PK PACKET 09122022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance Page 5 RESEARCH AND FINDINGS Evaluate Community Preferences around Existing and Potential Future Dog Parks (Goal 1) Research was conducted by asking residents of Ann Arbor to provide input through a number of mechanisms explored below. Additionally, other cities and regions were interviewed to determine best management practices for establishing new dog parks and operating existing ones. Public Input Methods Several methods were used to obtain public input including a citizen survey, two public meetings, input at task force meetings, emails, and phone interviews. Each input method provided important information that helped to inform the criteria for site selection and design, as well as recommendations for improvements to existing dog parks. A questionnaire was designed by the Park Advisory Commission subcommittee with public input and advertised via email, press releases, the City website, and postcards placed at recreation facilities, the City Hall customer service desk, and other public locations. The questions were designed to gain a better understanding of the existing dog population, the desire for or concerns against dog parks, whether and how people use dog parks, and what they like or dislike about them. Questions also addressed dog behaviors, geographic distribution, and locations where dog parks would or would not be acceptable. A dog park web page was maintained during the public input period detailing the ways in which residents could be involved and provide input. The page listed the survey link, public meeting dates, email address, and Park Advisory Commission subcommittee meeting times and locations. The page is attached in Appendix 2. Two public meetings were held to obtain input. The meetings included discussion about potential location and design criteria, maintenance issues with existing dog parks, concerns about creating new parks, potential locations, and questions about what other communities are doing about dog parks. Minutes of both meetings and detailed survey results are included in Appendix 3. Summary of Survey Responses  The survey was completed by over 1,500 people, ranging in age from teens to seniors, and representing all areas of the City, with the majority being from zip code 48103.  The majority of respondents own dogs and many own more than one dog.  The majority of respondents do not currently use dog parks, but of those who do, more use Swift Run. Frequency of use ranged from daily use to a few times annually.  The current dog parks were appreciated for their existence, size, fencing, and distance from homes. The dislikes included ill behaved dogs, fees, lack of shade, and issues with cleanliness.  Respondents indicated that dog park usage would increase as the distance to the home decreased, with the most popular time for use being late afternoon.