ANNEX C

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS

 

Background

 

The City of Ottawa’s Department of Public Works and Services (PWS) undertook a multi-faceted approach to public consultation in support of the development of consolidated park and sports field maintenance standards.  With the objective of service standards to be applied in a consistent manner across the City, it was necessary that these standards 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 established, service standards set the framework for allowing the Department to consider service delivery options that will produce the most efficient and cost effective operations.

 

To ensure an understanding of the views and expectations of residents and to gauge the degree of customer satisfaction all through the development of the proposed standards, the Department has relied upon a compilation of various community consultation processes including:

 

Consolidation/Rationalization/Harmonization Consultation Study

 

Specific to the development of harmonized maintenance standards, the Department undertook a major study to examine consolidating, rationalizing and harmonizing park, and sports field maintenance standards.  The Department engaged residents to help establish maintenance priorities and to indicate the degree of importance placed upon and satisfaction with services.  In order to better understand the views and expectations of residents, particularly during the period following amalgamation, the City undertook an extensive, focused public consultation program to solicit citizen input into what these new municipal standards should be for parks and sports fields.

 

This specific process of public engagement, as approved by Council, had a number of distinct components:

 

1.      Two sets of public open houses, each with seven meetings;

2.      Two sets of information sessions with sports field users

3.      A public opinion survey (telephone survey)

4.      Three focus groups; and,

5.      Consultation with Advisory Committees.

 

Consultation Activities

 

1.      Open Houses

 

Between November 19th and December 4th, 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 no universal support for an outright ban.

·        When asked about parks, 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 3rd and June 13th, 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 25th and March 4th, 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 11th and 30th, 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 5th and 6th,  2001. The December 5th meeting was conducted in French while the two other focus groups on December 6th 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)

 

5.  Advisory Committees

 

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 various advisory

Committees to seek input and obtain additional feedback and views on park and sports field maintenance.  Presentations were provided on several occasions, conducted at key stages in the process, ensuring that the committees remained apprised during the development.  The following committees were engaged in the harmonization process:

 

·        Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee

·        Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee

·        Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee

 

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

 

January 28, 2002—Ottawa Forest and Greenspace 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 and Greenspace 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 generally positive.

§         Items of concern raised by the committee include:

o       An expressed concern with the lack of sufficient land for the development of sports fields;

o       A desire for a condition assessment and lifecycle analysis to be done in relation to user requirements and volume;

o       Lack of irrigation causing problems during drought;

o       Concerns with insect infestations on city properties  (i.e. corner lots).

 

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.

§         Items of concern raised by the committee include:

o       An expressed frustration over the deterioration of sports fields across the City that rehabilitation must be considered just as important as the maintenance of a field and included in the proposed standards;

o       The preference to have an integrated quality control concept with a single staff group manage both the booking and the maintenance of the sports fields instead of the current system where two departments are involved;

o       That the goal of the standards should be to maintain standards in order to require minimal restoration in future years;

o       An expressed concern with specific booking times for sports fields and availability of sports fields for children to play.

§         Members also inquired and commented on issues such as the classification and levels of sports fields, rehabilitation cycles, the pesticide policy, practices for pest control, and the impact of the City’s Universal Program Review.

 

 

Broad Based Consultation – EKOS Citizen Satisfaction Survey

 

In addition to the specific research undertaken during the Consolidation/Rationalization/ Harmonization Consultation Study to provide formative direction for development of the proposed standards, the Department utilized broad research opportunities, primarily the EKOS Citizen Satisfaction Survey as a means to corroborate the outcomes of the focused consultation study and as a means to sustain the opportunity to observe public priorities and levels of satisfaction.  The annual budget consultation process also provided a further opportunity for the Department to gain ongoing insight into public expectations and service desires. 

 

Undertaken in 2004, the outcome of the EKOS Citizen Satisfaction Survey is of particular importance as it provides a view to residents concern and issues subsequent to the 2002 implementation of the Integrated Turf Management program.  Unlike the earlier consultation with respect to pre-harmonized services undertaken during the formative stages of the development of proposed standards, the EKOS survey measured residents views on park and green space services subsequent to the harmonization of several of those services. 

 

The EKOS survey reconfirmed that the majority (83%) of residents continued to consider Parks and greenspace maintenance to be important.  A high percentage - seven in ten – park users reported that they are satisfied with parks and greenspace maintenance and that residents are also reasonably satisfied with the City as a service provider:

 

 

 

 

Only 3% of residents who had contacted the City reported a concern with Parks and green space maintenance:

 

 

Parks and greenspace maintenance was rated as the 5th most highly ranked satisfactory service behind Fire services, Police services, Library services and recreation facilities respectively.  The EKOS survey also identified that:

§         While the majority of service users reported satisfaction, dissatisfied residents cited a lack of upkeep and regular maintenance and issues with pest control;

§         Overgrown landscapes, debris, weeds in sports fields as well as illegal dumping were also mentioned;

§         Residents in the city centre are more appreciative of the importance of parks and green space maintenance services and are more inclined to advocate increased funding for this service.

 

When residents were questioned regarding concerns and priorities, the EKOS survey found that only 2% of residents felt that Park and green space maintenance was an important concern facing the city that should receive the greatest attention from Ottawa’s Council:

 

 

 

In order to further prioritize City services, residents were asked to indicate how they would change the level of service they currently receive.  The majority of residents (64%) opted to maintain current service levels for parks and green space maintenance:

 

 

Council received complete details of the EKOS Citizen Satisfaction Survey on October 27, 2004 (ACS2004-CMR-OCM-0018).

 

 

 

 

Ongoing Consultation with Advisory Committees and Collaboration with other City Departments

 

During the process of consolidating, rationalizing and harmonizing service standards, there were concurrent harmonization processes taking place for inter-related initiatives led by other City Departments.  To ensure an integrated and holistic approach, the PWS Department participated in a consultative capacity, as a key stakeholder in the following initiatives:

 

 

Likewise, the Department of Community and Protective Services (formerly known separately as the People Services Department and the Emergency and Protective Services Department) and the Department of Planning and Growth Management (formerly known as Development Services Department) participated in a consultative capacity, as key stakeholders in the development of the proposed Maintenance Quality Standards for Parks and Sports Fields.

 

Appropriately, the proposed maintenance standards align to the recreation, health and community infrastructure objectives of these inter-related policies in promoting access to and preservation of green assets while the Sports Field Strategy, Parks and Facilities By-Law and the Pesticide Use Policies support the Maintenance Quality Standard’s objectives to provide safe, dependable, accessible assets.

 

At several occasions during the development processes, the various Departments engaged appropriate advisory committees and other key stakeholder committees to seek inputs and obtain additional feedback and views on relative issues at key stages, ensuring that the committees remained apprised of the development.  Joint Departmental participation in these sessions ensured that the committees had opportunity to discuss the inter-related initiatives in a correlated and connected fashion and issues could be addressed in relative and comprehensive manner. 

 

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

 

Dec 8, 2003—Health Dangers of Urban Use Pesticides

§         PWS staff met directly with representatives of HDUUP (Peggy Land and John Sankey) to provide overview and copy of presentations made earlier to Advisory Committees.

§         Provided 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 Use 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 and Greenspace Advisory Committee

§         Reviewed and addressed previous concerns expressed by Committee.

 

April 27, 2004—Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee

§         Environmental Services, Planning and Growth Management presentation to Committee regarding the Pesticide Use Policy with representation from PWS to address correlation of the Pesticide Policy to the proposed Maintenance Quality Standards for Parks and Sports Fields and more specifically the Integrated Turf Management Program.

 

§         Some committee members expressed concern that a ban on pesticides would result in a proliferation of weeds.

 

 

May 25, 2004—Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee

§         By-Law Services, Community and Protective Services presentation to Committee regarding the Park By-Law with representation from PWS to address correlation of the By-Law to the proposed Maintenance Quality Standards for Parks and Sports fields, and more specifically the protection of sports field assets. 

 

§         Some concerns were expressed regarding the need for greater coordination with Recreation.

 

§         Some committee members expressed concern that the By-law was not stringent enough while other committee members expressed concern that the By-law was too stringent.

 

January 18, 2005—Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee

§         Re-presented the proposed Standards to Committee to Committee.

 

§         Provided a specific review of the information contained within the Memo to Health Recreation and Social Services (HRSS) Committee of December 15, 2004, highlighting impacts of the 2004 budget reductions, as well as direction provided by HRSS Committee regarding a new Standard for Cenotaphs.

 

§         Advised of the de-streaming of Trees, as all tree-related matters would be addressed in a comprehensive manner. 

 

§         Some items of concern raised by the committee include:

o       A desire to see maintenance funds allocated to Parks and Recreation Branch, C.S. thus allowing that Branch to control maintenance activities and services as well as booking of sports fields;

o       Concern with different union affiliations of staff;

o       An expressed frustration over the condition of sports fields and presence of weeds due to lack of pesticide use and a desire to see pesticides reintroduced during the maintenance phase;

o       A reiteration for the need to assess the condition of sport fields and undertake rehabilitation as part of the maintenance quality standards;

o       A need for more irrigation;

o       The need for maintenance standards high enough to prevent decline of fields resulting in need for minimal or no rehabilitation.

 

 

Conclusions

 

In reviewing the feedback from the comprehensive, multi-faceted, multi-stakeholder consultation process, a number of key factors concerning service harmonization are apparent:

 

 

 

 

 

 

To ensure an understanding of the views and expectations of all residents, the Department has relied upon a compilation of various extensive community consultation processes.  The comments and issues identified throughout have been taken into consideration and reflected, wherever practical, in the development of the quality maintenance standards. 

 

While it was essential that the proposed Maintenance Quality Standards be developed with the active participation of all stakeholders (i.e. residents, community groups, other City Departments, Advisory Committees, etc.) to establish the appropriate service levels to be applied in a consistent manner across the City, it was necessary to collectively balance the expectations of all residents in a responsible manner. Consequently, it was not possible to meet all expectations exclusively through the maintenance quality standards.

 

The specific concerns that could not be satisfied in this harmonization process are:

 

1.      The use of pesticides during the maintenance phase of the lifecycle as a means to diminish weeds and control turf quality, particularly sports field turf;

 

2.      The development of higher standards to sustain turf beyond the service stage reducing or eliminating the frequency of rehabilitation cycles;


 

3.      The provision of irrigation systems reflected in the maintenance quality standards;

 

4.      The inclusion of an assessment process to determine the current condition of sports fields as well as the prioritisation for fields for rehabilitation.

 

 

1.  Pesticide use during maintenance

 

The Pesticide Use Policy for City of Ottawa Property, approved by Council on August 25, 2004, eliminates the use of chemical pesticides on all City of Ottawa owned and operated property.  For transparency and clarity the policy identifies two limited exceptions where pesticides may be applied to sports fields.  First, an approved pesticide (herbicide) can be applied during establishment Construction (Phase I) or Reconstruction (Phase III) of a field.  The threshold for action for application of herbicide during Phase I and Phase III turf establishment phases is 10% weeds per square meter.   Second, should a field develop an insect infestation during any of the Construction (Phase I), General Maintenance (Phase II) or Reconstruction (Phase III) phases, a spot application of pesticide (insecticide) can be applied with appropriate precautionary measures.  The policy is very specific in limiting use of an insecticide to control of two known non-native insect species that are likely to impact our sports field management due to lack of local natural predators – the European Chafer and possible the Japanese Beetle.  The threshold for action for insecticide is European Chafer/Japanese Beetle 10/1 m2.  Consequently, the routine use of chemical pesticides as part of the regular maintenance regime is prohibited.

 

2.  Higher standards reducing or eliminating rehabilitation cycles

 

The proposed standards are not intended to alone constitute the life cycle asset continuum, but rather, in keeping with the mandate of the PWS Department, the proposed standards provide for basic service levels aimed at maintaining safe and dependable park and sports field assets during the service phase of their lifecycle.  The standards are designed to provide adequate preventative maintenance to preserve the asset during this service stage, and are neither designed nor funded to extend the life of the asset beyond this stage.  Optimizing the life of the asset will be achieved through a combination of maintenance and appropriate rehabilitation cycles.

 

3.  Irrigation

 

Water is a key element required to favour optimum turf growing conditions; however, there are only a little over a dozen fields - approximately 3% of the sports field inventory - that are irrigated.  The capital cost to irrigate a field is estimated at $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.  Community and Protective Services have committed to moving forward in the development process with the intent to irrigate class 1 type fields and to seeking opportunities to partner with community groups who have expressed interest in investing in the irrigation of local fields.  

 

4.      Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation

 

Optimizing the life of the asset will be achieved through a combination of maintenance and appropriate rehabilitation cycles as part of a more comprehensive asset life cycle strategy appropriately developed within the context of a comprehensive approach to sports field management.  The Community and Protective Services Department, Parks and Recreation Branch is leading this initiative in conjunction with Corporate Services Department, Real Property Asset Management Branch and stakeholder involvement, specifically Park and Recreation Advisory Committee’s involvement, will be welcomed to support the process.  PWS Department will also participate significantly in the development of this strategy and a condition assessment process that would consider all sports fields to determine a life cycle approach and identify immediate rehabilitation needs along with associated costs and funding gap.