|
 The evening began with a continuation of discussions about
creating an off-leash dog park at the city-owned property known as
Apex @ City Center. Brittney McLaughlin, the spokesperson for the
Central Bark Dog Park Committee, began by addressing some of the
questions that had arisen at the September 27th Committee of the
Whole.
McLaughlin said she had spent the last two weeks trying to find the
answers to some of the questions posed by aldermen. She had some
success, but some of the questions asked, she was still searching
out the answers.
She said that the committee would be changing the name of their
project and the park to Central Bark @ City Center. She said this
was based on feedback received that many did not want the Apex @
City Center to go away completely, so the committee had decided to
incorporate the two names into one.
She said that the aldermen had asked how many dogs lived in Lincoln.
She had contacted Animal Control to see if they could tell her. She
said they would be able to give her a number based on the number of
tags they issue annually, but at this time, they are transitioning
some of their record keeping to the computer, and could not pull up
the information when she had contacted them.
 Another question from the 27th was about the membership of dogs at
the dog parks in Decatur that had served as a model for the
committee in creating their proposals. She had contacted Decatur and
was told the two paid membership parks in the city have a total of
150 to 200 members. She noted, there are other parks in Decatur that
do not charge a fee for membership.
McLaughlin had also been asked what the ideal size for a dog park.
She said that of the two paid membership parks in Decatur, one is
two acres and the other is three acres. She said that two to three
acres would be ideal. The current proposal calls for three acres of
the Apex to be converted to the dog park. However, she noted that
the three acres included setting the fence in from the outside
parameter, so there was space for walkways around the outside of the
fenced area.
In looking response to construction costs, McLaughlin had turned
again to Decatur for assistance. She said Decatur has Fido Fields
and Nelson Park. At Fido, the investment had been concrete for
sidewalks and around the watering areas, fencing, and plumbing only,
and had come to about $30,000. She said that would be a conservative
number because Decatur had provided its own labor for all the work,
whereas Lincoln may not be able to do that.
At Nelson Park the total cost had come to about $88,000, again with
concrete and plumbing, plus the key card entry system, and two
pavilions, one of which was actually built in Fido Fields.
McLaughlin noted that in her presentation on the 27th she had said
the membership would allow up to five dogs per owner. However, she
had since learned that there was an ordinance pertaining to pet
ownership that limited that number to four, therefore the committee
had changed their membership rule, reducing the total number to four
as well.
Moving on, McLaughlin said the group has set up a social media page
and have collected comments about news articles in local media, as
well as comments on the media page.
In general, she said the community is very supportive of the dog
park proposal. But there are a few concerns. She noted that some had
commented they were concerned about denying public access to
city-owned green space. Others were for the dog park, but hesitant
to give up on the Apex @ City Center concept. She said comments had
been received that the property should have features of the proposed
Apex incorporated into the overall design.
Other issues were concerns for animal waste being left in the grass,
and concerns about ill-tempered dogs.
McLaughlin said that dog owners would be made responsible for
collecting and disposing of waste, and she felt the membership
agreement addressed the issues of ill-tempered dogs.
 McLauhglin said that through their social media page, the group had
conducted a survey to measure the approval rating on the proposal
and it came back that 67 percent of the respondents were in favor of
a dog park. McLaughlin was later asked the number of responses
included in that percentage. She said that the poll was taken by 70
people.
McLaughlin said she had also talked with Decatur about insurance,
and learned that the dog parks are covered under the city umbrella
and that there were no additional riders or coverages that had to be
purchased. She also noted that the membership agreement makes it
clear that the city will not be held liable.
Mayor Marty Neitzel wondered if that were the case, or would there
have to be a special exclusion written for animals. City
Administrator Clay Johnson said he did not believe there would need
to be an exclusion.
McLaughlin moved on, saying that what the committee needed from the
city in order to move on was the designated land use and an
allocation of funds for the design work. She said that additionally,
the committee wanted to remain involved in the development of the
park, they did not want to just turn the project over to the city
and walk away.
[to top of second column] |
Aldermanic discussion
Tracy Welch asked about the proposed use of three acres of the Apex land,
wondering if the dog park could be reduced somewhat in size to allow for a
portion of the Apex plan to be incorporated. He said that the work had been done
for the Apex design, and he would like to see that come about someday. Though
when the design was completed, the cost for everything in it was more than the
city could afford, Welch said there might be a time, when the city could pay for
at least a portion of the design.
McLaughlin said, yes, the committee could look at reducing the size of the dog
areas somewhat. However, she also noted that in the drawings she presented on
the 27th, it showed that there was already a portion of the space designated for
public use. She noted that the separation of small and large dogs is not
required, but it is highly recommended.
Michelle Bauer said she had talked to several people about the proposal and she
had heard the full gambit of responses. Folks had said everything from “yes, we
want it” to “no, we don’t.” Some are concerned that a city-owned public space
will now become a paid membership only space, and feel it is contradictory to
what the city should be doing with its green spaces.
Bauer said she fully supported the idea of a dog park, but she is not excited
about the proposed location. She noted there is one park near Northwest School
that has practically no amenities and is not used hardly at all. It is about 1.5
acres. She said that could be a location for Central Bark.
McLaughlin commented, “I’m married to the Apex, but if it is a deal breaker
we’re (the committee) open to other locations.” She also commented that if the
city wanted to do free memberships she was open to that also. She said
membership and key cards should still be required as a safety precaution.
Charging membership fees would help offset costs, but that was at the discretion
of the city.
Bauer had also asked what the true role of the city was in this project, and
what could they do to keep it moving. McLaughlin said the committee was asking
for a commitment for the location, and asking for money to pay for the design of
the park. She said the committee was not asking the city to pay for the
construction of the park. She noted that there are already ideas for fundraising
in the works, and the committee would be looking for larger donors, as well as
grants. She concluded that the committee does not want to spend its money on the
design, they would rather put their financial efforts into the construction of
the park.
McLaughlin wondered if the city would foot the cost of a generic design that
could be dropped into any location. She said that would keep them moving forward
if they could go ahead and get that part started.
Johnson said it wasn’t that simple. The design will need to take into
consideration, for example, the location of utilities such as water and
electric, and what it would take to incorporate the utilities into the design.
Welch asked if the city could inventory available spaces and see what is
available that would work for the park.
Johnson said they certainly could. Bauer suggested that the city could keep the
project moving by having Farnsworth do that inventory and make some
recommendations.
Bauer said she didn’t want to see this project dropped, but she also didn’t want
to do all this work then find out they couldn’t afford to finish it. Johnson
said that Farnsworth could do a scope of work type proposal, which would tell
the city what it was going to cost to do the design work.
McLaughlin reminded the aldermen that the committee is not asking for dollars
for construction. She added that they are also not looking to create a
“Cadillac” park, it could be minimal, especially to start.
Bauer then asked if they would be alright with doing the work in phases as money
permitted; to which McLaughlin said they would, and added that all they have to
have to get started is a fence.
As comments and questions died down, the council prepared to move on to the next
topic.
Earlier in the discussion, Neitzel said that the council still had work to do
before making any decisions. She noted that the aldermen would want time to talk
to their constituents as well as time to discuss this further in another
Committee of the Whole. She said it would be best not to put anything on the
agenda for voting yet. By a nod of the head, the aldermen agreed.
[Nila Smith]
Related article
City will discuss
repurposing Lincoln’s “Apex @ City Center”
 |
