New Search
HAMMITT Bob <br /> From: RHAY Tim W <br /> To: STANSFIELD Adrian E; SHUTT Gene; HAMMITT Bob <br /> Subject: RE: Pesticides <br /> Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 10:32AM <br /> Actually, Gene, I already had a similar conversation with Adrian re: our fungicide applications at the Rose Garden. <br /> The contracting option may offer us some viable possibilities, especially with large- volume applications like those <br /> fungicide applications. We're already looking into it. <br /> Also, we have contracted for "specialty" pesticide application (injection services and the application of materials <br /> that we do not normally utilize) in the past. There are several professional and reliable contractors in the <br /> Eugene - Springfield area with whom I would be comfortable dealing. <br /> However, having dealt with this controversial issue (pesticide use) on the City's behalf for the last nineteen years, I <br /> would hasten to stress that the question is NOT that simple. I believe we do need to retain the ability to do some <br /> of this work with our own staff, licensed applicators with site - specific knowledge - to retain the ability to respond <br /> promptly, in flexible ways, to sensitive situations. This has been critical to our successful management of <br /> vegetation and pest - control problems with minimum non - target impact. I won't belabor the point at this time, but I <br /> could provide abundant "war stories" if you wish. <br /> Finally, I would disagree that the employees you mention are upset or disgruntled over pesticide use. We have <br /> two or three employees who are disgruntled and upset and are looking for an "issue" to use to press their point. <br /> Pesticide has only been convenient for them, to date. These same employees have been licensed, and have <br /> handled and applied pesticides without complaint or incident for years. Further, issues such as sanitation, <br /> asbestos, and underground storage tanks also have been raised in this matter. Clearly, pesticide application is <br /> not the "real" issue here. <br /> As to the recent difficulty and frustration at Hendricks, I agree that certain personalities on our crews can be <br /> challenging to deal with at times. On the other hand, I personally witnessed yesterday that the presence of the <br /> staffs supervisor (Adrian in this case) moved the process toward sensibility and reason in short order. Any time <br /> Dionne has any difficulty with a staffer in the Parks Section, she should not hesitate to inform the appropriate <br /> supervisor (or me). If she does not receive the backing or assistance she needs from the supervisor, I should be <br /> informed. I assure you I will deal with any such situation promptly. <br /> I hope this helps to clarify things. Let's continue the dialogue and search for workable alternatives. <br /> Tim Rhay <br /> From: SHUTT Gene <br /> To: STANSFIELD Adrian E; RHAY Tim W; HAMMITT Bob <br /> Subject: Pesticides <br /> Date: Thursday, April 02, 1998 4:48PM <br /> There has been quite a lot of recent discussion (and expense) relating to pesticide application. Pesticide <br /> application appears to be an ever increasing time consuming issue thats spilling over into several different staffing <br /> areas. This issue currently has a few parks specialists upset and rather than cooperatively working with other staff <br /> in a manner to resolve the issues, those upset employees seem to be trying to scuttle the efforts of others. <br /> We are continually being pushed to consider contracting some services to private vendors. It seems to me that <br /> this program would be a very viable candidate for contracting. While I believe an internal pesticide program is <br /> probably more cost effective than a contract would be, there is also value in peace and harmony. Obviously an <br /> issue that is more important than program expense is contractor effectiveness. The only way to evaluate <br /> effectiveness is to hire a contractor and closely monitor their results. We probably have several "on- call" <br /> contractors who by terms of their bid must respond to any given situation within a certain time period. A contractor <br /> would do more than just apply the pesticide, they would eliminate (or reduce) our need to store pesticides and <br /> have MSDS sheets, reduce our need for licensed applicators and annual ceu's, probably reduce city liability to the <br /> general public, reduce our need to purchase PPE, reduce our exposure to an employee workers comp claim now <br /> and possibly in the future, reduce the chances of an OSHA inspection (which is now a very real issue since we are <br /> rattling their cages), and give our parks staff time to do other park related work. <br /> From a personal standpoint it would free up Dionne's time to work on the multitude number of other issues she has <br /> Page 1 <br />