of the early 80's, District 4J adopted a policy to severely limit pesticide use on District grounds. Activist groups were heavily involved in drafting this policy and continue to exert significant influence on its shape and requirements through a "Grounds Advisory Committee" (of which I am the only remaining original member). Though well- intentioned, the provisions of this policy border on the absurd. From an operational standpoint it is a nightmare and has significantly increased District maintenance costs while decreasing maintenance effectiveness, quality, and (of necessity) standards. District maintenance staff has labored long and hard to make this "turkey" work, even developing some innovative alternative practices, but it is "mission impossible" -- the procedures are simply too cumbersome, time - consuming, unrealistic, and (in most cases) unnecessary to be made into something workable and practical. Unfortunately, the highest levels of the District management (who have no understanding of pesticide and little understanding of maintenance) view this policy as a positive accomplishment. They call it an "IPM" program, but it has almost no resemblance to historic IPM or the City's program. The School Board even chose to ignore the recommendations of their own hired IPM consultant to modify the policy. (You should never be unclear about this -- there is NO similarity between the two programs -- ours is realistic and workable, theirs is neither.) UNDER NO CONDITIONS SHOULD THE CITY AGREE TO USE 4J's RULES /POLICY ON PESTICIDE USE OR TO ACCEPT MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR GROUNDS WHERE WE ARE OBLIGATED TO USE THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. Anything we agree to maintain should be maintained using City methods. We have no need or desire to emulate the District in this area. PRIORITIES & FUNDING: For understandable reasons, Grounds maintenance does not have a high priority in an organization primarily dedicated to education. This impacts what the District is willing to devote to the maintenance of grounds in terms of resources. In pasts attempts to work out arrangements where the City would "take over" 4J maintenance, we would always have to do so "at a Toss" because of the amount 4J was willing to put into the maintenance effort. (This "killed" those efforts.) Many personalities have changed at the District. Nearly all of the maintenance leadership has changed. This may not be the problem it was historically. Page 2