I’m intrigued on 2 fronts.
Firstly, whilst laudable to see a progressive environmental approach, are you saying that a 50% reduction (weekly to fortnightly through the growing season) equates to a £2k reduction to a £11k overhead?
A £2k reduction to an £11k spend after a 50% process reduction does not represent VfM - how could it?
Second, whilst environmental focus is an admirable concept, this is not very well considered.
Moving from weekly to fortnightly cuts does nothing to change the growing rate of the grass so each fortnight your contractor is doing 2 weeks work for £2k less per year.
A genuine environmental improvement would be the change from grass to wild flower and change from fortnightly to one per year cuts.
There is an upfront cost on moving from mono-culture grass to wildflower, but an enduring environmental improvement and a sustained cost saving (potential minor income generation opportunity) year on year once established.
After staff, grounds are probably amongst the bigger annual expenses for councils, you’d think councils would invest in some decent project management advice.