Council & Staff Work Session 9-10-13

(Official City Minutes of Meeting are available here: http://www.ashevillenc.gov/Portals/0/city-documents/cityclerk/mayor_and_citycouncil/minutes/mmthirteen/m130910.pdf) 

The meeting convened at 4pm.  Representing the city were Mayor Bellamy, all six Council members, City Manager Gary Jackson, Public Works Department Director Cathy Ball, Parks Recreation & Cultural Arts Director Roderick Simmons, Assistant Director Debbie Ivester, and some other staff. Dog park advocates included Bob Roepnack, Nancy Alenier and Chuck Cloninger.

WLOS sent Kimberley King with a cameraman, and the Citizen-Times sent Mark Barrett.  

Opponents present included two from Lakeview Park, one from Wild Cherry, and three from the Hills of Beaverdam.  Ecologist Dr. Ed Hauser and Jack Thomson from the Asheville Preservation Society also attended.  There were a number of empty seats.

CITY NEEDS TO HAVE OVERSIGHT; $5,000 SHOULD HELP PAY FOR IT

Cathy Ball made a presentation depicting the normal process by which a park is created. Intent and budget priorities are established in the Master Plan.  As the proposed dog park is not in the Master Plan, any costs incurred for it would force the delay or elimination of other scheduled projects.  If the dog park project is to proceed, it needs to be clarified if the city is to fund and manage it, or if the Friends will supply capital funding and planning.  In either case, it must be recognized that the city bears ultimate responsibility and must have oversight.  The $5,000 could help fund such oversight.

City personnel seemed to believe citizens in attendance were all supporters of the dog park. Remarks about costs and difficulties were couched in gentle terms.  I later told Mayor Bellamy that at least six of us were opponents.

BELLAMY: DOG PARK SHOULD NOT LEAP AHEAD OF OTHER PROJECTS

Mayor Bellamy suggested strongly that a dog park should wait its turn, and funds should be allocated based upon the Master Plan.  Projects had already been scheduled and prioritized.  Now the dog park has been put at the top of the list. People whose projects are delayed will be rightfully upset. She said what’s the rush “the land will still be there next year.”  

HUNT: DOG PARK SHOULD TAKE PRIORITY

Mark Hunt said dog parks weren’t yet fashionable when the Master Plan was drafted, and that many projects in the Plan were there in response to special interest groups.  We should promote the dog park to the position it would have had in the Plan, if we had known then about how good they were. We need to give the dog park priority because we have been offered the land.  It didn’t bother him that is was taking longer, as you can’t enforce a timetable on someone who might give you a piece of land.  Annual maintenance expense needs to be established if the city takes on the project.  

Cecil Bothwell wondered if the Beaverdam dog park could be a neighborhood park that residents would walk to, with no need for a parking lot.  Others felt that would not work.  Bothwell then said an environmental assessment should be done to estimate what effect a dog park would have, and to determine if a dog park’s pollution would be any worse than other pollution already impacting the creek.

BELLAMY: I THOUGHT $5,000 WAS IT! NO MORE FUNDING.

Bellamy, looking frustrated, said “I may be a minority here, but I don’t understand this.”  She said she thought Council had approved $5,000 and that would be the end of it.  Then she noted city projects are generally done on a strict schedule, with frequent progress reports.  It seemed this project would remain on the docket for months, if not years.  She questioned if Council had voted to establish a dog park, or merely shower love on the idea.  Everyone, including Chris Pelly, seemed to agree that “establishment” of the dog park was far from certain.  

Gordon Smith said (one brief stmt, can’t recall.  If you remember, comment or send email to , and I will update)

Jan Davis wondered how the land became available.  He said he had heard it even called extortion by the city.  He lives in Lakeview Park and was concerned about all the dogs walking around Beaver Lake and about the large amount clean-up necessary.  Many outsiders pay $50/year to walk dogs at the Lake.

Esther Manheimer supported the notion of using the $5,000 for staff involvement and oversight.  Her position is, we’re not committed to a dog park yet; we’ll explore things like traffic and environmental.

FUND PARKS BY INCREASING DOG LICENSE FEES?

Chris Pelly floated the idea, as he had at the Friends meeting Monday, that dog license fees could be increased to fund dog park maintenance.  Currently, the city raises $4,000 per year from the $10 annual fee.

Chris Pelly and Gary Jackson emphasized this is an outstanding opportunity for the city to obtain land, especially since there is very little open land left.

FRIENDS GROUP NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE

Cathy Ball and Gary Jackson discussed the MOU (Memo Of Understanding) being drafted by the city to be negotiated with Ark Development concerning Ark’s potential contribution of land.  (Debbie Ivester explained to us after the meeting that regardless of the Friends performance in funding maintenance, the city would be responsible to provide a minimum level of maintenance, and that is all that could be promised to Ark Development in the MOU.   Bottom Line:  Chris Pelly’s statement at the May 14th council meeting that the Friends would be getting donations for ongoing maintenance is misleading.  The Friends do not have to spend a penny on maintenance--taxpayers are responsible for anything not paid by the Friends. ) They were not optimistic that Ark Development would accept the city’s commitment to a minimal level of maintenance, equivalent to that currently provided at the other dog parks.

Mayor Bellamy said that city projects have status reports, and she asked why this project did not have an updated one.  Gary Jackson said that within a week he would be working with the builder on the MOU to get the builder to donate the land, so there would be an update soon.