HomeMy WebLinkAboutPK PACKET 09082025CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
PARKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Monday, September 8, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person.
Call To Order
Roll Call
Approval Of Agenda
Approval Of Minutes
Approval Of PK Meeting Minutes
PK 06 -02 -2025 REG.PDF
Presentations
Silverwood Park Updates
Alyssa Baguss, Silverwood Program Supervisor, presenting.
SILVERWOOD SEPTEMBER 2025 SAV PRESENTATION.PDF
Citizens For Sustainability Updates
Dan Kunitz presenting.
CFS 2025 SEPTEMBER PEC.PDF
General Business
Parks CIP Presentation
Deborah Maloney, Finance Director, presenting.
PARKS CIP.PDF
Dog Park Exploration
Ashley Morello, Assistant City Manager, presenting.
COVER MEMO - DOG PARK.PDF
DOG PARK EXPLORATION.PDF
DOG PARK EXPLORATION.PDF
DOG PARK ESTIMATE.PDF
ANN ARBOR MI - RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR DOG PARK
SITE SELECTION UPDATED 4 -10 -....PDF
TRUST - DOG -PARKS -BEST -PRACTICES -2019_R3.PDF
Active Transportation Plan Updates
Minette Saulog, Sustainability Coordinator, presenting.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATES.PDF
Commission & Staff Reports
Community Forum
Individuals may address the Parks Commission about any City business item not included on the
regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address
on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk ’s record, and limit their
remarks to three minutes. Generally, the Park Commission will not take official action on items
discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the
matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. Those unable to attend the meeting in person
may submit comments via the City's PUBLIC COMMENTS FORM .
Adjournment
Next Meeting
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City
Clerk at 612 -782 -3334 or email city@savmn.com . People who are deaf or hard of hearing can
contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our mission is to promote a high quality of life to those we serve through
outstanding city services.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
A.
Documents:
V.
A.
Documents:
B.
Documents:
VI.
A.
Documents:
B.
Documents:
C.
Documents:
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGEPARKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING AGENDAMonday, September 8, 2025 at 7:00 PM Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person. Call To OrderRoll CallApproval Of AgendaApproval Of MinutesApproval Of PK Meeting MinutesPK 06 -02 -2025 REG.PDFPresentationsSilverwood Park UpdatesAlyssa Baguss, Silverwood Program Supervisor, presenting.SILVERWOOD SEPTEMBER 2025 SAV PRESENTATION.PDFCitizens For Sustainability UpdatesDan Kunitz presenting.CFS 2025 SEPTEMBER PEC.PDFGeneral Business
Parks CIP Presentation
Deborah Maloney, Finance Director, presenting.
PARKS CIP.PDF
Dog Park Exploration
Ashley Morello, Assistant City Manager, presenting.
COVER MEMO - DOG PARK.PDF
DOG PARK EXPLORATION.PDF
DOG PARK EXPLORATION.PDF
DOG PARK ESTIMATE.PDF
ANN ARBOR MI - RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR DOG PARK
SITE SELECTION UPDATED 4 -10 -....PDF
TRUST - DOG -PARKS -BEST -PRACTICES -2019_R3.PDF
Active Transportation Plan Updates
Minette Saulog, Sustainability Coordinator, presenting.
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATES.PDF
Commission & Staff Reports
Community Forum
Individuals may address the Parks Commission about any City business item not included on the
regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address
on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk ’s record, and limit their
remarks to three minutes. Generally, the Park Commission will not take official action on items
discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the
matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. Those unable to attend the meeting in person
may submit comments via the City's PUBLIC COMMENTS FORM .
Adjournment
Next Meeting
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City
Clerk at 612 -782 -3334 or email city@savmn.com . People who are deaf or hard of hearing can
contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our mission is to promote a high quality of life to those we serve through
outstanding city services.
I.II.III.IV.A.Documents:V.A.Documents:B.Documents:VI.
A.
Documents:
B.
Documents:
C.
Documents:
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PARKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING
3 June 2, 2025
4 7:00 p.m.
5
I.6 CALL TO ORDER.
7
8 Chairperson Fee called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
9
II.10 ROLL CALL.
11
12 Commissioners Present:Chair Lily Fee, Commissioners Yaacoub Hark, Kristen Peterson, and
13 Natalie Synhavsky.
14
15 Absent:Commissioner Jessica Swiontek
16
17 Also Present: Assistant City Manager Ashley Morello, Silverwood Program
18 Supervisor Alyssa Baguss, Citizens for Sustainability Representative
19 Dan Kunitz, Sustainability Coordinator Minette Saulog, and Student
20 Liaison CeCe Cram.
21
22
23 III.APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 2, 2025, PARKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
24 COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA.
25
26 Motion by Commissioner Hark, seconded by Commissioner Peterson, to approve the June 2,
27 2025, Parks and Environmental Commission agenda.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 IV.APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 10, 2025, REGULAR PARKS AND
32 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AND MAY 21, 2025,
33 WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES.
34
35 Motion by Commissioner Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Hark, to approve the March
36 10, 2025, Regular Parks and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes as presented.
37
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39
40 Chair Fee noted on page 5, lines 25-26, correct to read “she helped organize workers at the
41 Silver Lane berm”.
42
43 Commissioner Peterson noted on page 6, line 37, correct to “our Minnesota climate” and on
44 page 6, line 12, correct to read “scale group of projects”.
45
46 Motion by Commissioner Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Hark, to approve the May 21,
47 2025, Parks and Environmental Commission Work Session Meeting Minutes as corrected.
48
49 Motion carried unanimously.
Parks and Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2025
Page 2
1
2 V.PRESENTATIONS.
3
A.4 Citizens for Sustainability Update.
5
6 Citizens for Sustainability Co-chair Dan Kunitz reviewed a PowerPoint including Earth Week
7 Update, Environmental Stewardship Scholarship, and VillageFest. Mr. Kunitz thanked all the
8 Earth Week Volunteers and Sponsors:
9 Salo Park – 21 volunteers – SAV Condo Association and PEC
10 Central Park – 11 volunteers – CFS & PEC
11 Silver Point Park – 5 volunteers – CFS & PEC
12 Water Tower Park – 5 volunteers – CFS & PEC
13 Emerald Park – 2 volunteers – CFS & PEC
14 Trillium Park – 16 volunteers – Village Gardeners & PEC
15 Silver Lake Road & County Road E – 12 volunteers – Pack and Troop 153 and local
16 families.
17 Highway 88 Cleanup – 18 volunteers – SAV Kiwanis & Key Club.
18 Silver Lake Cleanup – Families around the lake.
19 Wilshire Park – Girl Scouts
20 SAMS – Students
21
22 The SAVHS Local Scholarship Program enables businesses, organizations, and groups like
23 CFS to directly offset park of graduating seniors’ college education. Two students are
24 recognized for their dedication to environmental stewardship and passion to make a difference
25 with $500 scholarships. Mr. Kunitz thanked families and individual donors.
26
27 Citizens for Sustainability can be found at VillageFest. Residents are encouraged to share
28 their environmental stories, view student environmental projects, sign up to win an energy
29 savings giveaway, enjoy kids' face painting, and join CFS for a chat.
30
31 Chair Fee asked Mr. Kunitz who the other Co-chair of the committee is. Mr. Kunitz stated
32 Lona Doolan helps with the planning and her connections.
33
B.34 Silverwood Park Update.
35
36 Silverwood Program Supervisor Alyssa Baguss reviewed a PowerPoint. Two exhibits were
37 announced:
38
39 Sylvan Essence – Shoshana Fink – June 12 through July 31, 2025 – Opening
40 Reception: Thursday, June 12 from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
41
42 On Tree Time – Meghan Duda – June 12 through July 31, 2025 – Opening Reception:
43 Thursday, June 12 from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
44
45 There is Free Family Fun Every Month. Every second Sunday:
46
Parks and Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2025
Page 3
1 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. – Puppet Art Adventures
2 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. – Walk with a Naturalist
3
4 All ages and drop-ins are welcome.
5
6 Summer Teen Workshops will be held Tuesdays, 12:00 – 4:00 p.m. for ages 13-19. Cost is
7 $40 per session.
8
9 June 17 – Burn Bowls & Hammock Hang
10 July 29 – Plants & Natural Dye
11 August 19 – Lake Ecology & Glass Art
12
13 The 2025 Float-in Movie will be held Saturday, July 19 from 9:00 – 11:00 p.m. Screening:
14 Space Jam. This event is free for all ages.
15
16 Happy Trails! Country Dancing and Leather Tooling in the Park will be held Saturday, July
17 26th, 5:00 – 6:00 p.m. Friendly group dance lesson with Howdy Partner Dance. 6:00 – 8:00
18 p.m. Open dancing and leather tooling art activity. This event is free for all ages.
19
20 2025 Silverwood OnStage Summer Concerts in the Park are held on Wednesdays, 6:30 – 8:00
21 p.m. For more information, visit www.SilverwoodOnStage.org.
22
23 A Book Swap will be held on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, from 5:00 – 7:00 p.m. Remaining
24 books will be donated to The Story Orchard.
25
26 The Big Picnic & Community Night with St. Anthony Village will be held on Wednesday,
27 July 31, 2025, from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. during the 26 Bats concert.
28
29 The Pickup Truck Opera presenting Mozart’s The Return of King Idomeneo will be held on
30 Wednesday, August 27. For more info or tickets, visit www.MixedPrecipitation.org.
31
32 A roller skating event will be held in the park on Sunday, August 24th from 3:00 – 6:00 p.m.
33 This event is free. Bring your own skates, blades, or borrow a free pair from Twin Cities
34 Skaters. Show off your dance moves to music in the amphitheater. Skate along the paved
35 lakeshore trail. Make retro-inspired art with Silverwood staff.
36
37 The Silverwood Park Café hours are 9:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. through Labor Day. Minnesota
38 Dairy Lab Ice Cream is now available for sale.
39
40 The Island Picnic Shelter is available for rentals. Rental Open Houses are held the first
41 Monday of the month from 5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
42
43 Silverwood’s 16th annual art and nature festival will be held Saturday, September 13, 2025,
44 12:00 – 4:00 p.m., featuring Live music from local bands Paper Chain and Splash. Local artist
45 market in partnership with the Minneapolis Craft Market. Food Trucks. Games, artmaking,
46 and nature activities for the whole family.
Parks and Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2025
Page 4
1
2 Ms. Saulog stated she and Ms. Morello took a tour of Silverwood, and it was a lot of fun.
3
4 VI.GENERAL BUSINESS
5
A.6 Climate Plan Items
7
8 Sustainability Coordinator Minette Saulog presented a PowerPoint of Climate Plan Items for
9 the City Council Work session. The goal for tonight’s meeting is:
10 Recap what PEC has discussed – sustainable building policy.
11 Share new information regarding solar permitting and public EV charging.
12 Review comments have been captured.
13 Send any additional feedback directly to the Sustainability Coordinator after tonight’s
14 meeting.
15 Consider adopting a sustainable building policy for all new and remodeled
16 construction projects (Energy focus area).
17 Address financial barriers for low-to-moderate-income residents by reducing or
18 waiving permit submission fees for solar panels (Energy focus area).
19 Consider adopting a policy on publicly facing charging infrastructure. Determine the
20 most effective locations for EV charging stations at public facilities in SAV
21 (Transportation focus area).
22 Review multi-family EV charging ordinance (Transportation focus area).
23
24 Ms. Saulog provided a summary of the April 2 Work Session. The summary included: What
25 type of approach would work best for St. Anthony? – Mandatory approach, scoring approach,
26 or suggestion approach. What priority impacts do we want to target in a City overlay? What
27 types of projects do we want this policy to apply to? – Such as zoning and/or size of building.
28
29 Staff Recommendation to Council:
30 Establish sustainable building ordinance for future multi-unit developments, and
31 commercial/industrial developments, in PUD Zones and/or over a minimum square
32 footage size (TBD).
33 Discuss whether separate ordinances are needed for multi-unit and
34 commercial/industrial, or if the same ordinance can apply.
35 Regarding all single-family projects, a suggested approach for sustainable building is
36 recommended. Determine the applicability threshold for the definition of single-family
37 (more than 3 units? 4?).
38
39 Ms. Saulog reviewed staff notes pertaining to addressing financial barriers for low-to-
40 moderate-income residents by reducing or waiving permit submission fees for solar panels.
41
42 Staff Recommendation to Council:
43 There is no precedent for fee waivers based on income for any other permits issued by
44 the City.
45 Administrative costs must be covered by the collection of fees.
Parks and Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2025
Page 5
1 The cost of a solar array system and installation outweighs the cost of a permit, and
2 there may be alternative ways to better address financial barriers and equitable access
3 to solar.
4 Recommend keeping the building (solar) permitting fees as-is.
5
6 Ms. Saulog reviewed staff notes to consider adopting a policy on publicly-facing charging
7 infrastructure. Determine the most effective locations for EV charging stations at public
8 facilities in St. Anthony Village.
9
10 Staff’s recommendation to Council:
11 Support inclusion of EV charging infrastructure in future infrastructure plans for City
12 Hall and potentially other locations within the City.
13
14 Ms. Saulog reviewed the next steps, which include:
15 Staff will incorporate PEC’s input from these last several meetings to prepare
16 materials for City Council discussion.
17 July 22, 2025 – City Council work session. PEC members are not required to attend.
18
19 Commissioner Peterson suggested looking into the Solar App Plus tool that is found online.
20
21 Chair Fee asked if the excess power returned to the grid could pay the cost of the permitting.
22 Ms. Saulog stated that it is called net metering and is between the utility and the homeowner.
23
24 Chair Fee wants to make sure the multi-family/commercial piece doesn’t get dropped off. Ms.
25 Morello stated it includes multi-family and commercial.
26
27 Commissioner Hark referred to the building policy and noted there is no mention of going
28 with a third-party rating system. Ms. Saulog stated that it is part of the further conversation
29 with the City Council.
30
31 Ms. Morello stated that when this information is presented, the Council will provide the final
32 wave of approval for the policy. This is a moving piece of the puzzle. Ms. Saulog noted that a
33 draft of the policy has not yet been prepared.
34
B.35 Well House Pickleball Concept Review and Discussion
36
37 Sustainability Coordinator Minette Saulog reviewed a memorandum prepared by Katie
38 Koscielak of WSB. Recently, the City hosted a Parks Summit (March 2025) to review current
39 and future priorities for the City’s park facilities and amenities. During the Summit, the need
40 for a dedicated pickleball facility was discussed, and ultimately determined that the existing
41 tennis/pickleball court located adjacent to Well House No. 5 would be the most practical
42 location for a dedicated facility.
43
44 A proposed layout for the dedicated pickleball courts utilizing the existing City owned
45 property while preserving as many of the mature trees to the west as feasible was provided for
Parks and Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2025
Page 6
1 Commission review. The proposed layout includes the following amenities that do not
2 currently exist:
3 Dedicated parking outside of the existing Well House No. 5 driveway (still allowing
4 access to Public Works).
5 Concrete sidewalks to connect the existing sidewalk along Silver Lane to the
6 pickleball court entrance.
7 Permanent pickleball net system (existing system is a portable/temporary system).
8 Benches and bike racks to enhance the experience of the pickleball users.
9 An alternate bid item to upgrade the proposed fencing to a “heavy-duty” fence has also
10 been provided to provide noise-canceling benefits to the site (this option would need to
11 be included with the construction of the courts, as the layout of the fencing would be
12 impacted).
13 Alternate bid items for consideration that could be added after the pickleball courts are
14 constructed: landscaping to provide screening and enhance the natural features within
15 the property, lighting, and a portable restroom with enclosure.
16
17 To meet ADA requirements for the installation of the new courts, the concrete sidewalk
18 connecting from Silver Lane to the entrance to the courts is required. All pickleball courts
19 must be designed so that users do not cross over another court in order to reach their court.
20
21 Ms. Saulog provided the estimate of probable construction cost to construct the space. The
22 estimate is a high-level master plan estimate (incorporating 2025 construction costs) and does
23 not account for actual site conditions, final design (including aesthetic finish decisions), and
24 plan preparation/bidding. The total base bid schedule is $305,857.50, and the total alternate
25 bid schedule is $98,900.
26
27 Ms. Morello stated this would update the number of courts from 2 to 4 different pickleball
28 courts.
29
30 Commissioner Peterson asked about the preservation of the mature trees and asked which
31 ones may need to be removed. Ms. Saulog indicated on the map the trees that would need to
32 be removed from the access walk to the courts. Commissioner Peterson suggested two fences
33 to reduce sidewalk construction costs, with the sidewalk going to the middle of the courts. Ms.
34 Morello stated that there would be a conversation with WSB.
35
36 Student Liaison Cram asked how many parking spaces are on the site currently. Ms. Saulog
37 stated there are currently none. Sometimes people park on Silver Lane. WSB’s
38 recommendation was for 16 parking spots, which was not possible to do.
39
40 Chair Fee referred to the layout and spacing between the courts. She would like to see the
41 minimum space required between courts. She asked about benches and bike racks in the
42 drawing and asked where they would be. Ms. Saulog stated they are not currently on the
43 drawing, but they would like to have them included. Chair Fee asked if WSB gave a
44 prediction of the life expectancy of the courts. Ms. Morello stated this would be a robust effort
45 to resurface and could be provided in the future.
46
Parks and Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2025
Page 7
1 Commissioner Hark asked if the access to the courts without crossing other courts is an ADA
2 requirement, and Ms. Morello stated that it is correct.
3
4 Commissioner Synhavsky asked if lighting is included in the budget. Ms. Morello stated that
5 it is in the alternate bid. She suggested running the infrastructure for an EV Charger.
6
7 Commissioner Hark requested a corridor that goes down the middle of the courts to access the
8 courts without the addition of a curb. Ms. Morello stated that this ties in with the grading
9 conversation and will be reviewed again with WSB. Commissioner Hark stated that an eight-
10 foot fence is too high, and a four-foot fence for the perimeter should be enough. Chair Fee
11 asked what the standard is for fencing. The heavy-duty fencing would act as a sound barrier.
12
13 Chair Fee asked if this would go into the CIP review for 2026, and Ms. Morello stated that it
14 is correct.
15
16 Ms. Morello asked for comments on the alternate bid and which items should be included.
17 Commissioner Hark stated that for the tennis courts, there are hours for use. He asked if the
18 lighting would be necessary. Ms. Morello stated that there are no hours of operation for the
19 existing courts with no lighting provided. Chair Fee suggested that a restroom enclosure be
20 provided along with landscaping, which would be her lowest priority. She asked what it
21 would cost to add the EV infrastructure.
22
23 Commissioner Synhavsky suggested this be a multi-purpose space.
24
25 Commissioner Peterson suggested the building could provide some screening for the
26 restroom. She likes the picnic table suggestion. She would like to see more landscaping.
27
28 Ms. Saulog noted that the existing net system is temporary, and the new system would be
29 permanent. The fencing will need further discussion.
30
31 Commissioner Synhavsky asked if there has been any discussion with the neighbors to the
32 north, and Ms. Morello stated there has not, since this is an early stage of the planning.
33 Commissioner Hark noted it would be important to speak with the neighbors.
34
35 Commissioner Hark asked if the fencing can be looked through.
36
37 VII.COMMISSION REPORTS.
38
39 Commissioner Hark had no report.
40
41 Commissioner Peterson followed up on the Minnesota Climate at the State Level.
42 Climate.mn.state.us for more information.
43
44 Commissioner Synhavsky stated she has not heard from MnDOT yet. She is part of a group of
45 parents who are interested in starting a bike bus to Wilshire Park.
46
Parks and Environmental Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2025
Page 8
1 Chair Fee stated in the next issue of Village Notes, there will be information on Silver Lake
2 water quality. There will be a booth at VillageFest. She asked about doing a park walk. Ms.
3 Morello stated that this typically would happen during a work session or a regular commission
4 meeting. As some of the projects get further in the planning process, this may be appropriate.
5
6 Student Liaison Cram stated that the biggest event for the Green Team was “Save the Bees”
7 activity.
8
9 Ms. Saulog stated that there have been a couple of kick-offs in the last few weeks – Partners
10 in Energy and Active Transportation. They are connected with the consultant. She has joined
11 the Youth Council Meetings. Solar has been wrapped up at the water treatment plant. She
12 highly recommends the tour of Silverwood. Sustainability will be represented at VillageFest.
13
14 VIII.COMMUNITY FORUM.
15
16 Mr. Paul White, 3201 32nd Avenue, stated he would like an update on the dog park idea.
17 Commissioner Hark stated that the subject came up during the Summit. Ms. Morello stated
18 there is no meaningful update today. Staff is continuing to evaluate. Chair Fee shared that
19 Commissioner Swiontek had mentioned that she has received feedback of interest in a dog
20 park during her door-knocking within the City. Mr. White stated that a lot of the people he
21 hears from is that people view it as a community amenity.
22
23 IX. ADJOURNMENT.
24
25 Motion by Commissioner Hark, seconded by Commissioner Peterson, to adjourn the June 2,
26 2025, meeting of the Parks and Environmental Commission at 8:30 p.m.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30
31 Respectfully submitted,
32
33
34 Debbie Wolfe
35 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
9/4/2025
1
Silverwood Park
Alyssa Baguss, Silverwood Park Supervisor
Saturday, September 13th, 2025
12-4PM
Silverwood's 16th annual art and
nature festival, featuring:
-Live music from local bands Paper
Chain and *Splash!*
-Local artist market in partnership with
Minneapolis Craft Market
-Food trucks
-Games, artmaking and nature
activities for the whole family!
1
2
9/4/2025
2
Summer Concerts
Sarah Nguyen
No Mud, No Lotus
September 1 through 30, 2025
Opening Reception: Thursday,
September 11 from 6 – 8 pm
Small Universes Everywhere
Kristin Maija Peterson
August 14 through September 30, 2025
Opening Reception: Thursday, September
11 from 6 – 8 pm
3
4
9/4/2025
3
THE BIG PICNIC
July 30th
In partnership with SAV Community Services
Over 600
people in
attendance!
-12-week
afterschool series
each trimester
-Grades 2-5
-Hands-on art and
nature exploration
-Led by an artist
and a naturalist
from Silverwood
5
6
9/4/2025
4
Introducing:
The Great Sculpture
Costume Crawl!
Saturday,
November 1st
1-3PM
Visit costumed sculptures
in your costume and
collect fun prizes!
Free, all ages
-In partnership with Crafty
Queers Club
-Classic supplies provided:
yarn, popsicle sticks, glue,
plus one surprise material to
be revealed at the event!
-Work alone or with a team!
-Free, Ages 14+
7
8
9/4/2025
5
Ongoing Wellness Programs
at Silverwood Park:
Mindful Creations with
NAMI Minnesota
Every second Wednesday
1-3PM
Ages 18+
Free, registration
recommended (sign up
through www.namimn.org)
SPARK! For Individuals
Living with Memory Loss
and Their Care Partners
Every second Thursday
10-11:30AM
All ages
Free, registration
recommended
Weekly Sunset Yoga
Every Tuesday, 6-7:15PM
Monthly Gentle Yoga Flow
Mondays, 6:30-7:30PM
9/15, 10/20, and 11/17
Ages 14+
$12 per session, drop-ins
and all abilities welcome
Fall Sound Meditation
with Waking Nomad
Sunday, October 19th
9:30-11:30AM
-Cultivate awareness using sound as a
tool for going inward.
-Guided breathwork to release tension
and reset the nervous system.
-Ages 14+, $30 per participant.
9
10
9/4/2025
6
Silverwood Park returns
as a host site for the Bell
Museum's Statewide
Star Party 2025!
Join us here in the park:
Thursday,
September 18th
6:30-8:30PM
Free, all ages
SILVERWOOD PARK CAFÉ 9 am – 5 pm
Winter Hours Building Hours 9 am – 5 pm
11
12
9/4/2025
7
For up-to-date calendars and
rental information, contact
silverwoodevents@threeriversparks.org
Silverwood Rental Facilities
Book your special event in 2026.
Fridays and Sundays Available
Summer-Fall!
Every first Monday of the month:
5-7 PM,Rental Open House
Silverwood Park
Alyssa Baguss, Silverwood Park Supervisor
13
14
9/4/2025
1
Citizens for
Sustainability
Parks &
Environmental
Commission Update
September 8, 2025
Citizens working to create a resilient and sustainable community
1. VillageFest
2. Tax Credits Ending This Year
3. Fall Lawn & Garden Tips for Winter Wildlife
2
Agenda
1
2
9/4/2025
2
3
VillageFest
We had a great time connecting with folks through hands-on activities and
conversations AND awarded four free Home Energy Squad visits
1. Plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle credits expire on
September 30, 2025
2. Renewable energy installation & home efficiency
upgrade credits expire on December 31, 2025
Visit homes.rewiringamerica.org/save for more information
4
Tax Credits Ending Soon
3
4
9/4/2025
3
Many insects hibernate inside hollow plant stems or under
leaf litter. Birds rely on leftover seeds from coneflowers,
sunflowers, and grasses when other food is scarce.
How you can help:
1. Leave plant stalks.
2. Pile leaves in your garden to insulate soil and offer cover.
3. Wait to clean up until spring temperatures are consistently above 50°F.
5
Fall Lawn & Garden Tips for Winter Wildlife
October 4
10:00am
Room CS9 in City Hall/Community Services
6
Join CFS at our next meeting
5
6
9/4/2025
1
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN & FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
Parks & Environmental
Commission Meeting
September 08, 2025
PLANNING & BUDGETING FOR PARKS &
ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATIONS AND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
SOURCES FOR INPUT
Annual Goal Setting and Strategic Planning
Venue for City Council (CC), Parks and Environmental Commission (PEC)
Representative and city staff (CS) to discuss parks priorities, amenities changes, etc.
PEC Workplan Reviewed at Goal Setting
Joint Meetings between City Council and Commission
WSB Parks Assessment & Oertel Architect’s Facilities Assessment
Staff and Resident Observations, PEC Comments
1
2
9/4/2025
2
2026 BUDGET CALENDAR
STEPS2025 DATE
Goal Setting, Financial Management and PlanningJanuary 15-17
Public Hearing on budget calendar to provide residents with opportunity for inputFebruary 11
Staff Meetings with Department Heads – Discussion on 2026 Operating Budget and Capital BudgetsApril – May
Council work session to review infrastructure improvement schedule and resulting 2026 Debt levy requirementsJune 24
Council work session to review updated proposals for 2026 overall Property Tax Levy and General Fund Budget August 12
Presentation of Proposed 2026 Budget & Property Tax Levy to the City CouncilAugust 26
Public Hearing to pass resolution setting Preliminary 2026 Budget and Property Tax LevySeptember 9
Council work session to review Capital Improvement PlanOctober 14
Approval of 2026 Capital Improvement PlanNovember 10
Public Hearing and Presentation of 2026 Budget and Levy. Adoption of 2026 Budget and Property Tax LevyDecember 9
PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND
FUNDING SOURCES
Park Dedication Fees
Donations & Grants
Park Improvement Levy
Transfers
Interfund Loans
FUNDING USES
Athletic Facilities and Playground
Structures
Park Shelters
Splash Pads
Trail Construction
Amenities
3
4
9/4/2025
3
PEC ITEMS ARE INCLUDED
IN VARIOUS BUDGETS
GENERAL FUND: Primary Source for Park & Environmental Operating Costs
$406,150Parks Personnel Costs
$52,200Support for ISD Recreational Programs
$42,800Energy Costs
$59,100Supplies and Other Operating Costs
$14,000Sustainability Programs: Recycling Events, Fix-It Clinics, Rain
Barrels
$574,250Total 2025 General Fund Budgeted Costs
PEC ITEMS ARE INCLUDED
IN VARIOUS BUDGETS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
Replacement of Parks Maintenance Equipment
Five Year Estimate2025Costs
$140,125$0Fleet
$112,640$27,725Heavy Equipment
/ Mowers
$70,000$4,100Other Equipment
BUILDING IMPROVEMENT FUND
Five Year Estimate2025Costs
$162,500$43,950Parks Shelters / Parking Lots / Trails
STORMWATER FUND: Stormwater Operating and Capital Costs
Five Year Estimate2025Costs
$192,700$5,200Stormwater / Flood Mitigation
$452,200$50,280Water Quality
$61,930Central Park Improvements
DEBT FUND: Street Projects
Five Year Estimate2025Costs
$200,220Central Park
Improvements
Five Year Estimate2025CAPITAL FUNDS TOTAL
$1,130,165$393,405Costs
5
6
9/4/2025
4
PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND
2025 Improvements
CostProject
42,300Central / Emerald /Silver Point Park Signage, Benches,
Tables, Splash pad repairs
101,652Central Park Ballfield Netting
200,220Central Park trails resurfacing (Part of 2025 Street project)
Future Requests and Costs Estimates
Cost EstimateProject
$350,000Pickleball Courts To Replace Old Tennis Courts
$200,000Dog Park at Location To Be Determined
$500,000Upgrade of Field Lighting to LED at Central
Park
OVERALL PARK AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SPENDING
Parks
Five Years
(approximate)
2025 Parks &
Environmental
Expenditures
2025 Levy Overall Spending
$2,871,250$574,250$6,336,888General Fund
$1,130,165$393,405$543,700Capital / Building /
Stormwater Improvements
$1,020,391$35,900$30,000Park Improvement Fund
$1,003,555Total
7
8
9/4/2025
5
QUESTIONS?
9
MEMORANDUM
To:Saint Anthony Village Parks and Environmental Commission
From:Ashley Morello, Assistant City Manager
Date:September 8, 2025
Request: Dog Park Exploration
BACKGROUND
The topic of exploring the feasibility of a dog park in Saint Anthony Village was an agenda item at Parks
& Environmental Commission meetings in Fall 2022 and Winter 2024, and historically as far back as
2014. It was also discussed at the Parks Summit in March of this year, which included attendees from
both Commissions, City Council, school district, sports boosters and staff. While a dog park has been
subject of public interest, the geographic restraints, development of the City, as well as anticipated staff
demand are challenges that impact the feasibility of establishing a dog park within the City. This meeting
will build upon previous discussions in response to community desire for a dog park. As part of the Parks
and Environmental Commission 2025 Work Plan, the Commission is being asked to identify the best
location for a dog park with the least adverse impacts.
STAFF RESEARCH
To provide guidance on a recommendation that provides the best possible amenity to serve the greatest
number of community members as possible, included in the meeting attachments are a report from Ann
Arbor, MI that outlines recommendations for dog park site planning, as well as a guide from The Trust
for Public Land. Some key components for best practices from the documents are summarized below:
Size: The recommended minimum size for dog parks varies considerably among cities, but is
generally between ½ acre and one acre. This allows adequate space for a higher volume of dogs
as well as larger dog breeds that require more space for activity.
Buffer from Residential: A few cities provide definitive distances from residences, varying from
50 feet to 200 feet. All strive to minimize conflicts and include guidelines such as: making sure
that noise and activity levels are no more than other park uses, importance of screening or
visual buffers, and having a minimal impact on residences.
Parking: Recommendations include that parking should be readily accessible, close to the site,
sufficient/adequate size, and convenient. There were no standards for size; rather it is
important to consider parking when locating a dog park.
Use Conflict Avoidance: Guidelines include avoiding play areas and other recreational
amenities, high use areas, natural areas and water sources, wildlife, trails, community gardens,
and historic sites.
The Parks Summit confirmed that establishing a dog park that can serve as a community-wide amenity
would require displacing current activities or amenities. After the Parks Summit, staff assessed potential
dog park locations that present the least impact to current uses and/or addresses other known issues or
amenity changes being considered (see the Table below).
Location Size Residential Buffer Parking Conflict Avoidance
Central Park Largest park in
city. Would
need to displace
another service
in order to
consider.
Doesn’t meet
residential buffer.
Existing on-site
parking. Parking
competes with
existing uses of
park.
High use area. Low
conflict avoidance.
Emerald Park Smallest park in
city. Area is not
configured to
accommodate a
city-wide use.
Doesn’t meet
residential buffer.
On-street parking
only. Would not
meet demand.
Medium conflict
avoidance.
Silver Point Park Medium sized
park. Would
need to displace
another service
in order to
consider.
Possible dog
park size:
approximately
0.75 – 1.15 acres
Doesn’t meet
residential buffer.
Existing on-site
parking. Parking
over-utilized
based on current
uses.
Medium conflict
avoidance.
Staff do not recommend considering Central Park as a dog park location due to its existing usage and
high potential conflicts with other users. Staff further do not recommend considering Emerald Park as a
dog park location due to its size and inadequate parking. It is also worth noting that because of Emerald
Park’s location and size, its current usage is more consistent with a neighborhood park and playground
and is not suited to be a city-wide dog park. As a result, other small parcels owned or not owned by the
City are not considered viable dog park locations, as they do not meet size, parking or buffer needs and
would further not be suited as a city-wide dog park.
While no location in the City has ideal conditions to reflect dog park best practices, staff has determined
that a dog park at Silver Point Park could have the least adverse impacts. That said, a dog park within the
City would require staff time and labor to establish as well as maintain beyond existing staff capacity.
Staff compiled and attached a summary of considerations and tasks that are to be expected with
managing and maintaining a city dog park. Due to the anticipated staff demand for a dog park at an
existing park, staff do not recommend considering a non-city owned park, as that would result in even
greater demand from staff to maintain.
SILVER POINT PARK
In order to consider the feasibility of a dog park at Silver Point Park, the existing amenities need to be
considered.
Accessible Playground
In 2024, the playground at Silver Point Park was modified to a fully accessible playground, including
accessible play equipment, accessible rubber surface, and a swing set. This is the only fully accessible
playground within the city and is a key amenity for kids of all abilities. Any consideration of a dog park
should not have adverse impacts on the accessible playground.
2024 Street Improvements
As part of the 2024 Street Improvement Project, the basketball court and parking lot were repaved as
well as repairs were made to the sidewalk and trails. Any consideration of a dog park should not have
adverse impacts on the basketball court, parking lot, sidewalk and trails.
Ball Fields
There are two existing ball fields at Silver Point Park. This existing usage, in conjunction with the
accessible playground, basketball court and ice rinks result in high parking and traffic conditions that the
park and surrounding neighborhood is not designed to meet. The ball field #2, the southerly ball field
closest to Highway 88 has been reported as often unusable due to flooding conditions, meaning that
most T-ball activities take place on the inner field closest to the playground. It is worth noting that this
area was originally designed as a stormwater retention area and therefore was designed with intention
to retain water.
If the ball field were removed, the space could be considered for a dog park. If this location were
considered, additional infrastructure such as trails would likely be needed for vehicles to access the dog
park for maintenance purposes as existing paths are not suited for such vehicle traffic and maneuvering
vehicles around the accessible playground is not feasible. This cost is not reflected in the preliminary
quote.
If this option is not recommended, staff will continue to explore reducing the number of ball fields due
to site challenges and site usage overwhelming the park’s capacity.
Ice Rinks
The City currently has a hockey rink and a pleasure rink at each of its three primary parks. While not
every season will be as mild as the last several winters, the management of all 6 rinks across 3 parks
requires time, cost and labor for the Public Works crews to maintain for a relatively short period of
usability.
These ice rinks have traditionally been an important amenity for the community and the rinks at the
three parks each serve surrounding neighborhood. Removing the ice rinks at Silver Point Park could allot
space for a dog park. Central Park is a short distance away and its rinks are an alternative for those who
currently use the rinks at Silver Point.
Pros and Cons
Either of the above options will result in programming changes for those who currently participate in
sports or use the ice rinks at Silver Point Park. There is a parking shortage in this park for the activities
that currently take place, and adding a dog park would further contribute to parking congestion unless
most users walk to the facility.
Ball Field #2 Location Ice Rink Location
Pros Reduces parking and traffic congestion
associated with T-ball activities
Reduces the quantity of ice rinks
maintained by the city
Cons Area will experience wash outs from
heavy rain events
Proximity to residential back yards
Proximity to accessible playground Ice rink is popular amenity for the
neighborhood
Additional trail/path infrastructure need
to access
Construction Estimate
A preliminary estimate for anticipated construction costs of a dog park is included in the meeting
materials. This is for preliminary purposes only and does not account for any specific location.
DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR COMMISSION FEEDBACK
If a dog park is pursued, staff recommend considering the two locations at Silver Point Park. Utilizing one
of the existing parks as a space for a dog park would require modifying or eliminating existing amenities
at the park, which could reduce existing parking and traffic stress on the local neighborhood streets.
Staff do not recommend pursuing a new location as that would result in additional demand and labor
for Public Works.
Staff request PEC’s recommendation on which site would be best suited for a dog park.
NEXT STEPS
City Council will receive PEC’s recommendation on a dog park location. The dog park and other park
amenities are currently not in the 2026 CIP and would be subject to Council consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
Presentation
Dog Park Exploration
Dog Park Estimate
City of Ann Arbor, MI – Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design,
Operations and Maintenance
Trust for Public Land – How to build a dog park
DOG PARK EXPLORATION Presented
September 8, 2025
DOG PARK CONTEXT
BACKGROUND
PEC Topic in Previous Years
Including 2014, 2022 and 2024
Identified as an amenity of interest at Parks Summit,
March 2025
1
2
WHY HASN’T THE DOG PARK BEEN
IMPLEMENTED IN THE PAST?
BACKGROUND
Saint Anthony Village is fully-developed (built out)Space Availability
Small City – 2.5 Sq. MilesGeographic Boundaries
Projects of this scope impact budgetCost
Maintenance and Labor CostsStaffing
BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY
Recommended minimum size for dog parks varies considerably among cities but is generally
between ½ acre and one acre.Size
A few cities provide definitive distances from residences, varying from 50 feet to 200 feet.
All strive to minimize conflicts and include guidelines: making sure noise and activity levels are no
more than other park uses, importance of screening or visual buffers, and having minimal impact
on residences.
Buffer from Residential
Recommendations include: parking should be readily accessible and near site, sufficient/adequate
size and convenient. There were no standards for size but stress importance of parking when
locating a dog park.
Parking
Guidelines include avoiding play areas and other recreational amenities, high-use areas, natural
areas and water sources, wildlife, trails, community gardens and historic sites.Conflict Avoidance
3
4
STAFFING
•Pet waste pickup and bag refill
•Trash and waste disposal monitoring/emptying
•Visual inspection of fence, gates, latches, park
cleanliness
•Walking the park for spot-cleaning and other issues
Daily / Every Other Day Tasks*
5-6 hours/ week
•Fence and latch repairs
•Minor grading, filling of worn paths and holes
•Park condition reporting and documentation
Monthly Tasks
8-12 hours/month
•Hauling in and spreading mulch
•Repairs to trail or damage from hauling
equipment
•Odor management/additional waste clean-up in
warmer months
•Snow removal from access paths and gates (if
open year-round)
Seasonal / Quarterly Tasks
20-30+ hours/quarter
*Possibly 10-15 hours a week during peak season or after
weather events
POTENTIAL OPTIONS
Conflict AvoidanceParkingResidential BufferSizeLocation
•High use area.
•Low conflict
avoidance.
•Existing on-site parking.
•Parking competes with
existing uses of park.
Doesn’t meet
residential buffer.
•Largest park in city.
•Would need to displace
another service in order to
consider.
Central Park
Medium conflict
avoidance.
•On-street parking only.
•Would not meet
demand.
Doesn’t meet
residential buffer.
•Smallest park in city.
•Area is not configured to
accommodate a city-wide
use.
Emerald Park
Medium conflict
avoidance.
•Existing on-site parking.
•Parking over-utilized
based on current uses.
Doesn’t meet
residential buffer.
•Medium sized park.
•Would need to displace
another service to consider.
•Possible dog park size:
approximately 0.75 – 1.15
acres
Silver Point Park
5
6
LOCATION CONSIDERATIONS: Overall
OTHER LOCATIONS
Several alternative locations for green space outside of the City’s three main parks have been
suggested in the past.
•Site incompatibility (site not owned by city, site does not provide level ground for a
dog park)
•Noise considerations due to close proximity with neighbors
•City wide vs neighborhood park
•Staff maintenance demand would be even greater with an additional site
Why this alternative is
not feasible
LOCATION CONSIDERATIONS: Best Practices
NO IDEAL LOCATION
No location in the City has ideal conditions to reflect dog park best practices
•Staff do not recommend adding a dog park to Silver
Point as is
•Would need to modify existing services in order to
accommodate
Silver Point Park
could have the least
adverse impacts
with strategic
modifications
7
8
SILVER POINT PARK: Existing Amenities
EXISTING AMENITIES
Full accessible playground added in 2024
Half basketball court repaved in 2024
Sidewalk and trail repairs made in 2024
Ice rinks (hockey and pleasure rinks)
Two Ballfields
SILVER POINT PARK: Dog Park Challenges
CURRENT SITUATION
•Result in high volumes of parking and traffic
•Parking lot and neighborhood is not designed to
accommodate
Two Ball Fields
•Silver Point Park was designed as a retention pond
•Often not able to be used
Ball Field #2 Flooding
•Discussion of sustainability with warmer winters Ice Rinks
•Could replace either the ball field #2 or the ice rinks with a
dog parkModification Options
9
10
SILVER POINT PARK: Dog Park Opportunities
Ice RinkBall Field #2
•Reduces the quantity of ice rinks
maintained by the city
•Reduces ball field activities and
associated parking and traffic
congestion
•Reduces ball field maintenance
Pros
•Proximity to residential back yards
•Ice rink is popular amenity for
neighborhood
•Area will experience wash outs from
heavy rain events
•Proximity to accessible playground
•Trail/path infrastructure needed to
access
Cons
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
*For preliminary purposes only and does not account for any specific location.
PRELIMINARY
A preliminary estimate for anticipated construction costs of a dog park is
just over $192k.*
Not currently in CIP for Parks
Competing priorities for city budget
11
12
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
1. Should we move forward with pursuing a Dog Park?
2. Recommendation to City Council: If we consider a dog park, which location?
THANK YOU
13
14
DOG PARK STAFF DEMAND
This document was prepared for the September 8, 2025 Parks & Environmental Commission meeting
with input from the City’s Public Works Department.
Below are additional considerations to keep in mind for ongoing discussions regarding a City Dog Park.
SITE CONSIDERATIONS
Location access
Foot traffic interactions with surrounding activities such as playgrounds and ballfields may present
safety and sanitation concerns, particularly regarding the control of off-leash dogs, potential dog-owner
conflicts, and potential odor impacts to other park users.
Access paths should ideally support vehicle traffic to facilitate delivery of maintenance materials (e.g.
wood chips) and removal of pet waste. Modifications to existing trails will be necessary to accommodate
maintenance vehicles and equipment. If vehicle access is not possible, materials may need to be
brought/removed manually.
Trail infrastructure longevity
In the presence of a park trail, accessing the dog park will require the use of the adjacent asphalt trail to
transport mulch, fencing materials, and service the waste dumpster using trucks, heavy equipment or
light utility vehicles. This additional repeated use will accelerate surface wear, cause cracking, or
degrade trail edges and require repairs sooner than anticipated.
MAINTENANCE NEEDS
Ground cover (mulching)
Mulching is required to maintain clean, mud-free conditions and minimize odor and wear on the soil.
Replenishment frequency may be weekly or monthly depending on weather and usage levels. Wood
chips would need to be purchased frequently. Due to access limitations, 2 crew members would be
required for delivery and distribution and may require manual labor.
Waste management
A dedicated dumpster for pet waste will be necessary, ideally placed in a discreet yet accessible location.
This dumpster should be emptied at least once a week, with increased frequency in summer months or
during periods of high usage. Waste bag dispensers and signage must be installed and refilled according
to demand.
Fencing and infrastructure
Routine inspection and repair of the perimeter fencing, gates, and latches are essential to ensure
security and user safety. Fencing, gates, and latches should be visually inspected at least weekly and
repairs made immediately for identified issues. Repairs may include but are not limited to: patching
holes, reinforcing posts, adjusting gate hardware to prevent escape or injury.
General inspection and cleanliness
Daily checks and monitoring for the park would include removal of trash and debris, ensuring no
dangerous objects or dog waste have been left behind, vandalism, safety hazards or rule violations.
More thorough inspection would need to occur monthly to address deeper cleaning, drainage, surface
wear, and signage integrity.
OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Odor management
Accumulated pet waste will need to be managed regularly to avoid odor-related problems that may
affect other activities at the location (i.e. proximity to playgrounds, sports fields).
User behavior and compliance
Park success relies on user compliance with leash laws outside the park, proper waste disposal, and
supervision of pets. Public education and visible signage will be required.
Impact on adjacent park usage
Increased foot and canine traffic will interact with nearby recreational areas. Additional fencing,
pathways, and buffer zones may be needed to minimize disruption.
ESTIMATED OVERALL IMPACTS
Parks Crew workload impact
Public Works currently has three members on the parks crew. This crew also manages mowing, field
preparation, playground inspections, irrigation, and other standard parks maintenance. A dog park
would increase daily and weekly responsibilities especially during peak season (spring-fall). The following
tasks would require an estimated 6-8 additional staff hours per week at minimum, up to 10-15 hours
during peak season or after weather events.
Daily/Every Other Day tasks (5-6 hours/week)
-Pet waste pickup and bag refill
-Trash and waste disposal monitoring/emptying
-Visual inspection of fence, gates, latches, park cleanliness
-Walking the park for spot-cleaning and other issues
Monthly tasks (8-12 hours/month)
-Fence and latch repairs
-Minor grading, filling of worn paths and holes
-Park condition reporting and documentation
Seasonal/Quarterly tasks (20-30+ hours/quarter)
-Hauling in and spreading mulch
-Repairs to trail or damage from hauling equipment
-Odor management/additional waste clean-up in warmer months
-Snow removal from access paths and gates (if open year-round)
Dog Park Estimate
ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
No. Spec Item Units Quantity Unit Price Total Price
BASE BID
1 2021.501 SITE MOBILIZATION (5%) LS
1 $9,332.50 $5,357.50
2 2104.503 REMOVE FENCE LF 125 $20.00 $2,500.00
3 2106.501 EXCAVATION - COMMON LS
1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
4 2504.602 CONNECT TO WATERMAIN EA 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00
5 2504.603 WATER LINE LF
60 $75.00 $4,500.00
6 2521.518 6-INCH CONCRETE SF 500 $15.00 $7,500.00
7 2540.602 PICNIC TABLE EA
3 $2,000.00 $6,000.00
8 2540.602 BENCH EA 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
9 2540.602 DOG WASTE RECEPTACLE EA
2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00
10 2540.602 DRINKING FOUNTAIN EA 1 $9,000.00 $9,000.00
11 2564.602 ENTRANCE SIGN (BUDGET) EA
1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
12 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
13 2573.503 SILT FENCE TYPE MS / BIOLOG LF
400 $3.50 $1,400.00
14 2557.502 DOG FENCE CORNER EA 8 $800.00 $6,400.00
15 2557.502 CHAIN LINK GATE EA
2 $1,800.00 $3,600.00
16 2557.503 4' HIGH POST & WIRE FENCE LF 750 $35.00 $26,250.00
17 2557.503 4' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE LF
80 $55.00 $4,400.00
18 2571.504 2.5" CAL TREE EA 4 $750.00 $3,000.00
19 2575.505 SEEDING TYPE I - SUNNY TURF MIXTURE ACRE
0.3 $3,000.00 $900.00
20 2575.505 HYDRAULIC STABILIZER MULCH (BFM) ACRE 0.3 $4,000.00 $1,200.00
21 2575.507 MULCH CY
530 $150.00 $79,500.00
$192,007.50TOTAL BASE BID SCHEDULE
Recommendations and
Guidelines for Dog Park
Site Selection, Design,
Operations and
Maintenance
2013/2014 Park Advisory Commission Dog Park Subcommittee
MISSION STATEMENT
To create formal guidelines regarding the placement and management of new
dog parks and the improvement of existing dog parks in Ann Arbor.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 1
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 2
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 2
A Brief History ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Establishment of Dog Parks in Ann Arbor .......................................................................................................... 2
Assessing the Desire for Additional Dog Parks ................................................................................................. 3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 3
Goal 1 – Evaluate Community Preferences around Existing and Potential Future Dog Parks ................ 4
Goal 2 – Research Best Management Practices to Inform Guidelines for Ann Arbor Dog Parks .......... 4
Goal 3 - Provide Guidelines for the Development and Maintenance of New Dog Parks ...................... 4
Goal 4 – Provide Guidelines for the Ongoing Operation and Improvement of Existing Dog Parks .... 4
RESEARCH AND FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 5
Evaluate Community Preferences around Existing and Potential Future Dog Parks (Goal 1) ................. 5
Public Input Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Summary of Survey Responses.......................................................................................................................... 5
Summary of Input from Public Meetings .......................................................................................................... 6
Summary of Placement, Design and Management Practices from Other Cities (Goal 2) ........................ 6
Placement .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
Design .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Management ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
DOG PARK GUIDELINES FOR ANN ARBOR .................................................................................... 8
Guidelines for Development and Maintenance of New Dog Parks (Goal 3) ............................................ 8
Guidelines for Placement of New Dog Parks ................................................................................................ 8
Guidelines for Design of New Dog Parks ....................................................................................................... 9
Guidelines for Management and Enforcement of Dog Parks ................................................................... 10
Process to Establish New Dog Park Sites ...................................................................................................... 10
Guidelines for Improvements to Existing Dog Parks (Goal 4) ..................................................................... 11
Inventory of Existing Dog Parks ...................................................................................................................... 12
Suggestions for Improvements to Existing Dog Parks ................................................................................. 13
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 13
Appendix 1: Community Questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 13
Appendix 2: Website Page ............................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 3: Public Meetings ............................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix 4: Research from Other Communities ............................................................................................ 26
Appendix 5: Charts Summarizing Data from Other Cities ........................................................................... 28
Appendix 6: Existing Dog Park Rules ............................................................................................................... 29
Appendix 7: Scoring Sheet for Placement Criteria ....................................................................................... 30
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
Dog parks have grown in popularity throughout the country as more people have pets and are asking that
communities provide recreational opportunities for them. The City of Ann Arbor is no exception. This planning
document has been developed in response to resident advocacy for additional dog parks and to assure that,
moving forward, the existing and proposed dog park areas are successful and well received.
The City of Ann Arbor currently has 158 parks covering 2,118 acres. Two of these parks contain fenced off-
leash dog run areas, known as dog parks. These include 10-acre Swift Run Park and .7-acre Olson Park.
These parks are located at the extreme south and north of the City, and residents have requested that new
dog park areas be more accessible to their residence. This document provides historical information on the
background leading up to the development of the existing dog parks, information about the existing dog
parks in the City, data about dog parks in other cities, guidelines for the location and design of any new off-
leash dog parks, and guidelines for how to improve existing dog parks. In addition, details are provided
about the process that the City’s dog park subcommittee went through to establish these guidelines.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A Brief History
Public advocacy to establish dog parks dates to the mid 1990’s. To address these requests, in 1997, a Dog
Off-Leash Taskforce was formed as recommended by staff and the Park Advisory Commission with the goal
of gathering and reviewing information, reporting findings, and making recommendations for the design,
placement, and management of dog parks. The task force met for seven months. Their work included holding
interviews with dog behavioral specialists, and researching materials on dog behaviors and management
from around the country.
The resulting report, (attached as a hyperlink) released in 1998, addressed design criteria, including size,
fencing, gates and entrances, sanitation facilities, water, surfacing, shade, seating, emergency phone, agility
equipment, paths, parking, park maintenance, supervision and monitoring, signs, and hours of operation. It
also provided information about obtaining a permit, dog park rules, costs and funding, enforcement, changing
the City ordinance, and a pilot project. The report was presented to the Park Advisory Commission in
November of 1998.
The effort to establish the first dog park did not move forward until 2005 as there were concerns about
potential management issues, funding, and resistance from residents. However, the concept of an off-leash
dog park continued to gain momentum in the intervening years and advocates continued to lobby to establish
one or more dog parks. In response, the City researched potential locations using the criteria developed in the
1998 report. In 2005, the City started discussions with the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation
Commission, who were also hearing from constituents that a dog park was a desired amenity, to explore the
joint development of a dog park at Swift Run Park.
Establishment of Dog Parks in Ann Arbor
In June 2007, City Code was amended to provide for dogs to run off-leash in designated dog play areas
(i.e., dog parks). In December 2007, a partnership agreement was signed between the City of Ann Arbor and
the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission for the development, maintenance, and operation of
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 3
a dog park at Swift Run Park. Swift Run was suggested as a location because of its proximity to the County
maintenance facility, was not near residences, was adequately sized, and was not being used for any other
park purpose.
A second dog park area was established at Olson Park in 2008. This location was adopted after a series of
public meetings, in which alternative locations were discussed, including Ward Park, Leslie Park, and South
Maple Park, but were not supported by adjacent residents or were not compatible with other city functions for
the site at the time. Olson, like Swift Run, is located away from housing. It is part of a larger multi-use park,
and does not conflict with or preclude any other existing park use; however it is much smaller, and primarily
serves residents in the northern part of the City.
Assessing the Desire for Additional Dog Parks
In the past few years, public advocacy for additional dog parks has again risen to the forefront of desired
park amenities. Input from the 2011-2015 Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan also supported the desire
for additional Dog Park areas. This input has been focused on creating additional parks closer to residences,
especially one that is centrally located and walkable from the downtown for residents who do not drive.
In 2012, staff suggested West Park would be worth considering since a master plan had just been completed
and property purchased along Chapin was not being utilized for any specific purpose. A public meeting was
held and there was general support for the concept. However, enough opposition arose that the project was
eventually rejected. A new initiative to explore dog park locations was needed.
In response, a subcommittee of the Park Advisory Commission was formed in 2013. Over the course of 2013-
14, the committee met more than 13 times. These meetings were posted and open to the public, and public
commentary was first and last on every agenda. The committee was tasked with developing a public input
plan and a process for determining appropriate criteria to locate dog parks. The committee looked to
establish criteria and to test these criteria at several park locations to see if the elements were relevant and a
good determinant for a successful location. The committee looked at the parks in the vicinity of the downtown
as a first step. Several potential locations were identified to test the criteria before holding public meetings.
Two public meetings were held to discuss the criteria and other issues surrounding establishment of dog parks.
After considering strong public feedback regarding the process, the committee decided to take a step back to
revisit the existing criteria and develop revised recommendations for locating, designing, and operating a
dog park, before proposing any locations and holding public meetings on specific park areas. A key piece of
these recommendations relates to process, more specifically, ensuring that the public has a chance to be
actively engaged in discussing, reviewing, and commenting on these criteria for locating new dog parks. This
document is the culmination of these discussions and provides the framework for how the City can move
forward with creating and maintaining successful dog parks. However, it is also understood that this is a living
document and will be revisited in the future to consider new initiatives and trends.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
To guide the subcommittee’s mission, a series of goals were established. These goals cover the process and
outcomes for creating new dog parks and improving existing ones. The four goals established by the
subcommittee include:
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 4
Goal 1 – Evaluate Community Preferences around Existing and Potential
Future Dog Parks
To meet this goal, the dog park subcommittee utilized a series of tools including: a community-wide survey, a
series of public meetings, targeted outreach to engaged citizens, and discussion during dog park
subcommittee meetings.
Goal 2 – Research Best Management Practices to Inform Guidelines for
Ann Arbor Dog Parks
To meet this goal, the subcommittee contacted communities from around the country, referenced master plans,
and conducted interviews with staff and other community members. From this research, summaries and charts
were developed to compare best practices regarding dog parks. Results can be found in Appendix 4 and
Appendix 5.
Goal 3 - Provide Guidelines for the Development and Maintenance of
New Dog Parks
To meet this goal, the subcommittee set three objectives: 1) To develop criteria for site location; 2) To develop
criteria for site design; 3) To establish a public process for decision making regarding siting new dog parks.
To inform the guidelines, the committee reached out to communities around the country to gather best
management practices, as well as to learn what might be improved with existing dog parks (Goal 2). The
research included email, telephone interviews, website research, and review of master plans from other
communities. The data was then collated into charts to compare criteria that guide development and
maintenance of dog parks (Appendix 4).
The committee also created a community-wide survey to assess citizen needs, interests, desires, and concerns
regarding future and existing dog parks in Ann Arbor. In addition, two public meetings were held with citizens
to review the results of the survey and further discuss issues and opportunities related to new and existing dog
parks in Ann Arbor. The subcommittee reviewed the survey and public meeting input in the creation of this
document. The results from the survey and meetings can be found in Appendix 1 and Appendix 3, respectively.
Goal 4 – Provide Guidelines for the Ongoing Operation and Improvement
of Existing Dog Parks
To meet this goal, the subcommittee inventoried the existing Ann Arbor dog parks, including layout, amenities,
operation, and maintenance practices. Enforcement issues outside of the existing dog parks were also studied.
Input gathered from the survey and public meetings about what is and is not working well at Swift Run and
Olson Parks, and research from other communities, helped the subcommittee to learn about best management
practices. The committee also looked at volunteer and educational opportunities to aid in the management of
future and existing dog parks.
From this information, the subcommittee made recommendations to improve ongoing operation, infrastructure,
and amenities at existing dog parks and to improve enforcement issues surrounding off-leash dogs in parks.
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.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 6
The most important items mentioned for a successful dog park were cleanliness, maintenance, location,
and shade.
The greatest concerns were cleanliness, dog conflicts, and maintenance.
Many residents were willing to volunteer at a dog park to help clean, landscape, organize events and
activities, and fundraise.
Summary of Input from Public Meetings
Three public meetings were held with 29 people attending the first meeting, 9 people attending the
second meeting, and 17 attending the third meeting.
Important considerations should include buffers between the dog park and other uses, protection of
natural areas and water quality, provision of shade, appropriate surfacing, adequate drainage, and
parking so as not to put additional burden on existing neighborhoods.
Take care of what we have and correct existing issues, including cleanliness, inadequate shade,
condition/maintenance of existing dog parks, and issues with dogs running off-leash.
Location is important, but it is also important to recognize that the City will never be able to provide
dog parks walkable from every residence and land other than parks should be considered.
Research and provide data from other communities to establish best practices when designing and
locating new dog parks and managing existing parks.
Establish an ample and well thought out process for public input.
Summary of Placement, Design and Management Practices from Other
Cities (Goal 2)
Staff and Park Advisory Commission subcommittee members researched development and management
practices from numerous cities, and obtained information via phone conversations, email, websites, master
plans, and policy documents. Cities contacted include: Baltimore, MD; Boulder, CO; Chicago, IL; Kalamazoo,
MI; Madison, WI; Norfolk, VA; Alexandria, VA; Portland, OR; San Francisco, CA; and Meridian Township, MI.
Existing master plans referenced include Denver, CO; Salt Lake County, UT; and Oakland, CA.
Below is a summary of the responses. The data from the research on each city is detailed in Appendix 5.
Placement
Size: The recommended minimum size for dog parks varies considerably among cities, but is generally
between ½ acre and one acre.
Buffer from Residential: A few cities provide definitive distances from residences, varying from 50
feet to 200 feet. All strive to minimize conflicts and include guidelines such as: making sure that noise
and activity levels are no more than other park uses, importance of screening or visual buffers, and
having a minimal impact on residences.
Water Source: Most recommend having a source of drinking water for humans and dogs if possible.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 7
Parking: Recommendations include that parking should be readily accessible, close to the site,
sufficient/adequate size, and convenient. There were no standards for size; rather it is important to
consider parking when locating a dog park.
Drainage: Important aspects included that the site be relatively flat and have permeable soils.
Shade: All recommend some shade as desirable, but not heavily shaded to allow for grass growth
and for the ground to dry.
Use Conflict Avoidance: Guidelines include avoiding play areas and other recreational amenities,
high use areas, natural areas and water sources, wildlife, trails, community gardens, and historic sites.
Protect Wildlife and Natural Areas: Several cities discuss avoidance of conflicts with wildlife and
sensitive habitats.
Geographic Distribution: A few cities have general guidelines, such as a one or two mile service
area, but most do not state explicitly how the parks should be distributed through their community.
Design
Fence Height and Material: All cities contacted have galvanized or vinyl coated chain link fences,
with a minimum height of 4 feet. Double gated entries to allow for dog owners to unleash the dogs in
a corral prior to letting the dog run free are the norm.
Surfacing: There is no consensus as to the best type of surface. Several cities have multiple surfacing
types including crusher fines or decomposed granite around the entrance area, concrete, grass, and
mulch. For the larger areas, grass is used most often.
Separate Small and Large Dog Areas: Most cities provide small dog areas if space allows.
Site Furniture and Other Amenities: Most provide benches. Some have community bulletin boards to
post announcements and some have shade structures. Very few have dog play amenities.
Trash Cans and Bag Holders: All provide trash containers and some provide bag holders. A minority
of cities also provide bags.
Signage: All cities contacted post rule signs.
ADA Access: All cities contacted said that they comply with the ADA for access to the site.
Management
Staffing: Cities that have rangers or other park staff monitor dog parks, as well as illegal off-leash
activity outside of dog parks, find this helpful for controlling dogs and building community support.
Fines: Cities that issue warning tickets and/or fines find this effective at reducing the number of
repeat offenders of illegal off-leash dog activity.
Entry Fees: Fees to use dog parks range from free to $35 or $40 per year.
Entry Key Fob: Cities that restrict use of the dog parks to patrons who pay for the permit by installing
a key fob entry find that it encourages more people to follow rules, increases revenue, and provides
a more equitable system for all users.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 8
Hours of Operation: Dawn to dusk is common.
Use Permit: Obtaining a dog park permit as part of purchasing a dog license is common practice.
Volunteers and Enforcement: A few cities have volunteers involved with the park maintenance and
activity programming. Involvement of community members was noted to increase acceptance of the
dog park and helps to minimize problems.
DOG PARK GUIDELINES FOR ANN ARBOR
Guidelines for Development and Maintenance of New Dog Parks (Goal 3)
Many of the below criteria are consistent with the off-leash Task Force Report of June 1998. However,
several criteria have been updated based on current research and public input. This section outlines guidelines
for placement, design, management, and enforcement of both existing and proposed dog parks, and the
public process to be followed to establish new dog parks. The guidelines are derived from public input and
what the subcommittee learned from research of other city’s practices.
Guidelines for Placement of New Dog Parks
Size: The size of dog parks will be dependent upon the particular park in which it is proposed, other
park activities, facilities, proximity to residences, etc. Larger is better (at least ½ acre), but if a
smaller dog park area is all that can be accommodated in a particular park, and if there is
community support, then a smaller size will be considered.
Buffer from Residential: It is crucial to provide a buffer between nearby residences and the dog
park. The buffer should allow for neighbors to have no more disturbances from a dog park than other
typical park uses. Buffers may include vegetation and/or berms to aid in noise/visual attenuation.
Non-residential Adjacent Land Use: Depending on the type of business or institution, a dog park
may be considered either a beneficial amenity or an undesirable facility.
Drinking Fountain: A source of drinking water is highly desirable within or adjacent to the dog park
area.
Parking: Sufficient parking, convenient to the site, should be provided such that the dog park does not
create undue burden on surrounding neighborhoods.
Land Suitability: The site should be relatively flat and have permeable soils. If a desirable site has
excessive slopes, it should be designed such that erosion does not become an issue, water bodies are
protected, and visibility to all dogs is possible within the fenced in area.
Shade: Shade is highly desirable. The site should provide a good mix of mature trees and open
space/turf grass.
Use Conflict Avoidance: It is important to provide a sufficient buffer between the dog park area and
other recreational facilities such as playgrounds, trails, ball fields, picnic shelters, game courts, or any
existing heavily used or programmed area.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 9
Protect Natural Areas: Dog park areas should not be located in or in close proximity to natural areas
where flora and fauna, such as ground nesting birds, small mammals, and native plants, would be
disturbed.
Geographic Distribution: Dog park areas should be distributed in the City such that there is equitable
distribution to dog parks in the City.
Guidelines for Design of New Dog Parks
Fencing Height and Type: A minimum of a 4 foot high chain link fence, either galvanized or vinyl
coated, be installed around the perimeter of the site.
Perimeter Plantings/Buffers: If the budget and site permit, and if it is necessary to buffer the dog run
area, vegetation should be planted on the outside of the fence to aid in the aesthetic quality of the
site and to assist in mitigating noise associated with the dog park.
Entrance Design: An entry corral, consisting of at least an 8 foot x 8 foot fenced area with two gates,
should be provided to allow for pet owners to safely unleash their dog prior to letting them in the dog
run area.
Visual Character and Aesthetics: Dog parks should be located so as not to detract from the aesthetic
quality of a park or open space. Ideally, the dog park should be designed to integrate well into the
existing site.
Surfacing: A variety of surfaces may be used within a site. Crushed fines at the entry are
recommended as this area has a concentration of use. In smaller dog run areas, a larger crushed fines
area is recommended as the concentration of dogs may not allow grass to grow. All surfaces should
be easy to maintain. If possible, lawn areas should be rested periodically to allow the turf to recover.
Separate Areas for Large and Small Dogs: When space permits, separate small dog areas should be
provided for dogs up to 25 pounds.
Signage: Rules shall be clearly posted, including codes of behavior, hours, and requirements for entry.
ADA Accessibility: Barrier free access to the site shall be provided, as well as an area through the
corral and at the entry. Barrier free paths through the dog run area should be provided if space and
funding permit.
Trash Containers: Trash containers and waste removal bag holders shall be provided in the dog run
area, making sure that they are located with easy access for maintenance vehicles.
Site Furniture: Ideally, several benches should be provided in convenient locations to allow for
gathering and resting throughout the dog park area.
Pathways: Walking trails around the perimeter would encourage owners to interact with and monitor
their dogs more closely, as well as to provide additional ease of access to the entire site, and should
be provided if there is sufficient space and funding.
Shade: Trees and/or small shade structures should be provided if the site has insufficient shade to
allow humans and dogs to retreat from the sun.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 10
Water: Drinking fountains should be provided if water is readily available and should include a dog
drinker/bowl.
Lighting: As the park areas are open from dawn to dusk, lighting need not be provided as an
additional amenity.
Agility Equipment: Amenities such as agility equipment may be included if a user group desires them.
Ease of Maintenance: Service gates and trash barrels should be located such that maintenance
vehicles may easily enter from an existing park road, parking lot, or street frontage.
Bulletin Board: A community kiosk and bulletin board should be provided to provide a place to post
notifications for meetings, work days, and events.
Guidelines for Management and Enforcement of Dog Parks
Staffing: Staff monitoring of dog parks during heavy use periods is recommended.
Fines: Warning tickets, followed up by fines, are recommended for repeat offenders to help reduce
the amount of illegal off-leash dog activity outside of dog parks and enforce use by those who have
not paid the fee to use dog parks.
Entry Fees: Fees to use dog parks ranged from free to $35 or $40 per year. The City’s fees are in
line with those around the country. Continue to evaluate fees in relationship to other dog parks.
Entry Key Fob: Restricting use of the dog parks to patrons who pay for the permit is recommended to
encourage more people to follow city rules, increase revenue, and provide a more equitable system
for all users. A key fob would assist in monitoring who has purchased dog park passes and have
obtained the required vaccinations.
Hours of Operation: Maintain current hours to be consistent with all parks: dawn to dusk.
Dog Park License: Obtaining a dog park permit as part of obtaining a dog license is efficient and
should be continued. Explore implementation of an online application process to be more user-friendly
and increase compliance.
Rules: City rules are consistent with other cities. They should remain as is and continue to be posted.
Existing dog park rules are listed in Appendix 6.
Turf Maintenance: Design of dog parks should permit resting grass to allow turf to reestablish.
Volunteers: Volunteer involvement should be encouraged to promote stewardship of dog parks.
Work with park volunteer staff to help develop programs and events, and recruit stewards.
Education: Develop program to educate park users on dog etiquette, and to educate the community
about dogs and dog parks in general.
Process to Establish New Dog Park Sites
Any proposed location should have strong support from surrounding neighbors and, in general, be supported
by the community. Buy-in from immediate neighbors is crucial to the success of any proposed location. Given
this basic criteria, the following process shall be followed when considering establishment of a new dog park.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 11
1. Establish an ad-hoc committee comprised of members from the Park Advisory Commission, staff, and
citizens to identify potential sites using established guidelines.
2. Have committee evaluate sites using the placement criteria (Appendix 7) to ensure the greatest
opportunity for success while considering geographic distribution.
3. Using the scoring sheets, narrow the sites to those that score the highest.
4. Develop a concept plan for the site being considered that shows the proposed location in the
particular park or public land, the access points, parking, amenities, and landscaping.
5. Plan for public input using the Community Engagement Tool, including conducting an online
questionnaire available to all citizens, and notifying all residents within ¼ mile of the proposed site
by mail with the link for the questionnaire, and the date and place for the public meeting.
6. Hold public meeting to discuss the site being considered and include the input received from the
email questionnaire.
7. If there is general support for the project, concerns and suggestions are shared at the public meeting
and staff will explore modifications to the concept plan.
8. If, after the concept plan is modified, opposition to the plan is still such that the project lacks the
necessary support to succeed, then the second site on the list of potential parks will be considered,
and the public process will be repeated.
9. When a proposed location is generally supported, being sensitive to residents in close proximity to the
proposed dog park, the ad hoc committee will vote on the proposed site.
10. If the committee approves the proposed site, it would then be brought to the Park Advisory
Commission for discussion and recommendation.
11. If the Park Advisory Commission approves the proposal, the site will be brought to City Council and
include a public hearing so that City Ordinance can be modified to accommodate the proposed site.
Guidelines for Improvements to Existing Dog Parks (Goal 4)
In order to improve existing dog park areas, it is important to inventory what we have and explore what is
working and what needs improvement. Lessons learned will also inform maintenance practices for new dog
parks. The City currently has two dog park areas, Swift Run and Olson Parks. The inventory of these parks
follows, as well as recommendations for improvements.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 12
Inventory of Existing Dog Parks
OVERVIEW OF SWIFT RUN DOG PARK
Location: 2998 E. Ellsworth Road at corner of Platt Road
Size – 10 acre grassy field area with 5 foot high perimeter fencing
Large and small dog run areas
Gravel parking lot with approximately 30 spaces
Double entry/exit control gates (wheel chair accessible)
Mowed trail, landscaping, and benches
On-site portable toilet and nearby, off-site, flush-restrooms (Southeast Area Park at Northwest corner
of Platt and Ellsworth)
Trash receptacles and dog waste disposal stations
Posted rules, signage, and information kiosk
ISSUES AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO SWIFT RUN DOG PARK
1. The location of the park on a former landfill limits the types of amenities that can be installed as
footings are not permitted that might puncture landfill cover.
2. The condition of the parking lot has been a source of complaint because of muddy conditions and
rutting. Paving the parking lot should be considered.
3. Requests have also included water and permanent restrooms. However, no water is available at the
site due to the fact that there is no water main in the vicinity.
4. Continue to explore improvements to surfacing.
OVERVIEW OF OLSON DOG PARK
Location – Dhu Varren Road at corner of Pontiac Trail
Size – .7 acre grassy field area
5 foot high perimeter fencing
One area – no separate large and small dog run areas due to space limitations
Paved parking lot for all park uses
Two double entry/exit control gates (wheel chair accessible)
Benches
Flush restrooms on-site
Drinking fountain with dog bowl located near restrooms
Trash receptacles and dog waste disposal stations at entries to dog park
Posted rules, signage, and information kiosk
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 13
Separate maintenance/entry gate for mowing/maintenance equipment
Surfacing consists of gravel and grass
Wind and shade shelter
One bench in fenced in area and other under shade structure
Shade trees within fence, but not many mature trees
ISSUES AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS AT OLSON DOG PARK
1. Maintenance of the surfacing has been challenging because of the small size and clay soils. Staff has
experimented with different surfacing types, including woodchips and gravel.
2. Trees have been planted, but they are still small.
3. Location serves north area of town, but is too far from other parts of town.
4. In response to public input, improvements made to the dog park after initial construction include a
wind/shade structure, a second entry corral, and installation of a variety of surfacing types.
Suggestions for Improvements to Existing Dog Parks
1. Continue to evaluate surfacing. Make changes to improve drainage, wearing surface, and turf quality.
2. Work with Park Volunteer staff to find ways to engage volunteers for clean up days and other dog
park events.
3. Establish a plan for future amenities and improvements so that if funding for park amenities is
donated, there is a plan for inclusion in the existing dog parks.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Community Questionnaires
The subcommittee decided that questionnaires of the general public would allow a greater number of
residents to participate in the public process. The questionnaires were posted on the City’s website, emails
were sent out via govDelivery, two press releases were posted, and post cards were placed at City Hall as
well as several recreation facilities. The first questionnaire was available to the public for several weeks in
August 2013, and the second in February and March, 2015. The results are as follows:
Questionnaire #1
Over 1,500 individuals completed the first questionnaire
2/3 were female (67.1%); 1/3 male (32.9%)
Age Breakdown for Respondents:
0.2% - under 18
2.1% - 18-24
42.4% - 25-44
45% - 45-64
10.3% - 65+
Zip Codes for Respondents:
58.8% from zip-code 48103
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 14
18.9% from zip-code 48104
15.2% from zip-code 48105
7.1% from zip-code 48108
Q1: Do you currently have a dog?
Currently have a dog – 67.5%
Do not have a dog – 26.2%
Planning to get a dog – 6.2%
Q2: If yes, how many dogs?
Participants were asked to list the number of dogs they owned under 25 pounds and/or over
25 pounds.
Q3: Do you currently use any existing dog parks? If so, which dog parks do you use?
Respondents could select all that applied.
Swift Run – 332
Olson Park – 158
Do not use dog parks – 956
Participants were also able to list other area dog parks. Other sites mentioned included:
Animal Kingdom
Arise Dog Park
Mill Pond
Paw Run
Neighborhood
1 2 3 4 5 6
Weigh Under 25 Pounds 259 50 10 2 0 1
Weigh 25 Pounds or More 621 188 18 7 4 1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 15
Q4: How often do you use dog parks?
I don’t use dog parks – 61%
A few times annually – 16.6%
Once a month – 7.6%
Multiple times per week – 6.8%
Daily – 1.9%
Q5: What do you currently like about the existing dog park(s)?
This was an open ended question. The most common responses are listed below:
That they exist
The space – size
Secure fencing
That they are close to my home
That they are far from my home
No competition for other uses – outside existing parks
Seating
Nothing
That there is a legal place for dogs to play off-leash
Q6: What do you dislike about the existing dog park(s)?
This was an open ended question. The most common responses are listed below:
Ill-behaved dogs
Fee charged
Location – too far away
No water
Not enough shade
Cleanliness
No enforcement
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 16
Q7: If a dog park were located at a given distance from your residence, how often would you
use it? (Check all that apply):
68.8% Would use a dog park daily if it was less than ¼ mile from their residence
63.5% Would use daily or weekly if it was ¼ to 1 mile from their residence
56.1% Would use weekly or monthly if it was 1-2 miles from their residence
78.7% Would use monthly or not at all if it was 2-5 miles from residence
Q8: What times of day do you or would you most likely use a dog park? (Select all that apply.)
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 17
Q9: How important are the following items to a successful dog park? Please select the 3 items
that are MOST important to you and the 3 items that are LEAST important to you. Selecting
more than 3 for each column will nullify the response.
Q10: Are there issues related to dog parks that concern you? (Select all that apply.)
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 18
Q11: Would you support a dog park being located in…? (Answer all that apply)
Participants were asked to list parks for each sub-question. Word clouds are used to indicate the variety of
responses. The larger the word(s) appear, the more times it was mentioned.
My neighborhood park (please provide the name of the park).
581 out of 943 selected this option.
Larger community-wide park (please provide the name of the park).
478 out of 943 selected this option.
Other community park (please provide the name of the park).
251 out of 943 selected this option.
As many places as the city will provide (please provide locations).
267 out of 943 selected this option.
I do not want a dog park anywhere.
Allmendinger Ann Arbor Bandemer Bird Hills Buhr Campus Downtown Fuller
Gallup Haisley Land Langford Lillie Locations Nature Area Park Place River School
Slauson Space Specific West Side Wurster
Allmendinger Bird Hills Field Greenview Hudson Mills Liberty Plaza Nature Area Park School
Virginia West Side Woods Wurster
Allmendinger Almendinger Park Bandemer Barton Bird Hills Buhr Burns Park County Farm
Eberwhite Gallop Gallup Hunt Park Nature Area Veterans Park Vets West Park
Allmendinger Beckley Buhr Park Burns Park County Farm Park Cranbrook
Park Frisinger Park Fritz Park Gallup Park Hollywood Park Hunt Park
MaryfieldMiller Park Nature Area Neighborhood Parks Park Near
Sugarbush Swift Run Vegas Park Veterans Park Vets Park Virginia Park
Waterworks Park Wellington PlaygroundWest Park Wheeler Park Windemere
ParkWurster Park
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 19
130 out of 943 selected this option.
Q12: Would you be willing to volunteer at a dog park?
Clean – 199
Landscape – 180
Help organize events and activities – 156
Fundraise – 115
Q13 : Would you support off-leash dog hours in parks without fencing?
Yes – 40.1%
No – 46.1%
Don’t know – 13.8%
The full results of the community questionnaire, including all open ended responses may be found at this link:
PAC Dog Park Survey Results (PDF).
Questionnaire #2
The subcommittee decided that a second questionnaire of the general public was needed after there were
requests to revisit the criteria. The questionnaire was posted on the City’s website, emails were sent out via
govDelivery, a press releases was posted, and emails were sent to everyone who had attended a previous
meeting or provided their email. The questionnaire was available to the public for several weeks in February
and March, 2015. The results are as follows:
168 individuals viewed the questionnaire, and 40 completed the questionnaire.
Three questions were asked about the process, research and scoring sheet:
Q1: Given the research presented from other cities, and that there are not universally accepted dog park
best management practices, does the proposed criteria for Ann Arbor provide sufficient guidance to
determine potential sites for a new dog park?
Yes – 55%
No - 42.5%
No opinion – 2.5%
Q2: Do you feel that the proposed scoring sheet provides an objective means to help determine whether
or not a particular site should be proposed for a dog park?
Yes – 60%
No – 32.5%
No opinion – 7.5%
Q3: Do you feel that the proposed process to establish new dog park locations provides for an open and
fair decision making process for locating dog parks?
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 20
Yes – 67.5%
No – 25%
No opinion – 7.5%
The full results of the survey included open ended responses are located on the dog park website page.
Appendix 2: Website Page
A webpage was developed containing information concerning meetings, the survey, and resource materials.
Information on the website included the following:
SURVEY ON POTENTIAL NEW DOG PARKS
Your input and feedback are important to us! The desire for additional dog parks is identified in the current
City of Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan (an element of the City Master Plan). In an effort to
ensure the Park Advisory Commission is responding to this need in an appropriate manner, the public is being
asked for input on where one or more dog parks could be located and what types of amenities should be
considered for inclusion in new and existing dog parks.
SURVEYS :
We invite everyone to take the dog park survey, whether or not you have a dog. In total, the survey should
take between 5-10 minutes to complete. We greatly appreciate your time, and thank you in advance for
sharing your thoughts. The survey link is www.surveymonkey.com/s/7YXPKXG or please call 734.794.6230
ext. 42590 to receive a paper copy. The survey will remain open through Monday, Aug. 12, 2013.
PUBLIC MEETINGS :
Wednesday, Sept. 11, 7 to 9:00 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm Barn (2781 Packard Road)
Tuesday, Sept. 24, 7 to 9:00 p.m. at Traverwood Library (3333 Traverwood Drive)
Tuesday, March 5, 7-8:30 at City Hall (301 East Huron Street)
EMAIL YOUR INPUT:
a2parks@a2gov.org and visit our website at http://www.a2gov.org/parks.
Persons with disabilities are encouraged to participate in public meetings. Accommodations, including sign
language interpreters, may be arranged by contacting the city clerk’s office at 734.794.6140; via email at
cityclerk@a2gov.org; or by written request addressed/mailed or delivered to the Ann Arbor City Clerk’s
Office, 301 E. Huron Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104. Requests need to be received at least 48 hours in advance
of the meeting.
PAC SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS:
Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Monday, May 5, 2013, 8 to 9:30 a.m., Friday, May 31, 2013, 4 to 5:30 p.m.,
Friday, June 21, 2013, 4 to 5:30 p.m., Monday, July 8, 2013, 4 to 5:30 p.m., Thursday, July 25, 2013, 8 to 9
a.m.., Friday, Aug. 23, 2013, 2:30 to 4 p.m., Friday, Sept. 20, 2013, 8:00 a.m., Friday, Nov. 8, 2013, 9 to
10 a.m., Monday, Nov. 25, 2013, 8 to 9 a.m., Monday, Dec. 2, 2013, 8 to 9 a.m.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 21
CITY WIDE PUBLIC MEETINGS:
Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2013, 7 to 9 p.m., Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road, Ann Arbor
Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013, 7 to 9 p.m., Traverwood Library, 3333 Traverwood Drive (at Huron Parkway)
The Dog Park Subcommittee of the Park Advisory Commission is exploring options for additional dog parks
within the City of Ann Arbor. Meetings are open to the public and a space for public commentary is included
on the agenda.
You can e-mail Parks Planner Amy Kuras or call 734.794.6230 ext. 42590 to receive additional information.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS INCLUDE:
Ingrid Ault
Karen Levin
Missy Stults
Staff support include Amy Kuras, Colin Smith, David Rohr
DOCUMENTS THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE IS REVIEWING INCLUDE:
Dog Park Questionnaire
Dog Park Survey
Dog Park Letter
Dog Park Article
PAC Dog Park Survey Results (PDF)
PAC Dog Park Survey Results (Excel)
The survey results are now available in an Excel spreadsheet format (above) for those interested in delving
deeper into the material. The Excel file can be downloaded and saved to your computer.
Additional cross tabulated survey reports are available upon request. Please email request to David Rohr at
drohr@a2gov.org.
Appendix 3: Public Meetings
Three public meetings were held to obtain general feedback about locations, criteria, and existing parks.
Notes from public meeting held on September 11, 2013
29 members of the public and 5 Park Advisory Commission members attended. The background and an
overview of the input process was presented as well as a summary of the survey. Meeting participants then
were asked to provide feedback.
Discussion about criteria:
Parks are used by many types of people, children, etc.
Adequate space is important.
Big spaces – wide and long for dogs to run.
Pay attention to potential use conflicts; children’s play area at Wurster Park.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 22
Permeable soils are important.
Not bordering households.
Distance from neighbors.
Avoid established neighborhood uses.
Drainage – not on slopes, so that feces does not drain into areas where children are playing.
Adequate parking – Old West Side is already full of cars from people who work downtown. There is
traffic congestion. People who would drive to a proposed park would make the situation worse.
What did we look at – want more specifics – how did these come about.
Every site needs to be evaluated on its own merits. The neighborhood is going to need to like it.
Drainage – not only slope away, but how soil perks – permeability.
Can you please reveal which parks informed your criteria?
Baltimore, Provincetown, Madison, and New Haven – lessons learned.
Maintenance:
Why are we considering another dog park when we can’t maintain what we have?
Would help to know mitigation strategies for taking care of what we have.
We need to know how to fix things – do it right before building more dog parks
Budget:
What is the budget?
How much is the partnership with the County?
What is the budget for capital and operating?
Why can’t we cooperate with the County?
Existing Dog Parks:
Users had a lot of complaints about existing dog parks.
Lessons learned – needed to modify parks, volunteers didn’t work out.
Why not reconfigure Swift Run to make it more fun?
Add to Swift Run – sand, pea gravel, cement – surfaces that can be cleaned.
Swift Run – water, filling in of low areas, parking lot, partitioning.
Issues:
Every park is a dog park – everyone lets their dogs run off-leash.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 23
Do not want a dog park in West Park.
Focus on one park vs. many parks.
Illegal gatherings.
Dog park licenses – online instead of having to come down to City Hall.
Remedy current dog park issues and learn from it.
Location:
Is there something that can be a walkable amenity from downtown?
It will never be walkable for everyone.
Look at the process in other communities – What is the best distance from houses? What is the minimum
size? People are interested in what makes a good location.
What parameters should we consider for a downtown park?
Identify dead spaces, other spaces that are not parks.
What about newly acquiring areas for dog parks?
Consider spaces that are not currently used as parks. Are there empty lots downtown or parking lots
that could be used as part time dog runs?
Will the city acquire new property for a dog park to avoid existing use conflicts in existing parks?
Be clear about centrally located dog park.
The question of dog park locations needing to be no more than 2 miles away makes me ask “away
from whom?? The people who would like Wurster Park would not be willing to walk to the North Main
City property, but folks closer to that spot would. How will you resolve that?
Why not remodel or use space not currently a park?
What properties have you looked at and eliminated – non-City owned.
Other:
Excited to have a dog park.
How do we hear what cities like Baltimore are doing?
Timeline – when do we expect to arrive at a conclusion?
Park fee with dog licensing fee
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 24
Notes from public meeting held on September 24, 2013
9 members of the public and 3 Park Advisory Commission members attended. The same presentation was
made as at the first meeting, but then participants were divided into two groups to discuss the criteria and
make suggestions as to specific potential locations.
Input on Proposed Criteria:
Size - people tend to take little dogs to little parks.
Enforcement is crucial – needs to be staffed.
Cleaning up after dogs.
Bar code entry, swipe card.
Swift Run is really huge – it doesn’t need to be that big. People lose track of their dogs.
Drainage – muddy dog park not good, need to rethink surfacing, provide alternatives, make sure any
new areas have proper drainage.
Parking spaces – need to be adequate for anticipated use.
Noise – elevation difference between park and surrounding area – in a valley or on a hill can help.
Keep an eye on historical nature of park; make sure that change in use does not change intention
or character.
Natural feature preservation – no development of sensitive natural features/areas.
Shade – need to make sure there are adequate trees.
Operation – can you control number of dogs using a particular dog park at any one time?
Use conflicts – buffers needed between different types of uses (play areas, etc.).
Connection to river or a moving body of water is a desirable feature.
Ideas for new dog parks:
Fuller Park South – has adequate parking, need to stay away from wetlands.
Kuebler Langford Park – thruway hikers, away from neighbors, noisy highway would cover noise
of barking.
Broadway Park – close to downtown, not much pedestrian traffic, not connected to B2B trail, noise
from trains, away from neighbors.
Veterans Memorial Park – noise offset by traffic, parking adequate, may be too popular, need an
acre minimum for this site.
DTE Property – not owned by City, away from neighbors.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 25
Notes from public meeting held on March 5, 2015
Fifteen members of the public and two Park Advisory Commission members attended the meeting. Research
done by the subcommittee was presented, along with proposed revised scoring criteria based on what was
learned.
Comments from attendees about why they came to the meeting:
Would like equal access to city services
Saline dog park – really like it, interested in parks in general
Special place where dogs should be, not around churches and things of that nature
Where could a dog park be placed? Concerned about cleaning up after dogs
Walks in regular parks, don’t think that Ann Arbor is going to make a dog park because we have too
many spaces where people keep their dogs off leash
Dog clean up is an issue and would like to have input on where dog parks could be and where they
shouldn’t be
Concerned about proximity of parks and who is going to maintain the park
Concerned about dog residue, and don’t want dogs around little people and elders because they
could bite, concerned about location around church. Wants to know about methods for choosing dog
parks.
Overview of meeting purpose
There is a long history of advocacy to establish dog parks, and people have very strongly held views
about dog parks
Worked to come up with a consistent and coherent process for locating dog parks, and want to make
sure that the process is as objective as possible
Want to make sure City is on the right track before considering specific sites
Attendees at meeting scored a location, and provided the following feedback about the scoring sheet:
There should be extra points for water bodies for swimming
Change residential buffer to institutional buffer as well, including churches, hospitals, etc.
Buffer from residents isn’t always better as maybe being closer for walkability is desired
Shade criteria is confusing
Use conflict avoidance should be about not just what is in the park, but what is around it
Geography – simplify so that it is about more equitable distribution
Clarify water quality and drainage criteria
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 26
Water source was confusing – is it about places to drink or swim or both?
Not sure that separating kids from dog parks is a desirable thing, having the kids at the park and
then a place for dogs in the same vicinity can be desirable as well.
Could the scoring be weighted?
Is there wiggle room in the selection criteria in the times of use, etc. It’s not like there is a formula, it is
site by site.
Appendix 4: Research from Other Communities
Staff and Park Advisory Commission subcommittee members performed research to explore best practices
from communities around the country, as well as professional organizations that specialize in pets. The
research included internet searches to find out what type of criteria were being used to site dog parks, as
well as what kind of design criteria were used to establish the areas. In addition to the web searches, staff
and Park Advisory Commission members telephoned and emailed individuals from more than 10 cities to
discuss the successes and struggles associated with their public process, design, and maintenance of dog parks
in their communities. A range of cities were contacted, including several whose population and makeup were
similar to Ann Arbor (university towns), several major cities who have numerous dog parks, and regional
facilities in Michigan and other states in the Midwest with similar climate.
The questions that were asked included the following. Responses are summarized in the charts:
Do you have criteria to site a dog park?
Do you have criteria for design of a dog park?
Do you have a minimum buffer and/or distance between dog parks and existing resident? If so, how
did you arrive at the criteria?
What kind of oversight do you have to enforce rules, monitor behavior of dogs, restrict entry, etc.? Do
you have staff on site?
Do you engage volunteers? If so, how?
Do you have any educational programs for the public, such as dog behavior issues they might
encounter, complaint procedures, etc.?
What type of decision making process was involved to establish the dog park?
Are you satisfied with how your public process panned out? Were there contentious issues? If so, how
did they get resolved?
Do your dog parks include a separate area for small dogs? If so, how large is the area?
What has, in your opinion, worked well in establishment and maintenance of your dog parks?
What would you do differently next time around?
In order to compare the responses that were gathered, the following charts outline the responses received in
categories to allow for comparison.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 27
Several cities, including Denver, CO; Salt Lake County, UT; and Oakland, CA have master plan documents
that were used to provide data. Others were telephoned and emailed, and others had useful information on
their websites. These were all utilized to compare criteria. Not all cities had criteria for every category
included in the charts, but there was sufficient information to provide comparative information.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 28
Appendix 5: Charts Summarizing Data from Other Cities
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 29
Appendix 6: Existing Dog Park Rules
DOG PARK USERS
PLEASE OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING RULES
1. A permit is required to use this facility. For registrations call 994-2725 City, 222-
6600 County.
2. Dogs must display current registration, license, and vaccination tags.
3. Users of this facility do so at their own risk. Dog behavior can be unpredictable
around other dogs and strangers.
4. Dog owners and handlers are strictly liable for any damage or injury caused by their
dogs.
5. Dog handlers must be 16 years of age or older.
6. Children under age 15 are not allowed in the park unless accompanied by an adult.
7. All dogs must remain on leash until inside the designated fenced area.
8. Dogs must not be left unattended. Dogs must be in view and under the voice
command of their handler at all times.
9. Dog handlers are required to clean up and dispose of their dogs’ waste.
10. Dogs in heat and puppies under 4 months of age are not permitted in the park.
11. Dogs that fight or exhibit aggressive behavior must be immediately removed from
the park.
12. No more than two dogs per handler are allowed at one time.
13. No smoking, food, or alcohol is allowed within the park.
14. Professional dog trainers shall not use the park to conduct their business.
15. Failure to comply with posted rules is subject to citation, expulsion, or arrest, as well
as dog impound.
Park Hours are dawn to dusk
(Subject to closures during required maintenance operations.)
Call 911 for Emergency Assistance
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 30
Appendix 7: Scoring Sheet for Placement Criteria
the trust for public land dog parks 101, 2019 1
Executive summary: How to build a
dog park.
We get many questions from parks agencies, park
advocates, and the press about dog parks through
the year, but especially around the release of our
ParkScore Index in late May. People have many
questions about “the right way” to build a dog park
and want to bring together the right combination of
people and resources to make it possible. Based on
those discussions, as well as some interviews and even
some personal experience, we have put together this
guide. It will continue to be revised (we welcome your
thoughts) and posted on our Park Advocacy resource,
Parkology.org.
1. Have a plan.
With so many dog parks in public parks, there are
both best practices and lessons learned that both
public agencies and park advocates could learn from.
The most important point is: have a plan. You can
modify it as you go, but being upfront about what you
need to do helps everyone understand what is required
and keeps the process public and transparent.
A plan should address all of those questions that
people will ask as you move through both the
approvals process as well as the funding process. It
should answer some of the following questions:
• What kinds of facilities you want to build?
• Should the dog park or off-leash area be fenced,
or are you planning for open areas that are open
during a certain number of hours during the day?
• For open areas in a larger park, are you planning to
rotate from season to season?
• Are you planning water features, including
drinking fountains, splash pads, or pools?
• Are you planning climbing or other agility features?
• Are you including seating and shade?
There are many options, and you should first
consult what types of dog parks already exist in your
community, as well as any standards that have been
developed or approved by public agencies. (We will
cover this in detail in a bit.)
Public agencies should develop a standard for dog
parks with a public input process based on best
practices that are generally available widely. Required
elements for dog parks generally include:
• COMPLETE FENCING around the perimeter of the
designated area, or natural barriers that prohibit
dogs from leaving the area.
• DOUBLE-GATE ENTRY – A standard feature is a
double-gate entry system with a gated waiting area
for the dog and human to enter, remove the dog’s
leash, and then open the gate to the main off-leash
area, reversing the process for exiting. This ensures
that unplanned escapes will be kept to a minimum,
allows for leashing and unleashing in a separate
area, and enables dog owners to manage the transi-
tion into and out of the dog park.
• SEPARATE AREAS FOR SMALL AND LARGE DOGS. Allow
for dogs of different sizes and ages to avoid inter-
acting (and causing possible conflicts) by creating
separate areas for different-sized dogs and their
humans. Puppies and shy dogs then have the oppor-
tunity to interact and get used to the high level of
activity that can occur in a dog park.
• SURFACING PLAN (including renewal) – There are
many surfacing options, and the choices depend
on weather, drainage, and current conditions.
That said, there are many options, ranging from
artificial turf to engineered wood fiber to gravel.
All have pluses and minuses, and local knowledge
of what works in other park facilities (such as
playgrounds or other high-traffic areas) is critical.
For example, artificial turf is great, but it requires
cleaning and built in irrigation and sanitizing
systems are increasingly common. Natural turf is
softer but requires a lot more care – including a
plan for renewal, including temporary closures for
regrowth. Gravel, rock dust or some sort of crusher
fines work well but can get stuck in dog paws and
Dog parks 101, 2019
The Trust for Public Land – Center for City Park Excellence.
the trust for public land dog parks 101, 2019 2
become dusty in drier climates or seasons. Regular
mulch or engineered wood fiber is increasingly
used in playgrounds, but needs to be replaced
often, depending on the usage patterns.
• AN ALTERNATIVE to fenced and gated sites are areas
that are subject to time restrictions for off-leash
use. Prime examples are Long Meadow in Prospect
Park, Brooklyn, NY, or Boston Common, which
have off-leash rotating areas depending on the time
of the year. These parks set out specific areas as
well as specific times of day for off-leash usage.
• DOG WASTE PLAN (bag dispensers and trashcans) –
A key requirement of any dog park is dealing with
dog waste, as well as general trash and recycling.
All dog owners should be strongly encouraged to
bring their own bags (you never know where a dog
will poop!) and be encouraged to “pack it out,” to
minimize the impact on the dog park as well as the
ongoing maintenance and operations for the parks
department.
• A DESIGN TO ENCOURAGE MOVEMENT. We’ve heard
from many dog trainers and public health officials
that a key ingredient in developing good park areas
are designs that keep dogs and their people moving
in the off-leash area. Many people might think that
unclipping your dog’s leash once inside the double
gate and plopping oneself down on a bench is all
you need to do. Nope. Dogs are pack animals and
love to socialize, but also need to be managed by
their owners. We all need exercise, and areas for
object chasing, agility and other forms of activity,
mixed with socialization, are a key contributors to
a great dog park.
2. Make sure your dog park is open
and inviting.
Try to make your dog park inviting to everyone,
not just dogs and their owners or walkers. As many
case studies have shown, having a good working
relationship with neighbors is critical to the success
of any dog park. While welcoming elements might be
considered frills, it is important to think about what
makes your favorite park inviting and welcoming, as
many of the same rules apply.
• WATER FOUNTAINS OR FEATURES for humans and
pups. Having a source of water, especially in
warmer climates, is key. Dogs can get overheated
easily, and we all want everyone to stay hydrated
and safe.
• SEATING FOR HUMANS. Generally, it is a good idea to
keep people and their dogs moving, but everyone
needs a break. Having seating is good; it can often
double as an agility feature.
• PARKING AND BIKE RACKS. Not everyone can walk
their dog to the park; some people need to come
via other means.
• SHADE. In general, we need trees in our parks,
and dog parks are no exception. Alternatives can
include shade structures, like those increasingly
found shading playgrounds in warmer climates.
• SIGNAGE. It is very important to post clearly at
dog park entrances the park’s hours, rules, volun-
teer opportunities, and opportunities for joining
friends-of-the-park or dog park groups.
• VISUAL ATTRACTIVENESS, ESPECIALLY FROM OUTSIDE
THE PARK. It is important to be a good neighbor to
the rest of the park, the adjacent street, and local
residents and businesses. Improvements such as
flower plantings, attractive street fencing, and
artwork are always welcome and are ways that the
local friends group can make a difference in the
upkeep of the park. One of the authors passes his
community dog park going to and from the subway
each day, and it’s a lively place with dogs and their
people socializing, playing together, and engaging
with passersby. (There’s a set of athletic fields and
a very busy hike-and-bike trail in the immediate
vicinity.)
3. Be open and communicative.
Be sure to cast a wide net and work with likely as well
as unlikely allies as you work to plan, build, and run
your dog park.
GROUPS FAVORING DOG PARKS should reach out to
the city’s parks department to determine if there are
ordinances as well as design standards (including the
elements mentioned above) that need to be followed in
order to create a dog park.
Groups favoring dog parks should also reach out
to current users of the park, and local community
leaders, to understand the history of the community
and the park, prior and current park uses, and other
possible plans or efforts for the park that may be
the trust for public land dog parks 101, 2019 3
already underway. This identifies the issues and
concerns of individuals or other groups, and allows all
players to engage in the process with their eyes fully
opened.
Public parks agencies should seek input from groups
that may, at first glance, not seem to be allies. These
can include:
• PUBLIC ANIMAL MANAGEMENT AGENCIES AND
SHELTERS. These agencies can be sources of infor-
mation—for example about runaways or stray dogs,
dogs chained in yards, dog bites, dog adoptions,
and other issues—and help by identifying poten-
tial allies of dog parks or the benefits of building
one. They can provide programming, including
adoptions, run-with-a-dog programs, onsite health
clinics, obedience classes, licensing, and vacci-
nations. (All of these efforts can go a long way
in addressing issues that often come up in news
reports, including sick dogs, misbehaving dogs, or
conflicts with dog owners.)
• COMMUNITY-BASED DOG-ADVOCACY GROUPS. These
groups are often breed-specific or rescue-oriented.
Community and other friends groups can be crit-
ical to the success of a dog park. In fact, a number
of public park agencies require a friends group to
help maintain and manage the dog park, or even
to raise money for construction, maintenance, or
improvements. More than any other partner, these
groups, made-up mostly of volunteers, assume a
strong ownership role in the park, helping to main-
tain standards of behavior and cleanliness, keeping
“eyes on the park,” and managing community and
park-agency issues on a regular basis.
• NONPROFITS INVOLVED IN DOG WELLBEING. These
include adoption agencies, low-cost spay and
spay-and-neuter clinics, animal shelters, area
veterinarians, affinity groups, agility and obedience
trainers, and more. Like the animal management
agencies and shelters, these organizations are a
great source of programming, both at the dog park
and offsite, and can help educate dog owners and
promote positive activation of dog parks.
4. Embrace the standards.
Many city parks departments have developed standards
and master plans for dog parks. But even when
standards and plans are in place and other dog parks
are already established, it is important for groups to
reach out and communicate proposals and plans for a
new dog park. Although the expenses associated with
community outreach, collaboration, and coalition
building can seem high, these investments are
essential to establishing and maintaining a successful
dog park. We’ve provided a case study below to show
how.
Case Study: RUFF and the DeFillipo
playground and dog park in the North
End, Boston.
RUFF (Responsible Urbanites for Fido) began in
response to increased complaints about dogs and dog
owners in the North End neighborhood of Boston.
The North End is a close-knit and tightly packed
neighborhood that has been an Italian-American for
several generations and, prior to that, was home to
successive Irish Enclave and a Jewish communities,
all these changes coming in the last 100 years. RUFF
began to organize and help address issues related to
dogs, including the use of leashes in parks, volunteer
efforts to clean-up parks frequented by dogs and their
owners, and raising funds to pay for Mutt Mitts and
other supplies.
About 2015, the group began looking for public spaces
to put in a pilot dog park, working closely with the
Boston Parks and Recreation Commission as well as
local community groups. Of all of the parks in the
neighborhood, they ended up with what they thought
was their last choice. The site was on multiple levels
in and around the DeFlippo Playground. The park
has historically been known as “Gassy,” from the
days when a giant aboveground gas tank stood in the
middle of the neighborhood. But, it was site for a dog
park, and RUFF saw a great opportunity.
The group raised some funds and embarked on a pilot
project. They purchased fencing for the site and had it
installed, complete with gates that had to be manually
locked and unlocked daily. To do this, they rotated
through volunteers for the first few months. With a
little fundraising, they installed automatic gates that
unlocked in the morning and locked automatically
at closing.
the trust for public land dog parks 101, 2019 4
Through the pilot, which lasted several years, RUFF
worked to address ongoing issues (like excessive
barking and dog waste), held gatherings that offered
education and services (licensing, dog wash, vet
check-ups), and continued coordinating with both
neighborhood organizations and the public parks
agency. Over time, the group raised additional funds
and worked out the details to build a permanent
dog park, complete with artificial turf, irrigation to
clean and disinfect the turf in season, additional play
and safety features, and improvements to the pilot
elements, including fencing.
The park opened in the spring of 2018. In the
meantime, RUFF volunteers continue to do what they
have been doing for the past four years: addressing
neighborhood issues, daily maintenance and
operations (shoveling snow, cleaning steps, and small
repairs), and, most importantly, enjoying the park.
5. Unique features, cool features, ideas
and suggestions for dog parks.
Off-leash dog parks are not just for playing, walking,
and running. Facilities for swimming, agility and more
are being added to public dog parks in cities across the
United States. We have highlighted a selection and will
be adding to this list on parkology.org. We invite your
contributions as well.
• First dog park in NYC – Tompkins Square Park
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_park)
• Millie Bush Dog park – Houston, TX – http://www.
pct3.com/dog-parks/millie-bush-dog-park
• Laurel Canyon Dog Park – Los Angeles – https://
www.laparks.org/dogpark/laurel-canyon
• Bear Creek Dog Park, Colorado Springs, CO
– https://communityservices.elpasoco.com/
parks-and-recreation/bear-creek-dog-park/
• Montrose Beach Dog Park, Chicago – only beach
where dogs are allowed (in many parts of the
northern US, dogs are often excluded from beaches
from memorial day through labor day) – http://
mondog.org/
• Prospect Park, Brooklyn, NY – https://www.prospect-
park.org/visit-the-park/things-to-do/dogs/
• Bark Park at Heritage Park, Henderson, NV – http://
www.cityofhenderson.com/henderson-happenings/
parks-and-trails/locations-and-features/
bark-park-at-heritage-park
6. Sample standards and policies for
dog parks
Here are some examples of policies and / or standards
that have been created by public agencies for
dog parks.
• Ann Arbor, MI: https://www.a2gov.org/departments/
Parks-Recreation/play/Documents/Recommen-
dations%20and%20Guidelines%20for%20Dog%20
Park%20Site%20Selection%20updated%204-10-15.pdf
• American Kennel Club: http://images.akc.org/pdf/
GLEG01.pdf
• City of Norfolk, VA Dog Park Criteria: https://www.
norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1531
• CityLab – The Anatomy of a Large Dog
Park: https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/04/
how-to-design-the-best-dog-park/522870/
• District of Columbia – Dog Park Design Guidelines:
https://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/
publication/attachments/dpr_DogParkDesignStan-
dards.pdf
• Raleigh, NC Dog Park Study: https://www.raleighnc.
gov/parks/content/ParksRec/Articles/Projects/
DogParkStudy.html and final report: https://
publicinput.com/dogparks
• Separating small and large dogs in dog
parks: https://www.dog-on-it-parks.com/blog/
dog-park-design-cosiderations-large-small-dog-areas/
• Ten tips for planning and building a dog park:
http://www.doodycalls.com/blog/ten-tips-for-plan-
ning-and-building-a-dog-park-in-your-community/
• PetSafe: https://www.petsafe.net/learn/
how-to-design-a-dog-park
Active Transportation Plan
Updates
Presented
September 8, 2025
Updates
•Local Planning Team kickoff – July
•VillageFest and Night to Unite outreach
•Bike & Walk Audit – September
•Listening Sessions – September and
October
•Local Planning Team workshop –
October
•Plan drafting and review – late fall and
winter
1
2
Community Listening Sessions
•Monday, September 22
•City Hall Council Chambers, 5 PM – 7 PM
•Open to all
•Monday, September 29
•SAMS Family Night, 5-5:30 PM
•Open to middle school students and families
•Thursday, October 2
•Hayden Grove Senior Living, starting at 2 PM
•Open to all
Online Map and Survey
•Everyone is invited to fill out our
survey to share comments:
•Available at
savmn.com/at-survey or bit.ly/sav-at
•You are also invited to add
comments to our interactive
online map:
•Bit.ly/sav-atmap
3
4
THANK YOU
5