Sample Letter to Council Members, Council, Staff & Ark Development email addresses

We have been working since June to stop a dog park from being established at Wild Cherry and Beaverdam.  There have been articles about our cause in the Citizen-Times, Mountain Xpress, and on WLOS TV 13.  We have accumulated articles, letters and links to media coverage. 

Here is a suggested letter to City Council and the Mayor.  We encourage you to copy and paste into your email service, and modify as you please.  We will change the text periodically to keep it up-to-date.  Note the AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov email address will send an email to all Council Members, including the Mayor.  (Staff email addresses are at the bottom of the page.)

AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov

I am writing in opposition to the establishment of a dog park at the corner of Wild Cherry Rd and Beaverdam Rd.  I am opposed for the following reasons:

• Risk of environmental damage.  Dog urine will kill trees, and could fill Beaver Lake with green algae and kill fish (as it has already done at the Azalea Park Dog Park).
• Too close to homes. Dog Parks can be noisy, unsightly and smelly. 
• Loss of visual buffer and wildlife habitat.  Trees, shrubs and undergrowth provide a buffer around the Thoms Estate Development.
• Endangers Killian house at 284 Beaverdam.  No one will want to buy a house with a busy road in front and a busy dog park right behind and beside.  The Killian house, built 1842, may be the oldest house in Buncombe County, and should be preserved.
• Traffic congestion.  Based upon Azalea Dog Park usage, this dog park would average a car every two minutes.
• Likelihood of poor maintenance.  150 Azalea Dog Park users signed a petition concerning their pets and children getting sick after using the dog park. This one promises to be no better.
• Diversion of funds to maintain.  The Friends of the North Asheville Dog Park were to pay for maintenance (5/14 Council Minutes).  Now, it seems, the City is responsible. Why is this project now taking precedence above other projects already scheduled?

Support for the above assertions and elaboration of their effects can be found at Responsible Asheville http://rasheville.blogspot.com/

Do not suppose that supporting this dog park will please dog owners.  A very small fraction of dog owners desire this dog park.  I understand they are well organized.  But your job is to represent all citizens.

Neither the City, the Friends of the North Asheville Dog Park, nor anyone else has notified all the residents in the area of the location of this proposed dog park. I have no doubt further notification will yield an overwhelming response in opposition to this dog park.  Please do not upend established City projects to force this unsuitable dog park on our community.

Name
Address (or at least neighborhood or street, if you wish to be considered a constituent) 

City Council and Staff email addresses

The most effective means to get Council to respond is to flood them with letters.  Please let them know how you feel!

Either address email to   AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov   which automatically sends an email to each council member,

or use the list below:

mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com (mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com); emanheimer@vwlawfirm.com (emanheimer@vwlawfirm.com);cecil@braveulysses.com (cecil@braveulysses.com); jandavis@avlcouncil.com (jandavis@avlcouncil.com);marchunt@avlcouncil.com (marchunt@avlcouncil.com); chrispelly@avlcouncil.com (chrispelly@avlcouncil.com);gordonsmith@avlcouncil.com (gordonsmith@avlcouncil.com)

And don't forget our new council member Gwen@gwenwisler.com

Here's email addresses for City staff involved in the proposed dog park.  Just copy and paste the entire block to your email app address area:

McCray Coates <mcoates@ashevillenc.gov>, Shannon Tuch <stuch@ashevillenc.gov>, Jeff Moore <jmoore@ashevillenc.gov>, David Foster <dfoster@ashevillenc.gov>, Al Kopf  <akopf@ashevillenc.gov>, Debbie Ivester <divester@ashevillenc.gov>, Roderick Simmons <rsimmons@ashevillenc.gov>, Cathy Ball <cball@ashevillenc.gov>, Gary Jackson <gjackson@ashevillenc.gov>

If your email client doesn't like the block above, here it is with the names removed:

mcoates@ashevillenc.gov,  stuch@ashevillenc.gov,  jmoore@ashevillenc.gov,  dfoster@ashevillenc.gov,   akopf@ashevillenc.gov, divester@ashevillenc.gov, rsimmons@ashevillenc.gov,  cball@ashevillenc.gov,  gjackson@ashevillenc.gov

Here are their titles, although these seem to change frequently!

McCray Coates          Stormwater Services Manager

David Foster             Deputy Director, Public Works
Al Kopf                     Superintendent, Park Planning & Development

Jeff Moore                City Traffic Engineer

Shannon Tuch            Development Services Director
Debbie Ivester          Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation
Cathy Ball                 Assistant City Manager
Roderick Simmons     Director, Parks and Recreation 
Gary Jackson            City Manager

ARK DEVELOPMENT email addresses:

Ronald Brittain/CEO : ceo@palmhill.com

Alex Brittain/CFO: cfo@palmhill.com

Larry Hollens/VP of Acquisitions : inquiries@palmhill.com

Kevin Reese/Director of Construction and Development : kevin.reese@arkdevelopment.com

Ron Butler/Sales and Real Estate: ronald.butler@arkdevelopment.com

General email address: info@arkdevelopment.com

July Flood at Wild Cherry & Beaverdam

    Video by Brad

July Flood at Wild Cherry & Beaverdam

Click to Enlarge, Back to Return                   Photo by Brad Brock

From Brad , Wild Cherry resident, Asheville High parent, and Mission trauma nurse re. DOG PARK, SCHMOG PARK‏

Brad    5:28 PM
To: jmoore@ashevillenc.gov
Cc: ashevillenccouncil@ashevillenc.gov, akopf@ashevillenc.gov

Greetings Mr. Moore:

In advance of your meeting with the "Friends" this week, I'd like to add my name to the list of those opposed to a dog park in the proposed location, and especially to an entrance on Wild Cherry Road.

As I'm sure you know, the Wild Cherry/Beaverdam intersection is the only point of ingress/egress for the entire neighborhood comprised of Wild Cherry, Garland, Gibson, the three Crabapples, and Round Oak. There is another route, but as the Thoms Estate is the last legal gated "community" within city limits, neighborhood residents are prevented from driving through the development. However, as the Thoms Estate comes online, many of the residents of those 80+ acres will use the WC/Beaverdam intersection as well.

I know there is not much point, since you are a traffic engineer, in addressing concerns regarding the complete elimination of the sound buffer from Beaverdam Road, the removal of the visual buffer from the Thoms Estate, the loss of property value for the 1842 Killian House (I was a commissioner on Historic Resources), the elimination of one of the remaining hiding spots along the creek for the valley's turkey, bear, bobcat, and coyote, the degradation of the creek from urine and feces leading to algae blooms, loss of trout population, contamination of the ACC golf course, the Audubon Sanctuary, and Beaver Lake, the insanity that the city would accept a floodplain liability "donation" and subsequently hand use of that land over to the "private sector" for design, construction, and maintenance, and the fact that very few, if any, of the residents in our neighborhood embrace the idea of a dog park.

However, as I'm cc'ing City Council and Parks and Rec on this mail, I feel those concerns need to be at least mentioned.

I do feel that it's prudent to voice my concerns over three matters that pertain to your department.

1)    The proposed entrance lies immediately adjacent to the fragile creek bed, sandwiched between the entrance to the Thoms Estate and the Wild Cherry ACS and ART bus stop. This morning, there were 6 kids waiting to catch the bus at the intersection, my son being one of them. It's the same in the afternoon.

In no way am I interested in sacrificing the safety of our neighborhood's children, whether it be from distracted, unfamiliar-with-the-territory drivers turning off of Beaverdam, or predators who might frequent a public and unsupervised park. I really don't want to see anyone from my neighborhood show up on my unit at Mission due to someone else's negligence or malice.

2)    As I'm emailing you from my phone, and the file is on my computer, I'll send you a second mail with photos and video of what the proposed park and entrance looked like not two months ago. It was under 3-5 feet of raging floodwater, standing waves and all.... No wonder ARK Development (of Jensen Beach, FL) wants to give this liability away. They don't have the resources to actually build the ark it would have taken to navigate the creek on that day. I texted this video to Marc Hunt several weeks ago, but received no reply.

3)    What about the coming Beaverdam Road traffic from Thoms Estate, Grove Park Cove, Bartrams Walk, and all the yet to be developed lots on Webb Cove. Seems as if adding more traffic to an already-saturated, fast-paced, and blind curve-filled Beaverdam is unwise at best.

And, if the developer really wants to do something with the land, why not a conservation easement or donating it to the city for a limited-clearing greenway?

I appreciate your time in reading and reflecting on this email, and please understand that there is much inertia building in opposition to this idea. The "Friends" (whose president, Bob Roepnak, is another Florida developer from Pompano Beach) have spent over a year organizing and glad-handing certain members of Council. But, I think when everything's on the table, the city will realize that, while a dog park in North Asheville might be a good idea, this location is ill-conceived, shows poor foresight and environmental apathy, places the wishes of those living lives of relative leisure over the safety of children and transit commuters, and is just a big bowl of wrong.

Sincerely, and thanks again,
Brad

Dog Park: "Nice trees you got there . . ."

What dog love can do

Proponents of a dog park on Beaverdam Rd are ecstatic about trees.  Sites without trees are dismissed as unsuitable.  But dogs love trees for different reasons than people.  The love is not reciprocal.

Dog pee harms the bark and roots, and diminishes the quality of topsoil. And it doesn't just harm trees.  It kills almost all plants, as any dog owner with a lawn knows.

See all the details in The Atlantic magazine "Why You Shouldn't Let Your Dog Pee on Trees" at http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/08/why-you-shouldnt-let-your-dog-pee-trees/3117/


John

Kevin email to City Staff and Council

Kevin 10/14/13

To: jmoore@ashevillenc.gov

Mr. Moore,

I live on Wild Cherry Rd., in North Asheville and am opposed to the creation of a dog park on Wild Cherry Rd. and Beaverdam Rd.. 

This idea was brought to the City Council by a group of individuals, many of whom do not live in the immediate area. This plan does not meet the best practices criteria for dog parks and will be a blight on our neighborhood. Most concerning to me will be the significant increase in traffic for residents using the Wild Cherry bridge to access Beaverdam Rd. and the eyesore that will be created in our neighborhood by others who simply want a place for their dogs to run free.

There are also serious questions about noise and environmental degradation.

As you know, most dog parks are created within established parks or in industrial zones far away from residential area for these very reasons.   

I note that at no time have our neighbors been canvassed by the city to gauge the local sentiments regarding the plan. 

I urge you to reconsider this plan and recommend that the city make an effort to hear from the residents of this neighborhood who will be the most affected by this ill conceived project.

Respectfully,

Kevin

Dog Park Traffic? Would A Car Every Two Minutes Be OK?

From the Asheville Citizen-Times:
"The city recently counted 150 vehicles a day visiting a dog park on Azalea Road in East Asheville, (Assistant City Manager Cathy) Ball said."
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130909/NEWS/309090014/North-Asheville-dog-park-council-agenda

150 vehicles a day visit a dog park so filthy that 150 users signed a petition alleging dogs and children are getting sick!  http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/08/from-citizen-times-june-9-httpwww.html

The Friends of the North Asheville Dog Park insist the proposed Beaverdam dog park will be maintained to a higher standard.  If true, might we expect more than 150 visits per day?

150 vehicles per day means 150 inbound and 150 outbound per day, or 300 events of entry/exit.  Assuming ten hours of use per day, that's 30 cars pulling in or out per hour, or one every two minutes, on average.


John

COUNCIL RESPONSIBILITY (continuation of my August 1 and September 2, 2013, emails, included below)‏

Tyler

Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 07:08:45 -0400 

To: councilgroup, gjackson@ashevillenc.gov, rsimmons@ashevillenc.gov

Dear Mayor Bellamy and Council Members:

I appreciate your making yourselves available to citizens.  The proposed Dog Park at 284 Beaverdam Road remains a concern for some of us, so I participated in your July 18 public meeting and wrote to you on August 1, September 2 and, again, today.   Thank you.

Mayor Bellamy, I think highly of your leadership, to delay the rush to a decision on this dog park, which seems to have jumped up to the top of the City's priority list, for some reason.  Your keen eye detects the Bait & Switch, that is being aided by Chris Pelly.  The Bait was Magic Disappearing Money™ and the Switch was "Oh, I guess the city can pay for maintenance after all."  MDM™ of course, is the unenforceable commitment of the Friends to fund future maintenance.  As Marc Hunt has written: “…relying on such efforts for baseline stewardship is often a mistake.”

All of you are hearing from a few "Friends of North Asheville Dog Park."  Please realize that a significant number of voters may become very upset if (when) Beaver Lake turns green.  Both Dr. Hauser and another 233-page professional report, made in 2012, warn that Beaver Lake may be fragile: “Whether the lake is just about to have a problem or not cannot be predicted.”

To date, my multiple questions have not been answered, except marginally in Marc Hunt's email of September 4, that was also received by other concerned neighbors (voters).  Below are several other points, for which I do not expect a reply.  However, I am keenly interested in your actions. 

+ You have received the report by Dr. Edward J.P. Hauser, Wetlands Ecologist and Environmental Biologist, that recommends a formal environmental assessment before [further] planning occurs, i.e., immediately.

+ You continue to meet with Staff and instruct them to cooperate with FNADP, in spite of the ongoing location controversy.

+ No one on City Staff is qualified to do a formal environmental assessment.   

+ Azalea Lake became polluted, while it was being maintained by the City of Asheville.

+ One on Council suggests using the property as “a neighborhood amenity and not an entertainment destination.”

+ Other issues can wait on an environmental assessment, e.g., Hunt's notion that "Dog Parks are proving very popular..."  

     

+ I request that Council notify these downstream neighbors, by October 31, 2013:    

  Ø · Country Club of Asheville 

  Ø · Lakeview Park homeowners (485 votes)

  Ø · Elisha Mitchell Audubon Society (From whom you have a letter about this dog park proposal)

  Ø · Other Beaverdam Valley property owners.

I appeal for no further City action on a dog park on Beaverdam Creek, until a formal environmental assessment is done by a disinterested corporate entity.  

It is the responsibility of the entire Council to determine what Asheville is to become, or rather, what Asheville is becoming, under your leadership.

All the best....

Tyler

Below are links to earlier emails referenced above:

COUNCIL RESPONSIBILITY (continuation of August 1, 2013, email below)‏

http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/09/council-responsibility-continuation-of.html 

Beaver Lake Threatened

http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/09/beaver-lake-threatened.html

Is Dog Park broadly supported?‏

John10:10 PM

To: divester@ashevillenc.gov, chrispelly@avlcouncil.com

Cc: cball@ashevillenc.gov, (mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com), (emanheimer@vwlawfirm.com), (cecil@braveulysses.com), (jandavis@avlcouncil.com), (marchunt@avlcouncil.com), (gordonsmith@avlcouncil.com)

The Friends suggest that multitudes are in favor of a dog park on Beaverdam Rd, while few are opposed:

• Yet only 23 Friends attended their last meeting on Sept 9 (I was there, along with other opponents, and I counted).
• You might recall at the Hills of Beaverdam meeting June 7 there were that many opponents (plus one supporter) attending the meeting from just our subdivision that has only 39 houses, a meeting held on short notice during business hours.  Several opponents were unable to attend.
• Supporters point to the number of dogs in Asheville, implying dog owners support the dog park. But most of the opponents have dogs!  Some support a dog park in a more appropriate location, and others see no need for a dog park.
• Animal Hospital of North Asheville is a principal supporter, and with 47 employees, easily organized to send many supportive emails to council.
• How many city residents use the existing dog parks?  What fraction of the Asheville population does this represent?

People oppose the Beaverdam dog park for many reasons:

• Some would like a dog park, just in a more appropriate location.
• Some are concerned about environmental effects of locating a sewage source on a pristine creek flowing into Beaver Lake
• Some are opposed to making this expense a priority 
• Some are concerned about adding traffic and an entrance/exit at a dangerous curve on a crowded road.
• Some are concerned for the long-term viability of the historic Killian house, being surrounded by a dog park.

Please visit Responsible Asheville http://rasheville.blogspot.com/ which is a blog containing letters, maps and media links.

John

Sept 10 City Council Worksession Minutes

Tuesday – September 10, 2013- 4:00 p.m.
First Floor North Conference Room - City Hall

Worksession

Present: Mayor Terry M. Bellamy, Presiding; Vice-Mayor Esther E. Manheimer;
Councilman Cecil Bothwell; Councilman Jan B. Davis; Councilman Marc W.
Hunt; Councilman Christopher A. Pelly; Councilman Gordon D. Smith; City
Manager Gary W. Jackson; Interim City Attorney Martha Walker-McGlohon; and
City Clerk Magdalen Burleson

Absent: None

North Asheville Dog Park

 Assistant City Manager Cathy Ball said that this is a high level overview of the North Asheville dog park process to date. She said the City prepared a Parks Master Plan that direct and guide staff. The Plan notes that it is a low priority to add new parks unless they meet certain criteria. That is because of the limited resources staff has. The Plan also shows shortages and
needs in each of the areas.

Should dog park rise above others?

FROM

the asheville Tribune

September 12 - September 18, 2013 

---

COMMENTARY

---

Should dog park rise above others?

  

   By Leslee Kulba   

 Asheville City Council held a special work session Tuesday to talk about a dog park. That's not exactly cause for carving a couple hours out of the work schedule. In fact, after the meeting, one man expressed his awe that the representative from CIBO (Asheville Council of Independent Business Owners) would attend that kind of meeting for years and years. "Can you still count to ten?" asked he.

It wasn't until later in the meeting that City Manager Gary Jackson explained council was backing into the reason for having the meeting. On May 14, council voted unanimously in favor of a resolution stating, "City council supports and endorses efforts to establish a dog park in north Asheville." Council also promised to commit $5000 in public funding for the project. In return, a group known as Friends for the North Asheville Dog Park promised to match the $5000 contribution and take responsibility for the park's maintenance. The city's upfront contribution was to help with design costs.

Path Plan for Proposed Dog Park & Greenway - Close to House!

Here's three images.  The first is the site plan in white superimposed on an aerial photo.  You can see that Beaverdam Rd is not quite the same!  Also, the proposed path runs 30 to 50 feet North of, and 12 feet below, the road.  The path, down low and hidden in woods, might not feel like a safe place to walk.
The second is a closeup of the Killian House and yard.  You can see the proposed path runs close to the house - too close for comfort in my opinion.
The third is the plot plan without any photo.

Click to Enlarge

Beaver Lake Water Quality Summary: [Appendix H]

Appendix H

[ 4 Pages ]

Beaver Lake and Streams Water Quality Summary

Spatial & Temporal Trends of Buncombe Co. Streams from 1990-2009

(Water Quality Sampling Data & VWIN)

UNCA Limnology Class Reports (Dec. 2000, Fall 2001, Nov. 2003)

Beaver Lake and Streams Water Quality Summary

For the management plan, more data is required to understand the current water quality of Beaver Lake, where there may be problems in the future and what steps may be taken to prevent future water quality concerns. Water quality of Beaver Lake and the streams entering the lake have been monitored over the years by various organizations at various seasons and for various reasons. The best data came from the monitoring network Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) run by the Environmental Quality Institute (EQI) at UNC-Asheville and sampled by volunteers on a monthly basis during the period 1990-2001 (see Appendix G). The Metropolitan Sewerage District supported the sampling network from 2003 until 2009 when the lab was closed at UNC-A.

Council Minutes Say Dog Park Friends Will Pay for Maintenance‏

Actions

John10:38 PM

To: mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com, emanheimer@vwlawfirm.com, cecil@braveulysses.com, jandavis@

avlcouncil.com, marchunt@avlcouncil.com, chrispelly@avlcouncil.com, gordonsmith@avlcouncil.com

Cc: cball@ashevillenc.gov, divester@ashevillenc.gov, rsimmons@ashevillenc.gov, jashley@ashevillenc.gov, kwhitlock@ashevillenc.gov, mbarrett@ashevill.gannett.com, jaugram@wlos.com, gjackson@ashevillenc.gov

Council voted to support a new dog park based upon private funding of maintenance, as recorded in official council minutes.  So why are some council members discussing city funding of long-term maintenance?   At Friends of the North Asheville Dog Park meetings, the July 18 public meeting, and at the Sept 10 Council & Staff Work Session, staff and Councilman Pelly said the city would provide basic maintenance.  Also on Sept 10, staff indicated the city would be responsible for a minimum level of maintenance, and in the (likely) event private funds were inadequate, city funds would need to be allocated.  Staff notes if the city owns the park, it bears ultimate responsibility to maintain it.  And assurances of ongoing private support are neither binding nor credible.  

Even absent council action approving maintenance funding, is the city now on the hook? Councilman Pelly has even suggested raising the dog license fee to fund the city's new maintenance responsibility.  But the minutes support Mayor Bellamy's contention that on May 14, council had merely approved encouragement plus $5,000 for planning, and nothing more.  Council did not approve bearing future maintenance costs, displacing funds already scheduled for other projects.  The city has not yet accepted land for a North Asheville Dog Park, so there is currently no commitment for long-term maintenance.  But should the city take title to the land, there would be no escaping responsibility for maintenance.  When council voted on May 14, they failed to address the problem of ownership implying responsibility for maintenance.

Council unanimously passed the resolution on May 14 to support efforts to establish a North Asheville Dog Park.  Immediately before the vote, council was assured that all capital and long-term maintenance costs would be funded by private sources.  The official council minutes from the May 14 council meeting reflect this understanding (from Page 23 of the minutes):

"In response to Vice-Mayor Manheimer, Councilman Pelly said that the group is willing to ensure that long-term maintenance will be funded by them through fund-raising efforts."  

http://www.ashevillenc.gov/Portals/0/city-documents/cityclerk/mayor_and_citycouncil/minutes/mmthirteen/m130514.pdf

A transcript of the actual statements, and a link to the youtube video of the council meeting is available at:

http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/09/will-friends-pay-for-maintenance.html

Redevelopment bill may force Asheville to put off other spending: Citizen-Times

Can the city afford to take on another dog park?

In a story published Sept 7, "Asheville costs rise for The Block project" 

Some excerpts:

"The city may have to delay projects like burying utility lines along a portion of South Lexington Avenue downtown or preparing for a greenway to parallel Clingman Avenue because of the added expense of the project, called Eagle Market Place, Assistant City Manager Cathy Ball said last week."

"It is also possible there will be a change in scheduling a $2 million contribution the city plans to make toward renovations at Pack Place and the Asheville Art Museum."

"Projects scheduled for funding in the program include transportation improvements in the River Arts District, greenways, affordable housing, renovations to the building housing the Asheville Art Museum, improving sidewalks and landscaping along parts of Coxe Avenue and repairing and improving sidewalks along Patton Avenue between Pack Square and Pritchard Park."

The full story is here: http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013309080075.

Who Will Pay For Maintenance?

In the Council & Staff Work Session on September 10, Mayor Bellamy expressed her understanding that $5,000 approved on May 14 was the only funding to be provided for the proposed dog park. However, the city is ultimately responsible for a minimum level of maintenance of any city property. The staff presentation of planning, construction and maintenance costs prompted her to express concern that the dog park plan seems to have moved ahead of other projects in the city’s parks plan.

The impression that the city would not have to fund maintenance originates in comments by Councilman Pelly on May 14, at the end of the dog park discussion. Just before the unanimous vote to support the creation of a dog park and provide $5,000 for planning, Pelly was asked about maintenance costs for the proposed park.  Based upon his statement, it was reasonable to conclude that the city would bear no maintenance costs in the future.

Manheimer:". . .and then the maintenance of the park long-term what's anticipated, in terms of the y'know, annual maintenance of the park?"

Pelly: "Well, we've had some discussions about that, as well, too, that, that, that citizens are willing to also work to ensure that the long-term maintenance is is is uh fund-raising occurs for that as well too here. I think it is really significant and important to acknowledge that the community's taken this on, and and and y'all are to be a applauded for that, but also recognize that it is a commitment you're taking on here but once we have a site design plan, then we'll have we'll know what costs are involved in actual construction there and so this is an important preliminary step that needs to occur for the for the actual fundraising for the for the uh for the uh improvements to begin."

The official council minutes also reflect this understanding:
"In response to Vice-Mayor Manheimer, Councilman Pelly said that the group is willing to ensure that long-term maintenance will be funded by them through fund-raising efforts."  http://www.ashevillenc.gov/Portals/0/city-documents/cityclerk/mayor_and_citycouncil/minutes/mmthirteen/m130514.pdf

Video of the May 14 council meeting is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbidwh-N9gs
The dog park discussion begins at 1:06:30, with the maintenance question at 1:17:40

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.

Council considers North Asheville dog park

From the Citizen-Times 9/11/13
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130911/NEWS/309110053/Council-considers-North-Asheville-dog-park

WLOS 13 "Dog Park Concerns"

Here's a link to the WLOS story that ran at 6 on 9-9-13:

http://wlos.com/news/features/featured/stories/dog-park-concerns-1436.shtml

Citizen-Times on North Asheville Dog Park 9/9/13

Here's a link to the full article:
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130909/NEWS/309090014/North-Asheville-dog-park-council-agenda

Some excerpts:

"The city has considered an arrangement whereby a pro-park group would raise funds to build the park then the city would maintain it, said Assistant City Manager Cathy Ball."
At the May 14 City Council meeting, the one where $5,000 was approved for dog park planning,  Mr. Pelly said construction and future maintenance costs would be borne by a private group, not the City.  Does Council still have the same degree of support under these changed conditions?

"Dogs outnumber children in some neighborhoods around the proposed park site, said park supporter Bob Roepnack."
This assertion seems to suggest both the desire and need for a dog park in the community.  It is true there are a lot of dogs here.  It is so true, in fact, that most of the opponents of the Beaverdam location are also dog owners.

"A group of neighborhood residents has organized to push for a dog park on property near Beaverdam Road and east of its intersection with Wild Cherry Road."
Actually, the lot, which now includes the house at 284 Beaverdam, is west of Wild Cherry Road.

"Opponents like John  say dog urine and feces could result in runoff that would degrade Beaverdam Creek and that the park would be too close to homes."
Yes, I did say that, but it isn't simply my uninformed opinion.  In fact, I was skeptical at first.  Dr. Ed Hauser's Preliminary Environmental Assessment convinced me of the need, at the least, for a more detailed environmental review.

"Roepnack said he does not know specifically what the impacts would be on the creek, but 'throughout the country there are a number of dog parks located in lowland areas next to creeks and rivers.'"
True.  That's often the only land left after development.  Asheville's French Broad River Dog Park is in the flood plain next to the river,  However, the dog park pollution is tiny relative to the enormous volume of water flow in the already polluted river.  Beaverdam Creek is a state designated high quality stream by NC Division of Environment and Natural Resources.  This stream flows into the Elisha Mitchell Audubon Society Bird Sanctuary and Beaver Lake.  The introduction of nutrients and pathogens  in to the small creek could impact sensitive areas downstream.