Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 11-12-1998
Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission November 12, 1998, 7 p.m. AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Visitor Presentations a. Athletic Associations b. Staff c. Others 4. Report on Past Council Action a. Approved partial development of northwest Plymouth S. Unfinished Business a. Open space - review and discuss recommendation of Open Space Committee b. Activity center/fieldhouse update - Del Erickson, architect c. 1999-2003 CIP - approve plan 6. New Business a. Rick Busch - report on athletic field use b. Dog park - referred from City Council C. 7. Commission Presentation S. Staff Communication 9. Adjourn Next regular meeting - December 10 n\par6\staH\eric\pmc\agendas\nov9g.doc DATE: November 9, 1998 TO: PRAC FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Agenda Items for November Meeting Three items of interest are attached for your review and/or approval: 1. The 1998 use of recreational facilities throughout the city and school districts. I have asked Rick Busch to attend the meeting to review with you trends we are seeing in the usage of facilities on both city and school district fields. This is part of the information I think we need to analyze thoroughly before we begin to look at the development of additional facilities at Central Middle School, Greenwood, or even the future 10th playfield site. I have also attached for your information some latest demographic projections on the growth of the City of Plymouth put together by the Planning staff. 2. A short memo from the city attorney's office regarding the charter amendment and conveying development rights. I am trying to get some additional information from the attorney that I can share with you at Thursday's meeting. 3. The 1999-2003 capital improvements program. I included with it a list of capital items that we have talked about but that are not currently programmed into the CIP for any year. This item requires approval at Thursday's meeting. EB/np Attachments Minutes of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting October 8, 1998 Page 32 Present: Chair Anderson, Commissioners Fiemann, Musliner, Thompson, Wahl, Willegalle, staff Bisek, Blank, Buck, Pederson Absent: Commissioner Priebe f l_\IIIIIC Z '7 7 Chair Anderson called the October meeting to order at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Willegalle and seconded by Commissioner Musliner to approve the minutes of the September meeting as presented. The motion carried with all ayes. 3. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS a. Athletic Associations. b. Staff. Fall programs are winding down. Soccer pictures are being distributed now. We're going to be working with another experimental software program on a method of putting the brochure on the Internet, Mary explained. At some point in the future it may become interactive and we would probably ask PRAC to be testers again. There was a large ad in the Lakeshore Weekly News today about the parade and also an article in the Sailor. Mary distributed flyers on the schedule of events. Mary invited commissioners to be present for the dedication of the art piece donated by the Radisson Hotel to be installed in the lobby of the ice center at 4 p.m. on Saturday. Over 100 units are lined up to be in the parade. We are looking for someone to be Santa Claus for Old Fashioned Christmas. The November brochure is on its way to the printer. c. Others. 4. PAST COUNCIL ACTION Council held a special meeting to discuss the activity center/fieldhouse. They voted to leave the facility where it's proposed. Last night they authorized the architects to go to the next level of design, putting the bidding on schedule for March 1999. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Open space — review recommendations. Paul Buck, the city forester, was present to represent the open space committee. Other members of the committee were unable to attend the meeting. Paul briefly reviewed the management practices that are being recommended by the committee for three of the open space sites. Ann Ebbers, 17925 12th Avenue, said that her property adjoins the Hardenburg property. She is very happy about this site. One thing that is making her nervous is the parking in front of her house. She wondered if the City is going to widen her street, in order to PRAC Minutes/October 1998 Page 33 accommodate visitors coming to this park. Director Blank said no and thinks there will be very little traffic here but the City will monitor it. She was also concerned about the spread of purple loosestrife and wants it stopped if possible. Paul Buck said loosestrife is treated site specifically. Bill Williams, 1325 Peony Lane, owns property on the north and east side of the Hardenburg property. He is concerned about traffic on the street and about the type of controls placed on the property as far as access at night. He doesn't want it to turn into a party place after dark. He is also concerned about the pond on Co. Rd. 6. He cleans up the pond in the spring of pop and beer bottles, styrofoam containers, etc. Another concern is about building areas for picnics and how this would be monitored. He advocates placing of trails throughout the area. Director Blank said these issues are the same ones we deal with daily at all of our parks. Park properties close at 10 p.m. throughout the city. Director Blank stated that the City has a bike patrol which monitors park areas in the summer. He also said we rely on the eyes and ears of the neighbors to report anything suspicious. He indicated that litter will be collected on a regular basis. Linda Wilson lives adjacent to the property at 18305 11th Avenue where it T's into Urbandale Lane. She is also concerned about issues of loitering and trash and doesn't want a picnic site on the property. She feels this is not consistent with leaving it natural. She wanted to know if any type of trail system would be installed and if the boundaries of the property would be designated with fences or posts. She also had questions about limited access and what that means. There is also an accumulation of brush piles in the area and she asked if those will be cleaned up? Director Blank said there are no immediate plans to put in a picnic site. Where the house sat there may be picnicking in the future. 6 x 6 posts would be put up in the corners of the property and perhaps every 300 feet or so. The City will not advertise it as open space, but it will be identified as such on city maps. Paul Buck said the brush piles will be collected after property boundaries are established. Nothing has been determined on the type of trails to be installed. Limited access means informing the public that the site exists, but not encouraging widespread use. Staff is currently anticipating that only immediate neighbors will be the ones to use it the most. Trails would be internal within the site and not connected to the city's main trail system. Bruce Hesse, 1105 Peony Lane, lives east of the property. He is concerned about the parking. He has talked to six of his neighbors who all have said they do not want any parking in front of their homes. He thinks the isolation of the site invites teen drinking parties. This is an ideal site in the southwest area of Plymouth for trails. He feels the ones that are there now are too narrow and wants them widened with a gravel base added. He doesn't want the picnic shelter. He had a concern about the statement in the letter that discusses educating the neighborhood on environmentally friendly management of the shoreline. Paul Buck explained that was meant as a way to inform neighbors what the city intends to do in the way of Lakeshore management. It was not intended to imply that neighbors are doing anything wrong. Commissioner Willegalle said that he has spent many years working with the City regarding these kinds of issues. He agrees that more education is needed, so residents know what is going on. PRAC Minutes/October 1998 Page 34 Charlie McCarty, 17830 8th Avenue, lives south of the property. He walks it two or three times a week. He wonders what to do as a homeowner to buffer his property from the pond. He likes the trails being improved somewhat; widened, but not paved or anything like that. Sigrid Hommeyer, 18215 13th Avenue, lives on the north side of the property. Every year they go in and pick up trash. They have sent letters to neighbors asking them not to dump leaves, etc. She wants to keep the trails as natural as possible. They've tried to clear dead brush and are wondering if some of the dead trees will be removed. Some of them have fallen onto the trails. Paul Buck said they will clean up around the edges and if any trails are established by the City, they will clear those. They may not necessarily clear away the trees that have fallen on the natural trails. Director Blank said managing open space is a new area for the city and will be a learning process. The city owns 60 park sites offering varying opportunities. Not all rules will be established tonight. The overall principal is protecting property in its present state. Staff will look at existing trails and make sure that they are passable and will look at erosion issues. We will study whether or not additional trails need to be installed. The City is always open to suggestions. The key is to have good communication between the park users and the City. Marlin Sjaarda, 11720 38th Avenue, is on the open space subcommittee and has been since its inception in 1994. He stated committee did not support developed trails, but they did support a wood chip trail around the high school open space property. There was no strong support for a picnic shelter on the Hardenburg site. He supports the Minnesota Land Trust and the conservation easement idea and believes that the property should be protected into perpetuity. Commissioner Fiemann asked what size the picnic shelter would be. Mr. Sjaarda said if one is built it would be the same size as the house that sat on the property. Commissioner Musliner asked if Mr. Sjaarda had alternatives to the easement issue. He responded that beyond the 15 year guarantee, the only thing that ensures it remains as open space is a conservation easement, but it would not necessarily have to be controlled by the Minnesota Land Trust. It could be a group of citizens appointed by the City or the City itself. Chair Anderson said the Commission has several options at this point. They can continue to study the issue; can make a recommendation to the Council with the information they have now; or they can ask staff to study it further. Commissioner Wahl agrees with the suggestions made by the city attorney. In a letter sent to Director Blank, the city attorney advises that the best way to preserve our current open space is to have the City pass a charter amendment which would require voter approval to sell open space that's been acquired via a bond referendum. The City Attorney commented in his letter that tying land up in perpetuity makes the assumption that we are wiser than future generations. Commissioner Musliner has concerns about the perpetuity issue and with turning the open space over to the Land Trust. She recommended to have the Council address the issue of how long the land should be protected. Commissioner Thompson was also concerned about tying up the land into perpetuity. Commissioner Fiemann would like to have a better understanding of what a charter amendment is. Chair Anderson said he doesn't feel comfortable making any recommendation right now. He also wants a better understanding of what the city attorney is recommending. Commissioner Wahl stated PRAC Minutes/October 1998 Page 35 that the ultimate goal of the open space committee is for the sites to remain as natural as possible. He reiterated that there would never be a paved trail on the Hardenburg site. Paul Buck said it is also the goal of the City to keep these sites as natural as possible. Director Blank will ask the city attorney to further explain the conservation easement and the charter amendment idea for next month's meeting and the pro's and con's of each. Once the Commission has made their recommendation, it will go forward to the City Council, and it will ultimately be up to them to make a final recommendation. Director Blank and Chair Anderson informed the audience that the open space issue would remain on the Commission's monthly agenda until a decision is made, and they were encouraged to continue to attend the meetings. b. Activity center/fieldhouse update. Subcommittee reviewed the latest plans and authorized the architect to proceed to the next phase. He will attend the next PRAC meeting with the plans. Commissioner Thompson said to add to the minutes that her hat's off to Director Blank and other City staff for their presentation to the Council at the Sept. 28 meeting . She said it was very impressive. c. 1999-2003 CIP. Director Blank discussed the estimated costs for projects planned in 1999 and 2000. He said that Elm Creek Playfreld needs more signage. The three playground replacements include Green Oaks, LaCompte, and Turtle Lake parks. Youth Sports Fields Upgrade - Director Blank will be getting some quotes from architects for upgrading those facilities based on how the district referendum comes out. Director Blank may recommend dropping the lighting at Zachary for 1999, but will replace benches, etc. The mini -park at Vicksburg and 22nd includes grading, trails, seeding, and park benches. Staff is working with the city manager and finance director on a financial package for acquisition of the 10th playfield site in 2000. The CIP will continue to be refined and will be carried over to the November meeting for action at that time. Commissioner Thompson asked for clarification on the location of Mud Lake neighborhood park. Director Blank explained that it's near Camelot Estates. Less than half of the walking neighborhood is developed at this time. This is the last neighborhood park to be developed in the system. Commissioner Musliner asked about the resident letter in her packet requesting that the city buy some land in northeast Plymouth. Director Blank said this site was proposed by a developer for a movie theater complex, but the request was denied. Commissioner Wahl said this site is very small and next to the freeway. It ranked low on the list of possible open space sites when sites were first being evaluated. 6. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to discuss. 7. COMMISSION PRESENTATION Commissioner Musliner asked Mary about the Autumn Arts Fair. Mary said it was well attended, but that the site needs to be evaluated. There was more room for people to set up their displays, but no building for the seniors. It's not as widely known as Parkers Lake. It was very windy that day, and the rain held off until the very end of the event. Commissioner Musliner thought the site was difficult to maneuver with strollers because of the grassy area. It was also tough for wheelchairs. PRAC Minutes/October 1998 Page 36 8. STAFF COMMUNICATION Director Blank congratulated Commissioner Wahl on his photo of a train in a snowstorm, which was the grand prize winner in the city's photo contest. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, CITIZENS OF PLYMOUTH, DO HEREBY STATE: That we firmly oppose the proposal to build, now or sometime in the future, a picnic shelter on the site of the former home of the Hardenberg residence; That we also reject the notion of parking on 12s' avenue and intersecting streets, specifically, Peony Lane, as proposed for users of the new park being created by the city, That we wish this small property to be kept in its current state, except for the removal of dead trees, limbs and non-native underbrush, That we also wish that the city would widen the trails in this property and cover them with wood chips or gravel so that one can walk them without fear of slipping and falling and without having to walk through mud, That we respectfully request the City Forester to set up a number of sites on the property at which various plants and trees can be identified with signs so that school children can use the property for educational nature walks, both in spring and fall. FURTHER, WE REQUEST: That the Commissioner for Parks and Recreation set up a sub -committee including persons living in or near the property to review future plans for this property. CAMPBELL KNUTSON Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Suesan Lea Pace BY FAX AND MAIL Mr. Eric Blank City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447-1482 RE: OPEN SPACE Dear Eric: Professional Association Attorneys at Law 651)452-5000 Fax(651)452-5550 a* Author's Direct Dial: 234-6215 October 27, 1998 Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Puehler Matthew K. Brokl John F. Kelly Matthew J. Foli Marguerite M. McCarron George T. Stephenson AL.o Ikus ed m M.....ah. You asked me to provide more detail on using a Charter amendment or conveying development rights to perpetuate open space. CHARTER AMENDMENT: Minn. Stat. Chapter 410 establishes the process for amending a Charter. An amendment can be initiated by a voter petition, the Charter Commission, or the City Council. The proposed amendment must normally be approved in a city-wide election. If, however, the Charter Commission recommends an amendment, the City Council can adopt the amendment by unanimous vote without an election. Once a Charter amendment is adopted, it can only be repealed by another Charter amendment. CONVEYING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: The City could convey the development rights to open space to a third party such as the Land Trust. The conveyance could restrict the use of the property as much as desired. Once this was done, it could only be rescinded by agreement between the City and the party with whom the agreement was made or by the City condemning the other party's interest in the property. Wisr, Uri Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center 0 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN 1999-2003 CIP Building in West Medicine Lake Park Picnic shelter at Zachary Playfield Playground at Elm Creek Playfield 4. Outdoor skate board park 5. Lights on Elm Creek Playfield soccer field 6. Hockey rink and warming house at Elm Creek Playfield Community information bulletin board signs 8. Golf course 9. Picnic shelter at Plymouth Creek Playfield lbs 16 MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: June 17, 1998 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Updated Household and Population Forecasts, Northwest Plymouth Planning Options In May, the Planning Commission received a report on the preliminary household and population forecasts for each of the three planning options that Plymouth is considering for the northwest area of the City. Since that report was issued, some additional information has become available that has resulted in some revisions to the forecasts. The May forecasts used 1996 as the starting point, with the Metropolitan Council's official estimates of population and households used as the base year data. Shortly after our report was completed, the official 1997 estimates were issued. The estimates were slightly higher than expected. In order to have the most accurate information possible, we revised the forecasts using 1997 as the base year. The revised forecasts have been used in the fiscal analysis of the planning options and will be used for future planning studies. The result of using the 1997 estimates as the base year are slightly higher forecasts for all options. The forecasts for the amount of development that could occur in the northwest area did not change, but estimates of the amount of growth that can be accommodated in the existing urban area of the City did go up by about 170 households. In addition to the new population and households estimates, the Metropolitan Council recently issued revised official forecasts of population, households and employment. While these numbers were not used to forecast Plymouth's growth, we did use them for comparison with our own forecasts. The new regional forecasts represent a slight reduction in the amount of new development expected in Plymouth. However, for all planning options Plymouth's forecasts are still lower than the regional forecasts. The tables and graphics on the following two pages show the changes in the regional forecasts, as well as the revised household and population forecasts using the latest 1997 base year data. 32,000 30,000 28,000 0 26,000 0x 24,000 22,000 20,000 Household Forecasts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Year 75,000 70,000 o bO,000 a 60,000 55,000 50,000 Population Forecasts Year E 0 No Urban Expansion Partial- Low a Partial- High X Complete- Low K Complete- High Metropolitan Council Forecast No Urban Expansion 11111 --Partial- Low f Partial- High Complete- Low K Complete -High f Metropolitan Council Forecast 1998 Metropolitan Council Forecasts for City of Plymouth Population New Forecast Previous Forecast 2000 2010 2020 Households 500 500 500 New Forecast 23,500 28,000 31,500 Previous Forecast 23,700 28,000 31,500 Difference 200 0. 0 Population New Forecast Previous Forecast 62,500 62,000 67,500 67,000 72,000 72,500 Difference 500 500 500 Employment New Forecast 49,000 51,500 53,000 Previous Forecast 44,000 51,600 52,800 Difference 5,000 100 200 Household and Population Forecasts, All Planning Options City of Plymouth Households 1997 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Estimate No Urban Expansion 22,685 23,940 24,720 24,795 24,870 24,945 Partial Urban Area Expansion Partial -Low 22,685 24,240 26,145 26,545 26,705 26,855 Partial- High 22,685 24,240 26,495 27,295 27,544 27,704 Complete Urban Area Expansion Complete- Low 22,685 24,240 26,895 28,620 29,073 29,248 Complete -High 22,685 24,240 27,195 29,995 31,120 31,480 Population 1997 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Estimate No Urban Expansion 61,620 62,620 61,195 59,423 58,108 56,692 Partial Urban Area Expansion Partial- Low 61,620 63,395 65,438 63,560 62,336 60,971 Partial- High 61,620 63,395 66,304 65,334 64,270 62,874 Complete Urban Area Expansion Complete- Low 61,620 63,395 67,293 68,466 67,793 66,333 Complete -High 61,620 63,395 68,034 71,717 71,710 71,334 2 PartialHigh GROWTH SCENARIO: Partial Urban Expansion - High 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number PercentNumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent AGE GROUP School Age 4122 8.1 4374 6.9 4243 6.4 4116 6.3 4178 6.5 4150 Age 0-4 2340 7.4 8.0 4755 7.5 4509 6.8 4181 6.4 4049 6.3 4087 6.5 Aye Sg 2782 8.6 4071 4755 7.5 4906 7.4 4377 6.7 4049 6.3 3898 6.2 Ages 10-14 3193 10.1 3613 7.1 6.8 4774 7.2 4639 7.1 4113 6.4 3772 6.0 Ages 15-19 3130 9.9 3359 8.8 4311 18258 28.8 18433 27.8 17314 26.5 16389 25.5 15907 25.3 Sub -Total 11445 36.2 15165 29.8 Labor Force 8.5 3511 8.9 3930 6.2 4575 6.9 4769 7.3 4627 7.2 4150 Age 20-24 2687 19.6 9446 14.9 8885 13.4 9016 13.8 9641 15.0 9745 15.5 Ages 2534 6070 192 9974 11601 18.3 11006 16.6 9081 13.9 8034 12.5 8174 13.0 Ages 35-44 5406 17.1 9872 19.4 12.8 8875 14.0 10277 15.5 10584 16.2 9448 14.7 7734 12.3 Ages 4554 3193 10.1 6514 5008 7.9 6498 9.8 7513 11.5 8227 12.8 8362 13.3 Ages 55-64 1739 5.5 3308 6.5 65.2 38861 61.3 41241 62.2 41030 62.8 40040 62.3 38165 60.7 Sub-Total 19095 60.4 33180 Retired 2544 5.0 6213 9.8 6630 10.0 6991 10.7 7841 12.2 6802 14.0 65+ 1075 3.4 100.0 50889 100.0 63395 99.9 fi6304 100.0 65334 100.0 64270 100.0 62874 100.0 TOTAL 31615 f }1lJ is i w yi Cl' 101ru'`' Page 1 Partiallow GROWTH SCENARIO: Partial Urban Expanslon - Low 1980 1990 2000 2005EPercent 2010 2015 2020 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent AGE GROUP SchoolAge Age 5-9 Ages 10-14 Ages 15-19 Sub -Total 2340 2782 3193 3130 11445 74 88 10.1 9.9 36.2 4122 4071 3613 3359 15165 8.1 8.0 7.1 6.6 29.8 4374 4755 4755 43111 18258 6.9 7.5 7.5 6.8 28.8 4188 4450 48421 47121 18192 7.4 7.2 27.8 4004 4068 4259 4513 16843 6.3 6.4 6.7 7.1 26.5 4052 3927 3927 3990 15896 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.4 25.5 4024 3963 37801 3658 15426 6.6 6.5 6.2 6.0 25.3 Labor Force Age 20-24 Ages 2534 Ages 35-44 Ages 4554 Ages 55.64 2687 6070 5406 3193 1739 19095 8.5 19.2 17,1 10.1 5.5 604 3511 9974 9872 6514 3308 33180 6.9 19.6 19.4 12.8 6.5 65.2 3930 9446 11601 8875 5008 38861 6.2 14.9 18.3 14.0 7.9 61.3 4515 8769 10863 10143 6413 40702 6.9 13.4 16.6 15.5 9.8 82.2 4640 8771 8835 10297 7309 39916 7.3 13.8 13.9 16.2 11.5 62.8 4488 9350 7792 9163 7979 38835 7.2 15.0 4024 9451 W81 6.6 15.5 0 3 3Sub-Total 7Retired 65+ 1075 3.4 2544 5.0 6213 9.8 6544 10.0. 6801 10.7 7605 0 TOTAL 31615 100.0 50889 100.0 63395 99.9 65438 100.0 63560 100.0162336 100.0 60971 100.0 17 iJ 1'VAAT X13 C(- Page1 CompleteLow GROWTH SCENARIO: Complete Urban Expansion - Low 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Number lPercent Number lPercent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent AGE GROUP School Age Age 0.4 Age 5-9 Ages 10-14 Ages 15-19 Sub -Total 2340 2782 3193 3130 11445 7.4 8.8 10.1 9.9 36.2 4122 4071 36135 33591 15165 5 8f19.41 6.9 7.5 7.5 6.8 28.8 4307 4576 4980 4845 18707 6.4 6.8 7.4 7.2 27.8 4313 4382 4587 4861 18143 6.3 6.4 6.7 7.1 26.5 4407 4271 4271 4339 17287 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.4 25.5 4378 4312 4113 3980 16782 6.6 6.5 6.2 6.0 25.3 Labor Force Age 20-24 2687 8.5 3511 0 6.2 4643 6.9 4998 7.3 4881 7.2 4378 6.6 Ages 25-34 Ages 35-44 Ages 45-54 Ages 55-64 Sub -Total 6070 5406 3193 1739 19095 19.2 17.1 10.1 5.5 60.4 9974 9872 6514 3308 33180 12.8 6.5 65.2 6 1 8875 5008 38861 14.9 18.3 14.0 7.9 61.3 9017 11171 10430 6595 41856 13.4 16.6 15.5 9.8 62.2 9448 9517 11091 7874 42997 13.8 13.9 16.2 11.5 62.8 10169 8474 9966 8678 42235 15.0 12.51 14.7 12.8 62.3 10282 8623 8159 8822 40264 15.5 13.0 12.3 13.3 60.7 Retired 65+ 1 10751 3.4 2544 5.0 6213 9.8 6729 10.0 7326 10.7 8271 12.2 9287 14.0 TOTAL 1 31615 100.0 50889 100.0 63395 99.9 67293 100.0 684661 100.0 67793 100.0 66333 100.0 Page 1 CompleleHgh GROWTH SCENARIO: Complete Urban Expansion - High 1980. 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent AGE GROUP School Age Age 0-4 2340 7.4 4122 8.1 4374 6.9 4354 6.4 4518 6.3 4661 6.5 4706 6.6 Age 5-9 2782 8.8 4071 8.0 4755 7.5 4626 6.8 4590 6.4 4518 6.3 4637 6.5 Ages 10-14 3193 10.1 3613 7.1 4755 7.5 5035 7.4 4805 6.7 4518 6.3 4423 6.2 Ages 15-19 3130 9.9 3359 6.61 4311 6.8 4898 7.2 5092 7.1 4589 6.4 4280 6.0 Sub -Total 11445 36.2 15165 29.8 18258 28.8 18913 27.8 19005 26.5 18286 25.5 18048 25.3 Labor Force Age 20-24 2687 8.5 3511 6.9 3930 8.2 4694 6.9 5235 7.3 5163 7.2 4708 6.6 Ages 25-34 6070 19.2 9974 19.6 9446 14.9 9117 13.4 9897 13.8 10757 15.0 11057 15.5 Ages 35-44 5406 17.1 9872 19.4 11601 18.3 11294 16.6 9969 13.9 8964 12.5 9273 13.0 Ages 45-54 3193 10.1 6514 12.8 8875 14.0 10545 15.5 11618 16.2 10541 14.7 8774 12.3 Ages 55-64 1739 5.5 3308 6.5 5008 7.9 6667 9.8 8247 11,5 9179 12.8 9487 13.3 Sub -Total 19095 60.4 33180 65.2 38861 61.3 42317 62.2 45038 62.8 44675 62.3 43300 60.7 Retired 65+ 1075 3.4 2544 5.0 6213 9.8 6803 10.0 7674 10.7 8749 12.2 9987 14.0 TOTAL 31615 100.0 50889 100.0 63395 99.9 68034 100.0 717171 100.01 717101_100.0 71334 100,0 Page 1 noexpansion Page 1 City ofPiymouth 1999-2003 Capita/Improvements Program Park Projects -1999 Park Park Park Project Park CIP Planning Park Dedication Dedication Replacement Community Other Number Project Year and Construction Playfields Neighborhood MSA Improvement Funding Total Other Funding Sources Notes Design Trails Parks Funding Fund (CIF) * Sources Trail I-494 Co.Rd.9 Bridge 99 98 99 185,000 2nd Payment - Stage 22,079 ActivityCenter/Fieldhouse West Medicine Lake Park 99 99 98 98 99/00 99 70,000 10,000 25,000 60,000 Elm Creek Playfield Building 99 98 99 140,000 35,000* *Left in current project fund balance. Replace —3playgrounds 99 99 99 290,000 Donation to Oakwood School Playground 99 99 99 15,000 Youth Sports Field UpUpgrade B9 99 99 90,000 Art in the Park 99 99 99 10,000 5,000 Swings at Shiloh 99 99 99 6,000 Zachary Park Lighting 99 99 99 50,000 Replace bench, trash, bleachers, chairs, etc. 25,000 22nd Ave & Vicksburg mini -park Phase 1 99 99 99 35,000 Transfer to Park Replacement Fund 29,000 14,000 556,076 100'000J 425,000, 11/12/98 City Of Plymouth 1999. 1- 2003 Capita/ Improvements Program Park Projects - 2000 Park Park Park Project Park CIP Planning Park Dedication Dedication ReplacementdMSA Community Other Number Project Year and Construction Playfields Neighborhood Improvement Funding Total Other Funding Sources Notes Design Trails Parks Funding Fund (CIF) * Sources 3rd Payment Stage 21,000 Youth Sports Fields Upgrade 2000 99 2000 90,000 Activity Center Gardens/Landscaping 2000 99 2000 75,000 Fountains, etc. Activity Center Construction 2000 99 2000 100,000 22nd Ave & Vicksburg Mini -Park Phase II Trails 2000 2000 99 2000 2000 2000 75,000 90,000 Playground Replacement 2000 2000 2000 180,000 Art in the Park 2000 2000 2000 10,000 5,000 Land Acquisition 10th Playfield 2000 400,000 400,000 Transfer to Park Replacement Fund 30,000 15,000 396,000 110,000 180,000 11/12/96 City ofPlymouth 1999 - 2003 Capita/Im rovements Program Park Projects - 2001 Park Park Park Project Park CIP Planning Park Dedication Dedication Replacement Community Other Number Project Year and Construction Playfields Neighborhood MSA Improvement Funding Total Other Funding Sources Notes Design Trails Parks Funding Fund (CIF) * Sources 4th Payment Stage 20,000 100,000Trails200120012001 Land Acquisition 10th Playfield 2001 100,000 200,000 400,000 Playground Replacement 2001 2001 2001 90,000 Art in the Park 2001 2001 2001 20,000 Transfer to Park Replacement Fund 31,000 16,000 I 11/12/98 City Of Plymouth 1999 - 2003 Capita/ Improvements Program Park Projects - 2002 Park Park Park Project Park CIP Planning Park Dedication Dedication Replacement Community Other Number Project Year and Construction Playfields Neighborhood MSA Improvement Funding Total Other Funding Sources Notes Design Trails Parks Funding Fund (CIF) * Sources Last Payment Stage 19,000 Trails 2002 2002 2002 100,000 Playground Replacement 2002 2002 2002 90,000t Art in the Park 2002 2002 2002 20,000 Transfer to Park Replacement Fund 32,000 16,000 11/12/98 City Of Plymouth 1999 - 2003 Capital Improvements Program Park Proiects - 2003 Park Park Park Project Park CIP Planning Park Dedication Dedication_ Replacement Community Other Number Project Year and Construction Playfields Neighborhood MSA Improvement Funding Total Other Funding Sources Notes Design Trails Parks Funding Fund (CIF) * Sources 2003 2003 2003 100,000irails Playground Replacement Transfer to Park Replacement Fund 2003 2003 2003 35,000 100,000 17,000 11/12/98 1998 Baseball/Softball Facility Analysis CHANGES SINCE 1995: Switched Timber Shores, Plymouth Creek Elementary, Kimberly Lane Elementary, and Pilgrim Lane Elementary from summer baseball to all soccer. Added 90' baseball field at West Lutheran. Added four 60-75' baseball/softball fields at Elm Creek Playfield. Moved adult softball from Zachary Playfield to Elm Creek Playfield. In 1999, add two 90' baseball fields at Wayzata High School and one 60-75' field at Armstrong High School Restricted Mission Hills Park to neighborhood use. NOTES: 1. For adult softball, 116 summer and 44 fall teams played at the new 4 -field comples at Elm Creek Playfield. 2. The small and large ball fields at Bass Lake Playfield were scheduled for use by teams in north Plymouth, Osseo School District leagues. They are not included in this report. 3. 2005 projections are from 1995 City Athletic Facilities Task Force Report. L) Lighted For Armstrong/Cooper associations, the total number of teams is divided by the percentage of Plymouth kids in program N:\Puks\STAFF\RICK\FACUSE\1998BB-SBFacilityAnalysis.doc 1995 Teams 1995 Fields 1995 1998 Teams 1998 Fields 1998 1998 Teams 1998 Fields L Teams/Field 146 L Teams/Field Plymouth/Wayzata Baseball 46 (9L) 4.3 133 34(12L) 3.9 90' Bases Assn. 118 22.5 4.5L) 5.2 105 21.5 (4.5L) 4.9 Plymouth/Wayzata Softball 3.6 Totals 184 40 (1 IL) 4.6 251 Assn. 32 8 (2L) 4.0 27 8 2L 3.38 Armstrong/Cooper Baseball Assn. * 34 9.5 4.5L) 4.0 26 1 11.5 (8.5L) 2.3 Total Summer Youth Baseball/Softball Teams 184 40 (11L) 7.9 1 158 41 (19L) 3.9 CHANGES SINCE 1995: Switched Timber Shores, Plymouth Creek Elementary, Kimberly Lane Elementary, and Pilgrim Lane Elementary from summer baseball to all soccer. Added 90' baseball field at West Lutheran. Added four 60-75' baseball/softball fields at Elm Creek Playfield. Moved adult softball from Zachary Playfield to Elm Creek Playfield. In 1999, add two 90' baseball fields at Wayzata High School and one 60-75' field at Armstrong High School Restricted Mission Hills Park to neighborhood use. NOTES: 1. For adult softball, 116 summer and 44 fall teams played at the new 4 -field comples at Elm Creek Playfield. 2. The small and large ball fields at Bass Lake Playfield were scheduled for use by teams in north Plymouth, Osseo School District leagues. They are not included in this report. 3. 2005 projections are from 1995 City Athletic Facilities Task Force Report. L) Lighted For Armstrong/Cooper associations, the total number of teams is divided by the percentage of Plymouth kids in program N:\Puks\STAFF\RICK\FACUSE\1998BB-SBFacilityAnalysis.doc 1995 Teams 1995 Fields (L) 1995 Teams/Field Projected 2005 Teams Projected 2005 Fields L 2005 Projected Teams/Field 1998 Teams 1998 Fields 1998 Teams/Field 60-75' Bases 146 34 8L) 4.3 199 46 (9L) 4.3 133 34(12L) 3.9 90' Bases 38 6 (3L) 6.3 52 9 (4L) 5.8 25 7 (3) 3.6 Totals 184 40 (1 IL) 4.6 251 55 (13L) 4.6 158 41 (15L) 3.9 CHANGES SINCE 1995: Switched Timber Shores, Plymouth Creek Elementary, Kimberly Lane Elementary, and Pilgrim Lane Elementary from summer baseball to all soccer. Added 90' baseball field at West Lutheran. Added four 60-75' baseball/softball fields at Elm Creek Playfield. Moved adult softball from Zachary Playfield to Elm Creek Playfield. In 1999, add two 90' baseball fields at Wayzata High School and one 60-75' field at Armstrong High School Restricted Mission Hills Park to neighborhood use. NOTES: 1. For adult softball, 116 summer and 44 fall teams played at the new 4 -field comples at Elm Creek Playfield. 2. The small and large ball fields at Bass Lake Playfield were scheduled for use by teams in north Plymouth, Osseo School District leagues. They are not included in this report. 3. 2005 projections are from 1995 City Athletic Facilities Task Force Report. L) Lighted For Armstrong/Cooper associations, the total number of teams is divided by the percentage of Plymouth kids in program N:\Puks\STAFF\RICK\FACUSE\1998BB-SBFacilityAnalysis.doc 1998 Baseball/Softball Facilities List 60-75' Base Distance, 40 Total, 16 lighted City of Plymouth (23 total fields): Wayzata School District 284 12 total fields) Zachary Playfield 1 L A) West Middle School 1 WS) Zachary Playfield 2 L A) West Middle School 2 WB) Zachary Playfield 43 L A) Central Middle School 1 WS) Zachary Playfield 4 L A) Central Middle School 2 WS) Plymouth Playfield 1 L A) Gleason Lake Elem 1 WB) Plymouth Playfield 42 L A) Oakwood Elem 1 WB) Plymouth Playfield 3 L A) Sunset Hills Elem 1 WB) Plym Crk Playfield 1 L WB) Birchview Elem* 1 WB) Plym Crk Playfield 2 L WB) Birchview Elem* 2 WB) Bass Lake Playfield 1 M) Greenwood Elem 1 WS) LaCompte Playfield 1 WB) Greenwood Elem* 2 WB) LaCompte Playfield 2 WB) Greenwood Elem* 3 WB) Ridgemount Playfield 1 WB) Ridgemount Playfield 2 WB) Robbinsdale School District 281 (3 Total Fields): Oakwood Playfield 1 WS) Zachary Elementary * 1 A) Oakwood Playfield 2 L WS) Zachary Elementary * 2 A) Oakwood Playfield 3 L WB) Armstrong H.S. 1 new) Parkers Lake Playfld 1 WS) Elm Creek Playfield 1 L P) Private (1 Field): Elm Creek Playfield 2 L P) West Med Lk Com Club * 1 WB) Elm Creek Playfield 3 L P) Elm Creek Playfield 4 L P) City of Wayzata (1 Field); Lions Park 1 WB) Klaprich Park 1 L WS) 90' Base Distance, 8 Total, 3 lighted City of Plymouth: Wayzata School District 284: Zachary Playfield 6 L A) Central Middle School WB) Plymouth Crk Playfld 6 L WB, A) Bass Lake Playfield 6 M) Robbinsdale School District 281: Parkers Lake Playfld 6 L WB) Armstrong H. S. A) Parkers Lake Playfld 7 WB) West Lutheran High School WB) L Lighted Field School District & private fields upgraded by City of Plymouth PRIMARY USERS: P) Plymouth Park & Recreation Adult Softball WB) Plymouth/Wayzata Baseball Association WS) Plymouth/ Wayzata Softball Association A) Armstrong/Cooper Baseball Association M) Osseo/Maple Grove Athletic Association NOTE: Two 90' base distance fields are currently under construction at Wayzata High School. PLY_NMtdiskl\Parks\STAFFMCK\FACUSEU998BB-SB FacilityList.doc 1998 Soccer/Football Facility Analysis CHANGES SINCE 1995: Fields at Central Middle School now totally available for community after school use. Added 6 new full size fields at Wayzata High School in fall of 1998. Changed Pilgrim Lane Elementary A, Plymouth Creek Elementary A, Kimberly Lane Elementary, and Timber Shores from summer baseball to soccer. Added one full size field at West Lutheran for fall soccer. We no longer use hockey rinks for U6 fall soccer. NOTES: 1. 10 adult summer soccer teams played at Bass Lake Playfield A. We had only 5 adult teams in 1995. 2. 16 adult touch football teams played in the fall at Bass Lake Playfield A which was also used by Osseo/Maple Grove Football Association. 3. 2005 projections are from 1995 City Athletic Facilities Task Force report. 4. Soccer fields include full size (120 X 80 yards), half size (50 x 80 yards), and quarter size (35 x 50 yards). L) Lighted For these associations, the total number of teams is divided by the percentage of Plymouth residents N.A. Figures not available. In 1995, fall traveling soccer was just starting. G:\PmksISTAFF\RICK\FACUSE\199RSoccerFacilityAnalysis.doe 1995 Teams 1995 Fields (L) 1995 Teams/Field 1998 Teams 1998 Fields (L) 1998 Teams/Field Plymouth Soccer Assn. Summer 112 16 4L 7 208 28 3L) 7.4 Plymouth Soccer Assn. Fall N.A. N.A. N.A. 16 3 5.3 Wayzata Soccer Club Summer 32 7 3L 4.6 41 5 4L) 8.2 Wayzata Soccer Club Fall N.A. N.A. N.A. 19 4 4.75 Wins Soccer Assn. Summer ** 22 6 3L 3.7 24 4 2L 6.0 Wins Soccer Assn.Fall ** N.A. N.A. N.A. 8 3 2L) 2.7 Pymouth Park & Recreation Fall Soccer 91 18 7L) 5.1 117 29 4L) 4.0 New Hope/Plymouth Athletic Assn. Fall Soccer** 30 9 3L 3.3 Discontinued Plymouth/Wayzata Football Assn. 21 4 2L 5.3 28 6 2L 4.7 Armstrong/Cooper Football Assn. 7 1 L 7.0 8 3 3L 2.7 CHANGES SINCE 1995: Fields at Central Middle School now totally available for community after school use. Added 6 new full size fields at Wayzata High School in fall of 1998. Changed Pilgrim Lane Elementary A, Plymouth Creek Elementary A, Kimberly Lane Elementary, and Timber Shores from summer baseball to soccer. Added one full size field at West Lutheran for fall soccer. We no longer use hockey rinks for U6 fall soccer. NOTES: 1. 10 adult summer soccer teams played at Bass Lake Playfield A. We had only 5 adult teams in 1995. 2. 16 adult touch football teams played in the fall at Bass Lake Playfield A which was also used by Osseo/Maple Grove Football Association. 3. 2005 projections are from 1995 City Athletic Facilities Task Force report. 4. Soccer fields include full size (120 X 80 yards), half size (50 x 80 yards), and quarter size (35 x 50 yards). L) Lighted For these associations, the total number of teams is divided by the percentage of Plymouth residents N.A. Figures not available. In 1995, fall traveling soccer was just starting. G:\PmksISTAFF\RICK\FACUSE\199RSoccerFacilityAnalysis.doe 1995 Teams 1995 Fields L 1995 Teams/Field Projected 2005 Teams Projected 2005 Fields Projected 2005 Teams/Field 1998 Teams 1998 Fields 1998 Teams/Field Summer Soccer 166 29 QOL 5.7 218 38 13L) 10.1 273 37 9L 7.4 Fall Soccer 121 27 10L 4.5 154 34 13L 6.8 160 41 7L) 3.9 Fall Football 28 5 2L) 5.6 36 7 3L) 5.1 36 9 5L 4.0 Totals 315 408 469 CHANGES SINCE 1995: Fields at Central Middle School now totally available for community after school use. Added 6 new full size fields at Wayzata High School in fall of 1998. Changed Pilgrim Lane Elementary A, Plymouth Creek Elementary A, Kimberly Lane Elementary, and Timber Shores from summer baseball to soccer. Added one full size field at West Lutheran for fall soccer. We no longer use hockey rinks for U6 fall soccer. NOTES: 1. 10 adult summer soccer teams played at Bass Lake Playfield A. We had only 5 adult teams in 1995. 2. 16 adult touch football teams played in the fall at Bass Lake Playfield A which was also used by Osseo/Maple Grove Football Association. 3. 2005 projections are from 1995 City Athletic Facilities Task Force report. 4. Soccer fields include full size (120 X 80 yards), half size (50 x 80 yards), and quarter size (35 x 50 yards). L) Lighted For these associations, the total number of teams is divided by the percentage of Plymouth residents N.A. Figures not available. In 1995, fall traveling soccer was just starting. G:\PmksISTAFF\RICK\FACUSE\199RSoccerFacilityAnalysis.doe SUMMER Full Size (10, 6L) City of Plvmouth (17. IOLI: Zachary Playfield Zachary Playfield Plymouth Playfield Bass Lake Playfield Plymouth Crk Playlld Plymouth Crk Playtld Ridgemount Playfield Oakwood Playfield Oakwood Playfield Wayzata School District 284 (1) Central Middle School U10 Size (9,31L) City of Plvmouth (6, 3L) Parkers Lake Playfield Parkers Lake Playfield Parkers Lake Playfield Ridgemount Playfield Ridgemount Playfield Plymouth Playfield Wayzata District 284 (1) Kimberly Ln Elementary Robbinsdale District 281 (2 1998 Soccer/Football Facilities List Pilgrim Lane Elementary A FALL Zachary Lane Elementary A PSA U8 -U6 Size (18) Full Size (20, 9L) Plymouth Recreation Dept. City of Plvmouth (3) Wayzata Football Assn AFB City of Plvmouth (17, 10L): C WNG A (L) PSA Zachary Playfield A (L) WNG B (L) WAY Zachary Playfield B (L) WNG A (L) WNG Plymouth Playfield A (L) AFB A (L) WAY Plymouth Playfield B (L) AFB A (L) PSA Plymouth Playfield C (L) AFB B PSA Bass Lake Playfield A (L) MFB A PSA Plymouth Crk Playfld A (L) PR A (L) WAY Plymouth Crk Playfid B PR B (L) WAY Ridgemount Playfield A WFB West Middle School A3 Oakwood Playfield B (L) WFB PSA Robbinsdale District 281 (1) Oakwood Playfield D (L) WFB A PSA Elm Creek Playfield C WSC Zachary Lane Elementary B Elm Creek Playfield D PSA PR Elm Creek Playfield E PSA Elm Creek Playfield F WSC A (L) PSA B (L) PSA Wayzata School District 284 (1) C PSA West Middle School A WFB B PSA West Middle School B WFB C WAY West Middle School C WFB B (L) WNG Central Middle School A PR West Lutheran A WSC A PSA Pilgrim Lane Elementary A PSA Zachary Lane Elementary A PSA U8 -U6 Size (18) PR Plymouth Recreation Dept. City of Plvmouth (3) Wayzata Football Assn AFB Timber Shores Park - C WNG Oakwood Playfield C -N PSA Oakwood Playfield CS PSA Wayzata District 284 (14) C -S PR Greenwood Elementary A PSA Greenwood Elementary B PSA Kimberly Ln Elementary B PSA Kimberly Ln Elementary C PSA Central Middle School B PSA Central Middle School C PSA Central Middle School D PSA Plymouth Crk Elementary A PSA Plymouth Crk Elementary B PSA Plymouth Crk Elementary C PSA West Middle School Al PSA West Middle School A2 PSA West Middle School A3 PSA West Middle School A4 PSA Robbinsdale District 281 (1) A PR Pilgrim Lane Elementary B WNG L) = Lighted Field PRIMARY USERS: PSA Plymouth Soccer Assn WNG Wings Soccer Club WAY Wayzata Soccer Club PR Plymouth Recreation Dept. WFB Wayzata Football Assn AFB Armstrong Football Assn N:\Puks\STAFF\RICK\FACUSE\1998Soccer-FBFacilityList2.doc U10 Size (10, 41.) Citv of Plvmouth (7.3L Parkers Lake Playfield A (L) PR Parkers Lake Playfield B (L) PR Parkers Lake Playfield C PR Ridgemount Playfield B WSC Ridgemount Playfield C PSA Oakwood Playfield A-N(L) PR Oakwood Playfield A-S(L) PR W avzata District 284 (1 Kimberly Ln Elementary A PR Robbinsdale District 281 (2) Pilgrim Lane Elementary A PR Zachary Lane Elementary A WNG U8 -U6 Size (19) City of Plvmouth (3) Oakwood Playfield C -N PR Oakwood Playfield C -S PR Zachary Playfield 6 PR Wayzata District 284 (13) Greenwood Elementary A PR Greenwood Elementary B PR Greenwood Elementary C PR Greenwood Elementary D PR Kimberly Lane Elementary B PR Kimberly Lane Elementary C PR Central Middle School B PR Central Middle School C PR Central Middle School D PR Plymouth Crk Elementary A PR Plymouth Crk Elementary B PR Plymouth Crk Elementary C PR Gleason Lake Elementary A PR Robbinsdale District 281 (3) Pilgrim Lane Elementary B PR Zachary Lane Elementary B PR Zachary Lane Elementary C PR Pet Exercise/Training Areas Designated areas are available by special permit for training and exercising pets at Elm Creek and Crow - Hassan Park Reserves and Lake Sarah Regional Park. These are the only areas in Hennepin Parks where pets may be off leash. Dogs must be under control at all times, and no more than two pets per handler will be allowed in the area at any given time. Special Use Permits are issued by Park Guest Services staff, 559-9000. There is a fee of $25 per year, which covers the permit holder and immediate family mem- bers residing in the same household who are listed on the permit as dog handlers. The permit is valid for 12 months from the date of issue at all three exercise areas. Permit holders are subject to Hennepin Parks Ordinances and the rules and conditions for pet exer- cise/training areas, and a current annual Park Patron Pass is required. Dog -Sledding and Skijoring Several trails are available during the winter months for dog -sledding and skijoring, primarily on portions of snowmobile trails. These activities are allowed only on the designated trails during specified hours, and a Special Use Permit is required. Trails are located at Baker, Crow -Hassan, Elm Creek, and Murphy-Hanre- han Park Reserves, and the North Hennepin Trail Corridor. For more information, call the Reservations office at 559-6700. Please remember ... Pets should not be left unattended in campgrounds and other park areas; it can be unsafe for the pet and inconsiderate of other park users. All pets need plenty of fresh water. Don't forget that temperatures can get dangerously hot inside a closed car in warm weather. Make sure your pet's rabies vaccination is current. An identification tag is recommended. HENNEPINPARKS 12615 County Road 9 Plymouth, MN 55441-1299 Telephone 559-9000 Telephone Device for the Deaf 559-6719 P.u,Md Jvly, 1998 Pets in HENNEPIN PARKS HENNEPINPARKS kw Z2 %c,' NT —011 Pets in HENNEPINPARKS Hennepin Parks recognizes the important role pets play in many of our park visitors' families, and pets are welcome in designated areas; however, the mission of Hennepin Parks is to protect and preserve nature, wildlife, and natural areas and to provide an enjoyable and safe environment for all park visitors. For these reasons the presence of pets in Hennepin Parks is restricted. The following rules apply to all pets except service dogs assisting persons with disabilities. Pets are permitted in designated areas only Pets are not allowed in picnic or beach areas, creative play areas, buildings, or on nature center trails or paved bike -hike trails. Pets are permitted in campgrounds and primitive group camp sites, and on designated turf trails in Regional Parks, Park Reserves, the North Hennepin Trail Corridor and the southwest Regional LRT Trail Corridors. Locations of designated pet trails are listed elsewhere in this brochure. Off -leash pet exercise/training areas are available by special permit (fee: $25/year) at Crow -Hassan Park Reserve, Elm Creek Park Reserve, and Lake Sarah Regional Park. These are the only areas in Hennepin Parks where pets may be off leash. A Special Use Permit and a Hennepin Parks annual parking permit are required, and pets must be under the owner's control. Call 559-9000 for more information. For safety reasons, pets are not allowed on ski trails during cross-country ski season. For locations of des- ignated winter walking and pet trails, call 559-9000. Designated Pet Trails Pets mast be leashed on these trails, Pet trails are closed dimugemss-combry sb'season unless marked othemmse Baker Park Reserve - 6.2 miles. Part of turf horse- French Regional Park - 4 miles. Turf trails. Access back trail. Access from County Road 19/29 parking from main parking lot. lot, and across from the main park entrance. Hyland Lake Park Reserve - 2.5 miles. Turf trail. Bryant Lake Regional Park - 2 miles. Turf trail. Access from parking area near Visitor Center. Carver Park Reserve - 3 miles. Part of turf horse- back trail. Access from horse trail parking lot off County Road 11. Cleary Lake Regional Park -1.3 miles. Wood -chip nature trail. Access from Visitor Center. Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park -1.0 or 1.5 miles on Cottonwood hiking trail. Flat turf trail. Access from West Visitor Center parking lot. Crow -Hassan Park Reserve - 9 miles, shared with turf horseback trail. Access from trailhead. EhnCreek Park Reserve -5.4miles. Turf and gravel roadway. Access from Visitor Center. Fish Lake Regional Park - 2 miles. Hilly turf trails. Access from Glacial Ridge parking lot. Park Rules for Pets Lake Minnetonka Regional Park - 1/3 mile. Turf trail through maple woods. Lake Rebecca Park Reserve - 5 miles. Parts of horseback trails and East Lake Rebecca Road. Access from main parking lot or horse trailer parking lot. North Hennepin Trail Corridor - 7.2 miles. Follows turf horseback trail. Access from Elm Creek Park Reserve, Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park, and other locations along trail. Murphy-Harrrehan Park Reserve - 3 miles. Part of turf horse trail. Access from horse trailer parking lot on Sunset Lake Road. Southwest Regional LRT Trail Corridors -15 miles Hopkins to Victoria) and 11 miles (Hopkins to Chanhassen). Crushed limestone surface. Access from parking lots at ends of trails. In order to ensure the enjoyment of other park visitors in campgrounds and on designated pet trails, we ask that pet owners follow these park rules: Pets must be on a leash not more than 6 feet long. Pet owners must carry and use an appropriate device for cleaning up pet feces and disposing of feces in a sanitary manner. a Pets must not be tethered to any tree, plant, building or park equipment. Pets must not be allowed to disturb, harass or interfere with any other park visitor. Your compliance with these rules will help ensure your pet's future welcome and the respect of fellow park guests. If you have any questions, please call Hennepin Parks Headquarters, 559-9000. a i SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 12615 County Road 9 Plymouth, Minnesota 55441-1299" " Telephone (612)559-9000 TDD (612),559-6719 FAX 559-3287 An Equal Opportunity Employer HENNEPIN PARKS PET EXERCISE/TRAINING AREAS Designated areas are available by special permit for training and exercising pets at Elm Creek and Crow -Hassan Park Reserves and Lake Sarah Regional Park. These are the only areas in Hennepin Parks where pets may be off leash. Special Use Permits are issued by Park Guest: Services staff, 559-9000. There is a fee of $25.00 per year, whichcoversthe permit holder and immediate family members residing in the same household who are listed on the permit as dog handlers. The permit is valid for 12 months from the date ofissueat all three exercise areas. Permit holders are subject to Hennepin Parks Ordinances and the rules, and conditions for petexercise /training areas, and a _current Hennepin Parks membership/annual parking permit is required.- OBTAINING equired. OBTAINING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT When a Special Use Permit is requested, Park Guest Services staff will request the following information: - name/address/phone number of permit holder names of family members designated as dog handlers current . annual parking permit number (may be purchased at same time as Special Use Permit) whether or not a blank starter pistol will be used for training whether or not birds will. be used for training - Staff will then issue a temporary permit with a waiver agreement; the agreement must be returned with payment and signature(s) before the Special Use Permit is issued. The temporary permit will be valid for a maximum of seven days. Whether the,permit fee is paid in person at Headquarters, by mail, or over the phone with a Discover, VISA or MasterCard, the signed waiver agreement is always required. After the signed agreement is returned, the one-year permit will be mailed immediately. On weekends and holidays, staff at Eastman Nature Center may issue a one-time temporary Special Use Permit for that day only at no charge; a signed waiver agreement is required, and all .rules and conditions apply. Future requests by the same family will be, referred to Headquarters for an annual Special Use Permit. Ir\USERS\OHO\ WP\DOGTR\DOGTRPR,BPN RECYCLED PAPER - Conserving our Resources Contains 50% total recycled abep 10% Posbwnaumer, liber HENNEPIN PARKS PET EXERCISE/TRAINING AREA SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS L Persons using the training area MUST possess a Special Use Permit and display the permit on the dashboard to make it visible. Special Use Permits are assigned on an individual basis, apply to immediate family members only, and are -non-transferrable. Permittee and names of family members designated as dog handlers must appear on the Special Use Permit, 2. Current Parks Plus Patron/annual parking permit required. 3. Handlers must remain in the -area with their dogs at all times. 4. Dogs must be under control at all times; no exceptions. A dog is considered under control if it will come when called. Dogs must not be permitted to interfere with other people or dogs, unlesspermissionis granted by each handler for dogs to play together. 5. All designated dog handlers must sign the'Use Agreement- including acceptance of the Pet Exercise/Training Area Special Use Permit conditions. 6. Permit holders must have certification of current rabies vaccination for each pet brought to the area readily available when using1the dog exercise area. _ T. No more than two pets in the dog training area per dog handler will be allowed at any given time., 8.: Activities must take place during park hours-. Park hours are from 5:00 a.m._to sunset daily, or as posted by the Park District. 9. Use of 'firearms or devices considered firearms under Federal Law is prohibited. Use of blank starter pistols not considered firearms under Federal Law is permitted and must be authorized on the Special Use Permit. J 10. " Use of pigeons, quail, chukars, and pheasants will be permitted for training purposes when authorized by the -Special Use Permit and.pursuant to conditions outlined herein. -It is strongly recommended that training;birds be recovered before leaving the area. 11. Humane treatment of all animals will be required. Under no conditions will animals of any type be mistreated, abused, injured, or killed. Permit holder is required to take necessary measures to ensure that this condition is met. 12. All other park Ordinances must be followed. Copies of the Ordinances are available upon request. 13. - If any conditions are violated, the -Special Use Permit will be revoked. Hennepin Parks reserves the right to reject/cancel Special Use Permits for any -reason and will restrict days/times of use as necessary. I:\USERS\OHO\ WP\ DOGTR\DOGTRPR.BPN SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 12615 County Road 9 Plymouth, Minnesota 55441-1299 Telephone (612)559-9000 TDD(612)559-6719 FAX 559-3287 An Equal Opportunity Employer HENNEPIN PARKS DOG EXERCISE/TRAINING AREAS To purchase a dog training area permit by mail, please complete this information and sign the form at the bottom of the page. Your permit will be mailed to you within a few days. If have any questions, please call 559-6707. Name Address City/State/Zip Names of all designated dog handlers: Phone Current annual parking permit number: If you do not already have an annual parking permit, you may purchase one when you pay for your dog training area permit. Cost is $25 for one vehicle, $5 for an additional vehicle sticker if purchased at the same time.) Amount Enclosed: Dog Training Area Permit Parks Plus Patron/Annual Parking Permit Make checks payable to Hennepin Parks.) 25 25 If needed: 2nd Parks Plus Patron Parking Permit $5 (If purchased with first permit) 2nd Parks Plus Patron Parking Permit or $15 (If purchased at later date) Will you be using a blank pistol and/or live birds for training? (See Special Use Permit Conditions.) Optional information: For what activities do you use the dog exercise/training obedience training _ hunting/retrieving training What kind of dogs do you train? Doa Training Area Use Agreement: areas? exercise other:. I acknowledge that I have received and read the Hennepin Parks Pet Exercise/Training Area Special Use Permit Conditions, and I am aware that violation of any of these conditions will lead to revocation of my permit. I understand that use of these areas exposes my person and my property (including my dog) to risk of damage or injury and agree that Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District shall not be liable for any claims, demands, injuries, or damages, actions or causes of action, whatsoever to myself or property arising out of or connected with the use of the Pet Exercise/Training Areas. I further agree to expressly release and discharge Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District from all such claims, demands, injuries, damages, actions or causes of action, and from all acts of active or passive negligence on the part of Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, its servants, agents or employees.. Signature(s) Note: All designated dog handlers must sign. Date RECYCLED PAPER -Conserving our Resources 19USERMOHOMPTOGM1 OD6 Contains 50% total re cle,l liber, te% Post—sumer bber SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 12615 County Road 9 Plymouth, Minnesota 55441-1299 Telephone (612)559-9000 TDD(612)559-6719 FAX 559-3287 An Equal Opportunity Employer DOG TRAINING AREA PERMIT Permit Holder(s): Phone: Permit dates: Annual Parking Permit: Designated Dog Handlers: - 95000 through ------ must be affixed to vehicle windshield) Notes: OK to use blank pistol, live birds for training This permit is valid for the Dog Exercise/Training areas at Crow -Hassan Park Reserve, Elm Creek Park Reserve, and Lake Sarah Regional Park, subject to the conditions and regulations provided. Any questions may be directed to the Park Guest Services Coordinator at 559-6707. Park hours: 5:00 a.m. to sunset Permit fee: $25 per year DISPLAY THIS PERMIT ON VEHICLE DASHBOARD 1AUSE RMOHMINROOGITM1996 RECYCLED PAPER• Careening our Recourse Conleins 60% toel re .TW libep 10% Posl<onsumer lib. Hennepin Parks ... Four Seasons of Fun Hennepin Parks contains over 25,000 acres of park reserves, regional parks, and special use facilities at 19 separate locations. Hennepin Parks offers you a variety of recreational activities, interpretive nature programs, and outdoor education resources. Hennepin Parks are within a half-hour drive of downtown Minneapolis. Slip away for an hour or a day with your family and friends, and discover the many places for fun and relaxation. For more information on any of Hennepin Parks' programs and facilities, call 559-9000. WRIGHTCOUNTY 169 5 Elm CreeParkR rve Crow -Hass ary Park Resery a _ ANOKA COUNTY 16 Fae 94 N,,,,e 12 Coon Rapids vec 1 Dam HENNEPIN Regional Park 10 COUNTY su 1 uuu 4 s 19 Sl ssz Lake Regasld 1 Rebecca 99 ParkReserve 5 11 55 H ch 694 92 T J' f: O, 94 ..... a 12 Baker 24 a s Park Reserve II RAMSEY O s % ICOUNTY 92 Noerenberg394 Gardens ` 15 a 10 51 —4_t494 169 Lake;11111111111 unm nnum aMNNEAPOLIS 2915amMinnetoI < i44 nun I . dlpj0110 61 ® 17 I Bryan! al flit Reggitonal 30 mall I © PuY 1 Carver ' 1S Hyland Lake JFsp Pazk Reserve I' O Pazk ReservesncharcimnNature Center Lowry Nature Center ' llllllll Y ' CARVER COUNTY Minnes°ta gtiver DAKOTA Ol COUNTY l - Park Entrance q2 Innum- le- SouthwestRegianal SCOTT 74 LRTTiail COUNTY r 1 -!Murphy -HanrahanPrioriake, OPark Reserve rasas•North Hennepin Regional Trail p 21 13 Cleary Lake Regional Par O27 N Dog ExerciselTraining Area Locations Dog Owners Unleashed A presentation for the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association by Laura Jean Rathmann Responsible Owners of Mannerly Pets ROMP of Ramsey County ROMPrmcnty@aol.com 612/970-0724 November 5, 1998 Topics Ramsey County Parks Off -Leash Users Resources for off -leash issue research Highlights from Minneapolis Citizens Advisory Committee. (.".CAC") Report - 10/98 Thinking outside the box A letter from Olaf the sheepdog Ramsey County off -leash area users: live within a 15 -minute drive. visit the areas at least three times per week, year round. represent a wide range of ages and income levels. Ramsey County off -leash area attendance: More humans than dogs visit the areas. Battle Creek sign -in log documents 1100 visits human) in October, 1998. 11/1/98: Battle Creek lagged 90 visits. Rice Creek saw 40 visitors over a 2 -hour period. Sign -ins are substantially lower than actual usage. Ramsey County off -leash users offer: Cleaner parks. _ Education. e Leadership. Better compliance with leash law outside the areas. 400 positive comments in three months of operation! I. Off -Leash Dog Recreation Resource List Metro area contacts for information on existing sites Mark Themig, Recreation Services, Ramsey County Parks and Recreation 6 51174 8-2 5 0 0 x348 Mark.Themig@co.ramsey.mn.us www.Go.ramsey.mn.us/Parks/parks_tralls/ Ramsey County Parks has two 3 to 5 -acre off -leash pilot sites. Beth Nash, Guest Services, Hennepin Parks 612/559-9000 bnash@hennepinparks.org Hennepin Parks has three 20 to 30 -acre off -leash sites. Laura Jean Rathmann, ROMP (Responsible Owners of Mannerly Pets) in Ramsey County msgs:612/970-0724 home:651/776-8209 Ijrstpaul@aol.com www.users.uswest.nett—jbeede/A Place_ to_ROMP.htm ROMP can send out hard copies of: 1) Selected rules and site criteria from around the U.S compiled 10/96; 2)ROMP's presentation to Ramsey County Parks, 10/96; and 3) Usage and Attendance for the Ramsey County pilot sites, 6/98. Wisconsin site contacts (selected list) Chris Brandt, Parks Director, Outagamie County Parks, Appleton, WI 920/832-4790 cbrandt48@aol.com One fully fenced 17 -acre site has been running successfully for 3 years. Includes a special area for small dogs. Ken LePine, Parks Director, Dane County Parks Commission, Madison, WI 608/246-3896 lepine@co.dane.wi.us. www.co.dane.wi.us/parkslist.htm Dane County has five off -leash areas, including one that is 80 acres. Other resources Laurie Greene, DVM, Chair, Citizens Advisory Committee ("CAC') for the Minneapolis Off -Leash Dog Exercise Program. greenl15@tc.umn.edu As of 10/98, Minneapolis has no legal off -leash areas. In its 10/98 report to the Minneapolis Parks Board, the CAC has recommended 6-10 areas be implemented over 12-18 months. The CAC's report is available by calling Belinda Davis at Minneapolis Parks, 612/661-4885. Robin Hartl, M -ROMP (Responsible Owners of Mannerly Pets, Minneapolis), 612/970-0724 rhartl@isd.net Randy Quale, Park and Recreation Manager, Bloomington City Parks, 612/948-8876 As of 10/98, Bloomington has no legal off -leash areas, but they have approved the concept and may be building an area or areas in 1999. Robert Williams, District Manager of the Mississauga, Ontario Park and Recreation Division 905/896-5342 Robert.wi I I iams@city, m ississauga. on. ca Five off -leash zones. Largest zone is 15 acres. Mississauga has a population of 560,000. Rick Johnson, Associate Executive Director, Marin County Humane Society, CA 415/883-4621 ext. 260 www.marin-humane.org/html/dogpark.htmi Gives concise listing of benefits, user group role, site criteria, and rules. www.dog-play.com/doopark.htmi Short summaries and great links to web pages on off -leash recreation including numerous ones that discuss Design and Policy Considerations. www.r)etnet.com.au/opensDace/frontis.htmi ("Public Open Space and Dogs, A Design and Management Guide for Open Space Professionals and Local Government", 1996) www.freadog.com/ftfun.html Off -leash dog owner's guide to the Fort Funston 200 -acre multi -use site near San Francisco. www.nr)s.goy/aoaa/crissp.htm and www.nos.aoaaloverview/htm Description of Crissy Field renovation in San Francisco. Multi -use space currently has 38 acres available for off - leash walking and plans for 70 acres. www.freer)lay.org Includes links to web pages about off -leash areas all over the United States. www.soda.orc Serve Our Dog Area user group for the 40 -acre Marymoor dog area just outside of Seattle. Compiled by Laura Jean Rathmann, R.O.M.P., 10/29/98 2. Minneapolis CAC found that Off -Leash Recreational Areas: have been successfully implemented in other cities for more than a decade build healthy, close-knit and safe communities provide a valuable and legitimate recreational activity that can benefit the entire community are low-risk, low -liability, low -maintenance promote responsible dog ownership and good citizenship outside the box: Semonshare and timeshare. (Prospect Park -- 60D acres NYC). Multi -use. (Fort Funstan-- 200 acres, and Criss, Field 38 to 70 acres in SF, CA) Corridors that offer walking/jogging, (Crissy Field, SF and Magnuson Park, Seattle). Full service areas close to cities/towns offering hiking, woods, fields and river/lake access (Dane County, WI and 40 acres at Marynnoor, WA). 3. Date: January 8, 1997 To: Ramsey County Park and Recreation Commission From: Greg Mack, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Creation of Off -Leash Dog Areas SUMMARY There are several areas throughout the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation system where owners are illegally allowing their dogs off -leash. Recently, a group of dog owners requested that the department consider developing off -leash areas. Parks and Recreation staff have reviewed national and local trends and responses to requests for off -leash areas. Based on expressed demand, historical uses and capacity of park resources, staff recommends establishing a pilot program of two off -leash dog areas. BACKGROUND As urban areas develop, owners increasingly use parks to exercise their dogs. Ordinances control dogs in parks by requiring the use of leashes and restricting areas where dogs are allowed. However, dog owners have recently become more vocal and organized against these restrictions, petitioning for increased freedom with their pets. In response, many agencies have designated spaces where dogs are allowed to exercise and socialize without being leashed. There are several areas throughout the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation system where owners of dogs are illegally allowing dogs off leash. Staff regularly observes users at Rice Creek, Grass Lake, Battle Creek, and other parks with dogs off -leash. Responsible Owners of Mannerly Pets (ROMP) made a presentation at the October 8, 1996 Park and Recreation Commission meeting, requesting establishment of one or more designated off -leash dog areas. ROMP cited several successful off -leash programs throughout the United States. Current park ordinances allow for the creation of specialized off -leash areas. Chapter III, section T, Subsection 3 states: "It shall be unlawful for any person to bring a pet into an authorized area of a park unless caged or on a leash not more than six (6) feet in length, except in a designated pet exercise area." COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS National Based on an Internet literature search, it appears that the development of off -leash areas is most active on the East and West coasts. This development has been in direct response to citizen's requests for areas where their dogs can exercise and socialize off -leash. Although not a complete nationwide list, the following is a sample of off -leash areas available on the Internet: San Francisco Bay Area Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve, a 290 -acre site, permits dogs off;leash in a 17 acre area located inside a loop road. Marin County Open Space District allows dogs off -leash on fire roads. The East Bay Regional Park District operates about 76,000 acres, dogs may run off -leash in undeveloped areas. New York City Area 18 neighborhood parks within the New York City area have dog runs. City of Seattle Seattle recently established off -leash areas in seven geographically distributed city parks for a 12 - month pilot program. Local A survey of Twin Cities agencies that operate regional parks was conducted in the fall of 1996. The following is a summary of metropolitan off -leash policies: Anoka County No official sites, but owners run dogs off -leash in the Chain of Lakes area. Carver County No off -leash sites. Dakota County No off -leash sites. Hennepin Parks Hennepin Parks has three designated areas available by special permit for training and exercising pets. The sites are located at Elm Creek Park Reserve, Crow -Hassan Park Reserve, and Lake Sarah Regional Park. Sites are approximately 30 acres. The Elm Creek area is fenced; Crow - Hassan and Lake Sarah have fencing along adjacent roads. Special use permits of $25/year provide access to the off -leash area for the permit holder and immediate family members residing in the same household. In addition, an annual parking permit of $25 is required. 125 special use permits were issued in 1996. Minneapolis No off -leash sites. In 1994, a citizen's group presented a proposal for the creation of an off -leash dog area in Powderhorn Park. According to Park Board staff, the Board initially authorized staff to create the off -leash area for a one-year pilot program. However, this required amending the park ordinance to permit dogs off -leash, which apparently raised additional Board concerns about the impact of this type of activity. The proposal was not implemented. St. Paul There is a designated "Pet Park" in a fenced area near 1-94 and 6th Street in Lower Town. The area is approximately one acre, fenced, and covered with wood chips. There is no fee to use the area. Washington County No off -leash sites. There have been requests, but Washington County has decided against providing off -leash sites. PROPOSED PILOT PROGRAM Issues Literature Review Site Off -leash areas provide an opportunity for dogs to Characteristics exercise and socialize. Ideal locations for off -leash activities are areas that: i 1. Can withstand free -running by dogs without interfering in activities in or around the area. 2. Are fenced to park boundaries, have natural boundaries, or require minimal fencing. 3. Are not associated with established recreation interests or attract high concentrations of users. Size, Site Layout i The following is a general summary of ideal site and Design areas: P • The size of the area is generally less important than its location and suitability for dogs' use. Generally, a "rougher" setting is more suitable than a mowed area for free running; however, owners using the area for specialized training prefer a mowed area. Sites that can be both mowed in part and retain natural areas are best. Battle Creek Regional Park - Lower Afton Site Battle Creek Regional Park site is located east of McKnight Road and north of Lower Afton Road. The terrain is hilly and the site contains tall grasses, shrubs, and scattered trees. Rice Creek Regional Trail Corridor Rice Creek Regional Trail Corridor site is located north of Sherwood Road and west of Lexington Avenue in Shoreview. The terrain has a slight slope and the site contains tall grasses and shrubs. Both sites possess the characteristics desired in an off -leash area: a 'rougher". setting, varying terrain, tall grasses, and some trees and shrubs. Each site has sufficient space to establish a 5-6 acre off -leash area and maintain the necessary buffer from existing paths and roads. The following changes would be made to the sites for the pilot program: 1. Mowed corridors would provide a transition area from trails and parking lots to the off -leash site. Dogs would be required to be leashed on this corridor until reaching the off -leash area boundary. 2. Mowed perimeter trails on the sites would help define the off -leash area boundaries. Paving is not recommended, but wood chips or 3. Additional trails could be mowed to create a more interesting experience for dogs paving can be used on paths if necessary. and their owners. Contour which varies adds to the appeal for Site drawings can be found in Appendix A. dogs and plants add to the interest and diversity. In most cases, boundaries where free -running is permitted need to be fenced. Fencing is also used where natural barriers are not available to prevent dogs from straying, being injured, or causing a traffic hazard. Finally, clearly identified boundaries are a barrier to other park users who might unknowingly wander into it. The west boundary of the proposed area would be located approximately 150 feet off of McKnight Road, allowing a growth of pine trees to establish a natural boundary. Other natural boundaries include a ravine to the north and woods to the south and east. The south boundary would be established approximately 300 feet from the trail corridors border. The remaining, boundaries would be at least 100 feet from any trails. In general, the site would be set apart from the remainder of the trail corridor by trees and tall grasses in the area. Issues Literature Review Battle Creek Regional Park- Rice Creek Regional Traill Lower Afton Site Corridor Fencing A four -foot -high fence will restrain most dogs and Although fencing is desirable in some situations, the natural boundaries of these slow down others. Higher fences may be needed in sites would be adequate for the pilot nature of this program. some places, such as adjacent to busy public roads and neighboring residential properties. Signage Two types of signage are normally used at off -leash Signage would be required at each site. The following Types of signs would be areas: regulatory and advisory. Regulatory signage installed at each location: displays the rules of the facility. Advisory signs One general access sign at each corridor entrance directing users to the site; caution unsuspected park users of the activity and One rule sign at each entrance to the off -leash area; and, indicate park boundaries. Site markings to identify the off -leash area boundaries. Additional signage would be posted in other park areas informing users of the designated off -leash areas as needed. Support Facilities i Support facilities to consider in the establishment of Parking areas with trash containers currently exist at each site. Restrooms, water, off -leash areas include shelter, toilets, seating, and additional facilities are not proposed for this pilot program. drinking water, and parking. Disposal of Feces Users are normally required to clean up after their Owners would be required to supply their own clean-up tools, pick up after their pets, pets. Some agencies choose to provide bags or and dispose of feces in a designated trash container. i scoops for cleaning up, while others require users to i supply their own clean-up tools. Feces is usually disposed of in trash containers; however, some i disposal units are buried in the ground which permits natural decomposition back into the soil. Dogs are instinctually attracted to long grass for i defecating. If a site contains tall grass, feces that is not in mowed areas or on paths could be left to naturally decompose. Impact on Wildlife The impact on wildlife and vegetation needs to be Directing pet owners to designated off -leash areas would reduce the negative impact and Vegetation determined for each facility. Generally, dogs will of dogs on natural areas where illegal off -leash activity is occurring, thus resulting in have a minimal impact on natural grasses and positive system impact. brush. However, an area might see a decrease No significant vegetation is present at either site. ground wildlife and an impact on nesting birds. Issues Literature Review Battle Creek Regional Park- Rice Creek Regional Trail Lower Afton Site Corridor Maintenance of I Maintaining paths and parking lots, mowing, i Each site currently has parking and limited support facilities. Increased maintenance Site collecting trash, and other general maintenance is needs would include mowing the access paths and a portion of the off -leash site, generally required. collecting trash, and general upkeep. Parking lots would be plowed in the winter; no other winter maintenance would be performed. Some of the increased maintenance activity could be assumed by R.O.M.P. or other organizations through the Ramsey County Park Partners program. Rules I The following is a list of rules typically posted at a Rules would be as stated on the left column. dog run area. Dogs must be properly licensed and vaccinated. i Dogs must be leashed prior to entering and upon leaving the off -leash area and in transition corridors. Owners must be in verbal control of their dogs at all times and prevent aggressive behavior, biting, fighting or excessive barking. Owners are liable for damage or injury inflicted by their dogs. Owners must have a visible leash at all times. Owners must clean up and dispose of feces. Dogs in heat are not allowed. Owners must comply with all other park rules and regulations. Fees/Charges Fees and charges vary. Hennepin Parks currently Ramsey County provides all existing park areas (excluding shelters, pavilions, and charges $25 for an annual permit. Many agencies Long Lake Beach) free to park users. No additional fees or charges are proposed such as the Cities of Seattle and New York City during this pilot program. require a city license only. Penalties and i Varies. Ramsey County Parks and Recreation would work closely with the Ramsey County Enforcement Sheriff to actively enforce the existing dog ordinance. Enforcement would include informing dog owners of the new areas and consistent ticketing of repeat offenders i who illegally have their dogs off -leash in non -designated areas. RECOMMENDATION Parks and Recreation staff proposes a pilot program creating two off -leash dog areas within the Ramsey runty Parks and Recreation system, one at Battle Creek Regional Park and one at the Rice Creek Regional ail Corridor. The pilot program would be initiated in early summer 1997 and ryn through December 31, 1998, subject to funding availability. The department reserves the right to discontinue this program at any time if it is found unacceptable. Cost Implementation The following costs are directly associated with the development of the off -leash areas, excluding staff time: Item Cost by Location Battle Creek I Rice Creek Signage and Boundary Markings $1,500 1 $1,500 Projected Annual Operating Costs Item Cost by Location Battle Creek Rice Creek Mowing and General Site Maint. Bi -weekly, May -Oct, $105/site) 1,260 1,260 Trash Removal Twice per week, year round at $9) 936 936 Winter Plowing 10 snowfalls X $142/snowfall) currently plowed 1,420 Total 2,196 3,616 Monitoring and Evaluating the Program This program would have a baseline study prior to opening to estimate current use at each site. The sites would be monitored throughout the program to record number of users. Users would also be asked to complete evaluations periodically throughout the program. All information would be reviewed at the conclusion of the program and a decision to discontinue, continue as is, or expand the program would be made at that time. APPENDIX Appendix A: Site Maps RICE I TRAIL RICE CREEK TRAIL (S) IDT N LAKE LAKE I DITCH IB ER u WAKEFIELDLAKE AVE. IeALOEAGLE i 1 I 1 1 MARSH212 1 1 1 1 1 1 CREFY w®! , .—a s.m .. LEGEND REGIONAL PARKS ; Q COUNTY PARKS "" FISH i COUNTY OPEN SPACES CREEK o. s® COUNTY BOUNDARY F zr 2 MILES RAMSEY COUNTY PARK SYSTEM SEY COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 17 I/ GR+ Tw6t0( T'rzi I s CTG COUN TY7 tiE'S DITCH BFt73?;;yaaA'33'i. p i POPLARIAR LLAA KE RICE I TRAIL RICE CREEK TRAIL (S) IDT N LAKE LAKE I DITCH IB ER u WAKEFIELDLAKE AVE. IeALOEAGLE i 1 I 1 1 MARSH212 1 1 1 1 1 1 CREFY w®! , .—a s.m .. LEGEND REGIONAL PARKS ; Q COUNTY PARKS "" FISH i COUNTY OPEN SPACES CREEK o. s® COUNTY BOUNDARY F zr 2 MILES RAMSEY COUNTY PARK SYSTEM SEY COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COUNTY ROAD J LEGEND PAVED PATH B BRIDGE P PARKING LOT C CANOE LAUNCH CALACCESS • NEIGHBORHOOD LO •. ACCESS NEIGHEORHOOD I J j ACCESS I r I TRAI.HEAD. P LOCALTRAIL. p C'••• COUNTY ROAD 11 0 114 mile I ---F o 1000 2000 reel 7/ T- LOCAL TRAIL TRAILHEAD POND DOG EXERCISEAREA l L) LEXIPOION AVENUE It 8' DIT. PATH L SHOREVIEW SEGMENT - DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT RICE CREEK NORTH REGIONAL TRAIL CORRIDOR r, S O MILE Z _— It AIVISf.Y COON o: L arrY P Upper Afton Rd. So rd Lower LEGEND a__J WATER PARK BOUNDARY MARSH 0 WOODED AREAS PAVED PATHS UNPAVED PATHS P' PICNIC SHELTER' S PARKING PP PICNIC PAVILL10N BATTLE CREEK REGIONAL PARK! I Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Off -Leash Dog Area Pilot Program Update December 18, 1997 Summary A citizens' group, Responsible Owners of Mannerly Pets (ROMP), made a presentation at the October 8, 1996, Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Commission meeting requesting establishment of one or more designated off -leash dog areas within the park system. ROMP cited several successful off -leash programs throughout the United States. Ramsey County Parks and Recreation staff reviewed both local and national response to citizen requests for off -leash areas. On January 11, the Parks and Recreation Commission endorsed a staff proposal to establish two off -leash areas for a pilot program beginning June 27, 1997 and running through December 31, 1998. The off -leash areas are located at Rice Creek Regional Trail Corridor in Shoreview and the Lower Afton area of Battle Creek Regional Park in Maplewood. These areas are not associated with established recreation areas, one of the criteria in site selection. The Rice Creek site is approximately five acres; Battle Creek is approximately 4 acres. Mowed corridors (where pets are required to be leashed) provide transition areas from trails and parking lots. Mowed perimeter trails and signage define the off -leash area boundaries. The creation of the sites was not part of the department's 1997 operating budget. In recognition of the cooperative effort between the department and the citizens' group, ROMP provided a donation of $3,000 for the signage and boundary markings. The department provided staff time and equipment to prepare the sites. Program Review Site Monitoring and Feedback Process Use of the site has been monitored by the following three methods: 1. Staff Site Visits Department staff have conducted site visits to count the number of users on each site and discuss satisfaction with the program. Park Service Coordinators conducted sporadic counts at each site from July -August. No staff counts have been conducted since October. 2. User Comments Staff have received regular telephone comments from users, as well as questions from potential users. 3. ROMP Comments ROMP has provided regular updates on site use, suggestions for improvements, and other general comments. The department met with ROMP on December 2, 1997 to review the program. ROMP comments have been summarized and included in this review. User Comments Overall, the response from users is positive. The department has received many inquiries and comments regarding the sites. In addition, ROMP provides regular updates on comments they receive. The following is a summary of these comments: First and foremost, users seem to be happy with the sites. For the most part, users seem to be using the sites responsibly. ROMP members are speaking to the less responsible users and periodically cleaning up the sites. The Battle Creek site is not a full five acres. Users would like to see the site enlarged. Users would like more water access for exercising their dogs. Users would like fencing along McKnight Road at the Battle Creek site (installed Dec. 97) Users are hopeful that additional sites can be added in the future. The department has received only one negative comment. This was from a resident in the Battle Creek area expressing a concern that the creation of the off -leash area has resulted in an increase of off -leash dogs on the walking paths in the Lower Afton site. User Statistics 1997 user statistics are inadequate to make meaningful conclusions. This is due to two primary factors: Park Service Coordinators were directed to conduct counts on each shift; however, this did not begin until mid-July and was not consistent (see attached list). There was no major publicity on the sites until a series of articles in the Pioneer Press and Star Tribune (and television news stories) appeared in late summer. From that time, periodic stories have run, partly as a result of efforts in the cities of Minneapolis and Bloomington to establish off -leash areas. It appears that each of these stories increases awareness of the sites. Site Modifications in response to user requests, the following minor site modifications were made: Rice Creek site was expanded to provide access to a pond adjacent to the site. Battle Creek site was expanded to the north to provide an additional acre. Snow fence was installed along McKnight Road at the Battle Creek site to help prevent dogs from running onto McKnight Road. Future Issues and Action 1. The issue of pets in Ramsey County Parks In addressing the issue of pets in the park system, an instrument will be developed that will attempt to provide feedback to the department on the issue of pets in the park system. We will survey both pet owners and non -owners and try to determine the feelings of park users in regards to pets in parks and open spaces. 2. Off -Leash area use counts A consistent monitoring method must be developed. The following are two suggested methods: a) Staff Counts i) During the year when the Park Service Coordinators are on duty, a schedule can be developed directing when the Park Service Coordinators will visit the sites and log the users. This schedule should be random so the site is monitored at various times throughout the week. ii) Staff assisting with the Metropolitan Park Counts and our leisure research program can assist in conducting counts. b) Log Form ROMP has suggested using a sign -in log form at the site. The department could work with ROMP on the design of this form and the design of a unit to house the form. This unit could include a space for brochures and extra plastic bags that users would like to leave for other users. c) Reports from ROMP ROMP could provide use counts when their members are using the sites. 3. Mutt Mitt Bags The department and ROMP has considered the installation of bag dispensers for owners Mutt Mitt bags). However, ROMP wants to encourage owners to be responsible and bring their own bags for cleaning up after their pets. They are concerned that if bags are supplied, users will become dependent on them. The department can work with ROMP to design a unit to store extra plastic bags that users will contribute to, rather than invest in the Mutt Mitt dispenser. 4. Grass Lake Area ROMP expressed concern over the proposed development of the Grass Lake nature interpretive area. Apparently, this is a popular are for local residents to exercise their dogs both on -leash and off -leash). This could be an issue in 1998. 5. As part of this pilot program, Ramsey County Sheriff has been asked to more actively enforce the pet ordinance and tag violators. It is unclear if this is being performed. The department should continue to seek more active enforcement of the ordinance. Expenditures The following is a breakdown of the expenditures associated with establishing the off -leash dog area. This does not include staff time associated with the project. Signage (Earl F. Anderson) Quantity Description Unit Costs Price 4 60"X40" rules sign 250.00 820.00 2 24"X24" direction sign 75.00 150.00 100 Decals 0.85 85.00 Freight 50.00 50.00 Tax 68.58 68.58 Posts (Carsonite International) Quantity Description Unit Costs Price 50 Border posts 13.85 692.50 Tax 45.01 45.01 Fencing (Reliable Racing Supply, Inc) Quantity Description Unit Costs Price 6 (June 10) 50' rolls green snow fence 50.00 300.00 Shipping 65.00 65.00 Tax 23.73 23.73 4 (Dec 18) 50' rolls green snow fence 50.00 200.00 Shipping (estimated) 50.00 50.00 Tax (estimated) 16.25 16.25 Total $2,566.07 Mark Themig, Recreation Services Program Assistant Services Program Assistant ier 8, 1996 Park nission Meeting est originated a Citizen Group, I(Responsible rs of Mannerly cited need for P legally allow reviewed local and national nse to citizen requests for off - areas. F prepared proposal establishing off -leash exercise areas for a pilot cram beginning June 27, 1997 and ling through December 31, 1998. istent with current policies, no use by Park Commission. Play Time for Fido: Ramsey County's Off - Leash Dog Areas Mark Themig, Recreation Services Program Assistant Selection Considerations neral Site Characteristics Sites can withstand free -running by dogs without interfering in activities in or around the area. Sites are fenced to park boundaries, have natural boundaries, or require minimal fencing. Sites are not associated with established recreation interests or attract high concentrations of users. ce, Site Layout, and Design The size of the area is generally less important than its local on and suitability for du,s use. Generally, a `rougher' setting is more suitable than a mowed area for free running; however, owners using the area for specialized training might prefer a mowed area. Sites that can be both mowed in part and retain natural areas are best. Paving is not recommended, but wood chips or paving can be used on paths if necessary. Contour which varies adds to the appeal for dogs. Plants add to the interest and diversity. Play Time for Fido: Ramsey Cotutty's Off - Leash Dog Areas Mark Themig, Recreation Services Program Assistant Selection Considerations Clearly identified boundaries are a barrier to other park users who might unknowingly wander into it. Choice between natural boundaries or fencing. Fencing is used where natural barriers are not available to prevent dogs from straying, being injured, causing a traffic hamed, or interfering with other park use. Selection Considerations pact on Wildlife and Vegetation Needs to be determined for each facility. Generally, dogs will have a minimal impact on natural grasses and brush. An area might see a decrease in ground wildlife and an impact on nesting birds. Site Selection Considerations Support Facilities Shelter Toilets Seating Drinking water Parking Water Access Play Time for Fido: Ramsey County's Off - Leash Dog Areas Mark Themig, Recreation Services Program Assistant Dogs must be properly licensed and vaccinated. Dogs must be leashed prior to entering and upon leaving the off -leash area and in transition corridors. Owners must be in verbal central of their dogs at all times and prevent aggressive behavior, biting, fighting or excessive barking. Owners are liable for damage or injury inflicted by their dogs. Owners must have a visible leash at all times. Owners must clean up and dispose of faces. Dogs in heal are not allowed Owners must comply with all other park rules and Play Time for Fido: Ramsey County's Off - Leash Dog Areas 4 SLICE OF LIFE The Chicago White Sox held the first ever,"Dog Day Evene on August 28. 1996.Over 350 pets and their owners sot in bleacher seats for tfiis special promotion. Autodesk Corporation in Son RoFael, Collfornia allow canines to accompany about seventy employees to work. The company has o three strldks (poops) and you're out policy. Dogs for Dummies' author, Llso Abbot Blarney cites that more and more, pets ore welcome in or such as hotels, stores, workplaces, open-air restaurants, and tourist attractions. USA Today August E0. 1996 r CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP It may be of benefit to involve pet stores, pet product companies, or vetednary clinics in the dog pork effort As off -leash areas are thought to provldi effective exercise and tmhaviorol benefits for dogs, organizations will receive positive publicity for helping to initiate such an outlet In return for its donation, the company con get its name printed on a sign or in dog pork handoutsScooperdispensersandthescooPersthemselvescanalsobeorderedwith custom printed sponsor names. R contract can be developed that would allow It company to conduct marketing promotions for a limited time at the dog pork. omples of this would be for a pet product company to provide free samples d its dog food at the pork or for a spokesperson from a local veterinary hospital b schedule a talk on health core for animals. R case of corporate sponsorship in practice is demonstmted t hrrough the actions of the los Angeles Ports Department, the some department manages the successful Laurel Canyon Dog Pork. sponsorePato oportcreatent 1 Is d currently working in portawithership corporate park at the Sepulveda Regeation Rreo in the Son Fernando Valley. The sponsor will donate $50,000 tailtafd the canstructlon of the dog Pork. LIABILITY CONCERNS The first Issue that comes to mind when envisioning Sn oreo where up to twenty-five dogs ploy of once is the possibility of o dog fight. In fact, In not orofthedogparksfromthisstudyhasaparkexperiencedanyIncidenceresultinginolibelwitWhileoneortwocasesofadogbitinganotherdog.have ocarr the skin was not broken and the Incident ended there. Part of the reasonhaveforwhydogfightshavenotoccurred. even in dog parksbeenfunctioningforovertwentyyears. Is that the dogs consider the pork to t neutral territory. Furthermore, dog owners ore responsible for leoshing and. removing their animal From tate park at the first hint of ogg(ession. Neither have there been any Incidents Imrolving dogs attacking humans the dog pods. According to some park oFBcials, one ezplonatlon is that dogparkstendtoattractthekindof- responsible patron that has trained and socialized his or her pet. Nevertheless, even if thele have not been any precedented cases of liability involving dog attacks, it Is essential that parks implement precautionary measures, most states have "Dog -Bite Statutes" that automatically make the dog owner legally liable for any Injury or damage that their dog causes. To be on the safe side, however, many dog parks have inserted waivers Irttheir city ordinances stipulating that the owner take full responsibility for the dog's actions In the park. The waives should be submitted to the city attorney's office for liability review and approval. The implied consent waiver should then be posted In conspicuous locations on the dog park site. In one Instance, a dog was hit by a car after escaping from Holmes Dog Park In-Uncoln; Nebraska. Because the pork warned In Its regulations that dogs could escape througli the fence, and because the rules stipulated that the -owner be responsible for the pet; no liabilities resulted. In cases where a dog attacks a human or anther dog, the Issue should be settled between the Involved parties. Often, disputes of this nature are settled outside of court through negotiation and compensation by Insurance companies. Overall, many pork officials who were Wtially hesitant about liability problems have been pleasantly surprised to find that dads off-leosh pose little threatto park safety. While legitimate concern, it Is no more a problem with dog parks than any other pork -sponsored activity. R 1990 study concerning the liability problems of Palo Alto's city parks reported the following observation: "...the facts are that 80 dog visits per day In Palo Alto almost half a million since 1974 — have not produced a single liability claim, while the city's swing sets account for about 168 cases annually Animals, April 1990), AMENDING THE CITY ORDINANCE Nbst city adInances contain Dog at .L- douses rureing off -leash In orV public area In order to legally establish a dog pork tkis aspect of the city crdinonce nxist be amended. 8 section giving a generiol cleseption of the dog park ad reviewing Its rules Ord policies shcxAd be wrItten up and approved by the Park and Becreodon Department. submitted to the City CMK)eil for approval. If the City Council approves of die City fthmey will d= put the clause Into effiect. The entire 1G' the omcunt of revIslon required. CONTACTS: OTHER EXISTING DOG PRRKS Dog Exercise Rreas of Rlexandria, Virginia Twenty six designated Grow have been established for owners to allow their dogs off -leash. Due to conflicts resulting from dogs Interfering with other pork activities, the city Initiated off leash areas during the mid -seventies. The creos are not fenced and most consist of 100 by 100 feet to an acre. Owners are responsible for clean up. The overall cost of the dog areas, mast of which was spent on signs, is estimated to be Ground $1,000. No liability suits have been reported. GQntactp Clty of Alexanckig, D.?pt. of Recreation (703) 838:4340 Ashland, Oregon In response to local demands. the city of Ashland provided on off leash area for dogs In November of 1994, The pork constitutes two acres on the oulskl'rts of town surrounded by a wire fence with a picnic table and cutout milk Jugs fix scoopers. The total cost of the park Is esUrnoted of $2,000. Contact: Ken Mickelson (5.41) 486-5340 Dane County Dog Parks, Madison, Wisconsin These dog parks number 5 and a sigh dog park Is In the process of being built. Each dog park consists of a 17 to PD oar, designated area within a previously existing pork. The dog porks.w. were started as a result of a problem with leash -low breakers as well as a recognition that they serve as legititnote reaeotlonal outlets for citizens. A fee of $5 Is required for a season pass; $1 for a dolly pass. There have been no liability suits. The Potts Department Is In the process of finishing a 3 -year study on their dog parks. Contac Ken Lupine (60.8) 246.3896 Holmes Park Dog Run, Lincoln; Nebraska The pork was established in 1990 and consists of 12 acres. The site Is a water runoff area of unused land that Is fenced in by hog wire and chain link fencing. Owners are not required to dean up dog waste, and the gross Is purposely kept longer In order to help filter dog waste. A dog once escaped through the fencing and was hit by a nor: no liabilities were incurred. Contoct Lincoln Parks and Recreation (409) 441-7847 Katherine Kearney Carpenter Park; Mequon, WI R 36 -acre pork donated to the city of Mequon: The pork is landscaped with hundreds of trails. Due to its large size, there is no requirement to pick up ofCer.one's dog. Contact: Mequon Parks and Building Works Laurel Canyon Park, Los Angeles, CA- R park once considered to be unsafe is now a dean, well -used public facility as a result of the efforts OFporkWotch, a nonprofit dog owners group. The group began using the pork in 1982 and by 1988 the park become officially ordinonced as a dual-usoge facility In partnership wlth the LR. Pork and Recreation Deportment PakWotch pcvately Funds security patrols as well as cleanup and landscaping measures. Dog owners enjoy off -leash hours before 10 a.m. and after 3 p.m. while the day hours are restricted to the leash low. Dual -use of thisnaturehascreatedmultipleproblemsandparkofficialsrecommendthatdog. Parks have.full-time hours. The pork constitutes 4.4 acres. The grounds are treated with a blologlcol onti-flea parasitic nemotoda.' The pork provides handouts with vaccination and neutering InFonmtlon. The park hos gates that are spring self-closing- No liability claims have been reported. Contag Jane Purse, President of ParkWatch (213) 254-7069 Dick Glnnebon, L.R. porks Department (818) 7,56.8060 Long Beach Dog Park, CaliforniaThisdogporkwaslargelyconstructedand runded by a local dog association butreceivedsupportfromLongBeachParks & Recreation Department The pork Is opproAmotely 500'x 200' and is surrounded by fencing and gates, with watertroughs, walkways, and security lighting. Due to the large-scale use of the park, maintaining ground turf has been o problem. The dog association has decided to stop seeding efforts and maintain the park as Is, Irrigating the ground , periodically to eliminate dust build-up. There have been no reported Ilabillty problems. Centoct: Phil Hester, Manager of Parks (310) 428-1824 Marlum Yorden, Dog fissociation Head (310) 428.1824 Ohlone Dog Parks Berkeley, CA. n in 1979 and wasoneofthefirstdogparkstooppeorintheUS. the Fair beganofficiallyordinancedin1985 -The park constitutes 112 an acre of unused land indowntownBerkeley. The dog pork is Jointly maintained and financed by the city of Berkely and the ODPR (Ohlone Dog Park Association). The ODPR sponsorsactivitiesincludingfleadips, carnivals, and selling T-shirts to False money for the dog park. No liability claims have been reported. Cantoct: Doris Richords, President of ODPR (510) 843-6221 Park Liebrecht, Jette, Belgium duaelltngdogowYaerslnJette the cityDuetothelargenumbersofhighrriseaportrkent converted on unused plat of land IMo o Pak, allotting a I I acre tionotdog rxTheoff4e.,h are. is landscaped and separated by sivubber4 into Individual Sand pits ore provided Instead of seoopers and each run has a canine agility cou s& Including moilings. prblidty,md aar&actlan the cost cane to $50,127.Tha project was a flndist in the W.Mctfonal Pets In Cities Rword, Point Isabel, Son Francisco, CA. The dog pork was formally recognized nsIn1984andcoists of 21 aces of a former landfill. It was once considered an unsafe area for public use untThereDO O thePointIsobelDogRssoclation) began for ng their e retrno and ark. h now a picnic area, an open gss area footpaths along the shoreline. No liability claims have been reported. Contiact: Mitchell Baum, East Bay Regional Park District Ouann Park acrd Sycamate Park, Madison, Wisconsin Each dog park Is appy= 80 awes and constructed upon old landfill sites. The Parks were stoned as evIt of Pressure from am dogwrw o from their ons Madison City Parks Previously >U prah bited oil dogs, off -leash sur apocks). The overall cost Is estimated to be less than $500: there s no fencing and owners ore required to tote their dog's feces home with them. The funding bought signs, a kiosk, a picric toble•ond a drinking fountain. This Is the only part officlol to whom I spoke who sold that there Is o large Problem with dog owners following the posted rules. This can probably be attributed to the fat that nobogsorhushreceptaclesareprovidedandthat80acresmakesItdifficultfor dog owners to police one another as is common in most dog Parks. ot There have been no reported liability cases. Contact. John Sunciby (6QB) 2¢7-8801 It Sunnyvjole, Los Palmas Dog Park, California The Sunnyvale Neighborhood Dog Park first started in 1992 on a .5 ace site. The pork was started In a Joint effort between a local group. D.O.G.S. and the parks department. The dog park costed approximately between $20,000 to $30,000 to construct. There Is o "Fido Drinking fountain", scooper dispensers and benches for the owners. There is no record of liability claims. Contact City of Sunnyvale Parks Division (408) 730.7506 Winnetka Dog Beach, Illinois The pork was started In 1986 after a pork beach area was closed to the public due to erosion. Park officials were looking for some way to curb dog owners from letting their dogs run loose in the pork and found that the Winnetka fog Beach was the solution. The pork charges a fee of $25 per year for residents and $150 o year for non-residents. The dogs must have vaccine records in order to receive o pass. The dog beach Is guarded by a stalf member during day hours, and a combination lock during night hours; dogowners with season passes therefore have 24 hour access. The park hos Invested apprm S6,0D0 to $7,000 In the dog park, mostly on paying park attendants. Their revenue from the season passes are approxlmotely S16,DD0. k No liability claims have ever been reported. Pork officiols are looking Into building another. Contact George Rleroff, Recreation Coordinator (708) 4460080 Tempe Dog Park, Arizona - The park was started In 1994 on a former elementary school yard site approxl- motely 220'x 150'. The existence of the pork successfully cut down on previous Problems of dogs running off leash and the high amounts of dog feces throughout the local park. The overall cost is estimated to be less than $1,000. The Dept. of Parks used leftover drain link and lighting tom another project, and Invested In signs, water spickets, and fence poles. No liability claims have been reported and of the more than 20 dog parks the Tempe Parks Deportment studied before Implementing their own, none hod ever experienced o liability problem. Pork officials ore In the process of expanding the dog pork. APPENDIX Pet Waste Products Intelligent Products Incorporated 10,000 Lower River flood P.O. Boz 626 Burlingotn, KY 41005 Phone 8.00b97-6884 GOLDENLAS Enterprise P.O. Box 442.85 Madison, illi 5374.4414285 Phone: 60.&277.86,63 Dispoz-a-scoop Petro 2651 South Flcvf Rvenue Culver City, CFI 90232-9811 a 0 t* i V 0 HEALTHY 1TM i i f e s t y 1 e s November Z 1998 Presented By., Mark Klanchnik, Chair Russ Boverhuis, Vice Chair Dog Run Task Force j .. u L.. __.-- R!"L''i llYtitrW L_. --.,..J /++•11 4-_. +.r+ Wvi I Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Table of Contents PAGE Introduction 1 Overview of Bloomington Dog Run Task Force 2, What is a Dog Run? 3 Benefits of a Dog Run 4 Current Metro Area Dog Runs 5 12 -County Metro Area Map Proposed Sites 6-7 Aerial View Pictures Rules/Regulations 8-9 Revision of Current City Ordinance 10 Budget 11 Financing/Fees 12 Maintenance 13 Endorsement of Animal Control 14 Summary 15-16 Recommendations 17 L_ FJiYi mow... L:_J La!!i lMFfti t_.'.: GSJ ....... G..... ,.... {F.+MaI'i _: -..+J AMM+»N _—.-..i N,i...l: Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Introduction Many communities throughout the United States now have safe, legal, and enclosed dog runs where friendly, well-behaved puppies and dogs can exercise, train, and socialize together off -leash. The Bloomington Dog Run Task Force is proposing to establish and operate such areas within the City of Bloomington. 1 - Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Overview of Bloomington Dog Run Task Force In response to letters written by Bloomington residents requesting that the City address the need for an off -leash dog area, a meeting was held in September 1997 inviting public questions, comments, and concerns. Two subsequent meetings were held, and in February 1998, a 20 -member task force was formed of volunteers (along with representatives of Bloomington Parks and Recreation) who had attended one or more of the prior meetings and were willing to devote their time and energy to the development of a workable plan. In April 1998, Task Force members visited several locations and collected data before making final site recommendations. Since that time, several Task Force meetings have been held to discuss such issues as funding/fees, rules, maintenance, and supervision. This proposal is a collaborative effort of the members of the Bloomington Dog Run Task Force. 2- 1...J. a++Y &:" l._....._ {iY dd M^"T M M l9 N"l'1 MM4'iM bie.Attl _......1 4:er,«. .—_., •,..I W::M:n Bloomington Dog Run Proposal What is a Dog Run? A dog run is an area designated specifically for the use of owners and their dogs. Most are managed by users in cooperation with local government, but some are privately operated. They may range in size from one-quarter acre to more than 50 acres, some with fencing and some without. All dog runs; however, share one common purpose: to provide an area where dogs can run free from restraint— legally and safely. All over the country, these places—commonly referred to as "dog parks," "dog runs," "free running areas," or "pet exercise areas"—are rising in popularity and demand. 3- L—.,. L r L" L:'....' : i Lf = 1--NK*40.4 ibi l._... _J Mrm 4 i+._:. Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Benefits of a Dog Run Puppies and adult dogs have a safe, enclosed place to exercise, train, and socialize together, and with their owners, off -leash. Enclosed play areas prevent off -leash dogs from infringing on the rights of other community residents and park users such as joggers, small children, and those who may be fearful of dogs. In an era where people are often reluctant or afraid to approach or converse with a complete stranger, dog runs bring people together and create a greater sense of community. t> A well -exercised dog is a happier and healthier dog. Puppies and dogs that get enough exercise and are properly trained and socialized are less likely to create a nuisance, bark excessively, destroy property, jump on passers-by, etc. —in other words, are good citizens. 4- Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Current Metro Area Dog Runs Dog runs in the metro area have been in existence since 1983. To date, areas in Hennepin Parks where pets are allowed off -leash are in designated portions of Elm Creek Park Reserve (Maple Grove), Crow -Hassan Park Reserves (Rogers), and Lake Sarah Regional Park (Rockford). These areas are large, 30 to 40,acres in size; however, they are located 25 to 30 miles from Bloomington. Special use permits are issued for a yearly fee of $25.00. Permit holders are subject to Hennepin Parks ordinances and the rules and conditions for pet exercise/training areas, and a current Hennepin Parks $25.00 membership/annual parking permit is required. In Ramsey County, off -leash areas located in Rice Creek North Regional Trail Corridor (Shoreview) and Battle Creek Regional Park (Maplewood) consist of about 5 acres each in open areas with no other established recreational interests. There are no permit fees in Ramsey County, but, as in Hennepin, dogs must be licensed and vaccinated, among other rules. M L- EM M= I :. Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Proposed Sites The Task Force reviewed numerous sites throughout Bloomington and decided that the following two locations were best suited to be used in a pilot program: The first site is an area within Harrison Park, located at 101 st Street and James Avenue South. This is a gateway to Central Park and the Nine Mile Creek trail system. There is land north of Nine Mile Creek and west of the paved trail in this park that is about 2 to 3 acres in size, grassy and semi -wooded. It is estimated that approximately 800 linear feet of 5' to 6tall fencing would be needed to enclose this space. The estimated cost of this fencing would be 7,000.00 to $8,000.00. The second pilot site is a 1 acre parcel of land located at the west end of Normandale Lake, parallel to the railroad track and Chalet Road, and north of the parking area. Approximately 700 linear feet of T to 6' tall fencing is needed at this site, at a cost of $6,000.00 to $7,000.00. Ors a-`° Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Proposed Sites (continued) These sites were chosen for the following reasons: P Neither site is currently being used by other groups. Parking is available in lots nearby at both proposed sites. r> Both sites have access to trail systems. The leash law is enforced on the trails. Both sites currently have scheduled waste removal with containers located in their parking lots. The Normandale Lake site has access to restroom facilities and drinking water, and is already partially fenced. Both sites are accessible for individuals who are physically disabled. Once these facilities are established, the intent is that they be supported by a user - based fee, in the form of a yearly permit. The possibility of an on-site pay box for visitors/occasional users has been suggested. 7- r y, •• RL C{l] YT 4" Lir W l: R.A'L) 1.-..J r..-a H 1A lWH Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Rules/Regulations Puppies and dogs must be licensed and vaccinated, be healthy (have no contagious conditions or diseases, and be parasite -free (both internally and externally). No dogs known to be aggressive toward other dogs or people (or exhibiting any threatening behavior) may enter the run. No bitches in heat may enter the run at any time. Owners must clean up after their dogs and are required to provide their own disposal bags. Owners must closely supervise their dogs, and at no time should an owner leave the run without their dog(s). Owners should discourage their dogs from barking excessively. Dogs must be wearing a collar with identification _at all times. WIN Bloomington Dog Run Proposal i Rules/Regulations (continued) Parents must refrain from bringing toddlers and small children into the run. Parents are strongly discouraged from bringing children under 12 years of age. Children should not be allowed to run with or chase after dogs in the dog run. Rawhides or food are not allowed in the dog run except "gulpable," bite -sized treats. i> For safety reasons, pinch (prong) and spike collars must be removed from a dog prior to release in the dog run. Puppies under 4 months of age prohibited. Dogs must be leashed while entering and exiting the dog run. Limit 3 dogs per handler per visit. Park Hours: Sunrise to 10 p.m. Number of dogs allowed in park will be monitored for capacity. Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Revision of Current City Ordinance It would be necessary to amend Sec. 5.21(13) of the Bloomington City Code, Article III. Parks & Playgrounds ordinance which states: No dogs shall be allowed in any park except on a leash. " 10- baeaid _.-a Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Budget Start -Up Totals for 2 Sites Fencing Double -Gated, Spring -Loaded Entry 8 -Foot Maintenance Gates Signage Benches Total Proposed Add -Ons Portable Toilet (Harrison Park site) Seeding/Sodding Mulch or Gravel (at entrance) Flea Control (spray area annually) Hose Down Fences/Trees/Benches Playground/Agility Equipment (stairs, A -frame ramps, plastic tunnels, etc.) Combined Estimate 15,000.00 800.00 2.000.00 17,800.00 Estimate 864.00/Yr. 500.00/Yr. 300.00/Yr. 500.00/Yr. 100.00/Yr. 600.00 0 r.. ... r. " V'r {P+'+.A 1 Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Financing/Fees The Task Force asks that the City of Bloomington invest $20,000.00 to $25,000.00 for the combined start-up cost of the two proposed sites. Once established, it is proposed that special use permits be issued for a yearly fee of 10.00 to $25.00. These fees are to be used for annual maintenance and improvements. M 12- Bloomington. Dog Run Proposal Maintenance The City of Bloomington would continue to mow proposed sites. If seeding/sodding becomes necessary at times, this cost would be paid through user -based fees. It is suggested that waste receptacles be emptied a minimumof three times per week. The Task Force is suggesting the formation of a dog run "user association" that monitors and remedies problems, encourages removal of problem dogs or owners, reminds individuals to clean up after their animals, etc. 13 - Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Endorsement of Animal Control City of Bloomington Animal Control has reviewed this proposal and is in agreement with its content. They concur that an enclosed pet exercise area benefits the community—people can exercise, train, and socialize with their pets off -leash legally and safely. 14- L-'- € ai i %. ; ; l . ::+i t+ L -'j d= WftA 140A Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Summary Benefits — Establishment and maintenance of two Bloomington Parks and ' Recreation dog runs will provide numerous benefits to the city and citizens'of Bloomington. These benefits include: Dogs and their owners can safely and equitably co -exist in city parks with other park users. Increased city control over dog activity in city parks and the historically proven decrease in leash law violations and subsequent public complaints. A potentially significant increase in the number of owners who will,now license their dogs in order to be able to legally use the city dog runs. Provides for the accommodation of persons presently unable to walk their dogs on -leash, e.g., the physically disabled and senior citizens. Meets the need of many Bloomington residents who desire a safe, ,controlled, and legal location within Bloomington to exercise their dogs while having the opportunity to socialize with other dog owners with similar interests. 15- mwi Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Summary (continued) Site Selection — Approximately 20 locations within the city were initially suggested for dog run sites. After discussion and review, Task Force members visited 12 of these locations before final site recommendations were made. Among the advantages of the recommended sites are: Geographical dispersion allowing relatively quick and easy access to one of the sites from any location within Bloomington. Required amenities are generally already in place at these locations, e.g., adequate off-street parking, availability of waster containers and scheduled waste removal, handicap accessibility, etc. In both locations, the selected areas within the parks are considered low use, non-specific use areas, thus allowing for minimum disruption and/or displacement of existing park users/activities at these sites. The Task Force recognizes that this proposal represents a significant departure from Parks and Recreation and City of Bloomington policies and practices. We believe that the sites selected provide the lowest cost, most easily implemented options available for the pilot Bloomington dog runs. 16- L -L `' f°F L", L___ MJ .e—".a 6""4 Bloomington Dog Run Proposal Recommendations r> Bloomington Parks and Recreation approve this proposal in general, make whatever modifications are necessary to meet department and city requirements, piovide the necessary funding and personnel for implementation and support, and advocate the establishment of two Bloomington dog runs with the Bloomington City Council and all other city departments and agencies. The Bloomington City Council amend current city ordinances to allow dogs to be legally off -leash within the confines of the Bloomington dog runs when such . dogs, and their accompanying owners, are in full compliance with the rules and regulations, as posted, of the Bloomington dog runs. Upon City approval, the Bloomington Dog Run Task Force work with the appropriate city officials and departments to finalize the detailed processes and procedures required for implementation of this proposal in the most expedient and cost-effective manner. 17_ Mark Themig, Recreation Services Program Assistant A four -toot -high fence will restrain most dogs and slow down others. Higher fences may be needed in some places, such as adjacent to busy public roads and neighboring residential properties. sposal of Feces Normally, users are required to clean up after their pets. Some agencies choose to provide bags or scoops for cleaning up, while others require users to supply their own clean-up tools. Feces is usually disposed of in trash containers; however, some disposal units are buried in the ground which permits natural decomposition back into the soil. Dogs are inslinclually attfacled to long grass for defecating. If a site contains tall grass, feces that is not in mowed areas or on paths could be left to naturally Installation/ Ongoing Operations Installation Occurred over a 1 week period. Mowed boundary trails. Conducted minor trail clearing. Installed perimeter marking signs, rules signs, and fencing. Play Time for Fido: Ramsey County's Off - Leash Dog Areas Mark Themig, Recreation Services Program Assistant ion/Ongoing Operations operation and general site maintenance. snow compaction with groomer. I lot plowing. allation/ Ongoing Operations Ilunteer Contributions Rules enforcement and education. Funding. Spreading wood chips. Feces control. Park clean-ups. enses/Funding Inage and Boundary Markings Rules Sign (60'X40'): $250 each. Diredienal Sign (24'X24'): $75 each. Boundary Marking (Carsonite Internalional): $13.85 each. Boundary Marking Decals: $0.85 eaM. Fencing(snow fence, 50'rall): $50 each. nding for Ramsey County program provided m ROMP donation. Play Time for Fido: Ramsey County's Off - Leash Dog Areas Mark Themig, Recreation Services Program Assistant 3nsiderationsin Evaluation City of use. and non -user comments (quality of expectations of users and impact to pact on Natural Resources. act of Reducing Illegal activity in remainder park system. sts associated with program. lible Future 3n continuegram Anne Program Is nand the In Approximately 200 users per week at ratty positive. Some increase in off -leash alion Requests for water access, expansion of reek site, additional sites. on natural resources: To be determined. enforcement. Effect to be determined. rciated with momam To be determined. Play Time for Fido: Ramsey County's Off- Leash ffLeashDogAreas7 Establishing an Off -Leash Dog Recreation Area Program for the City of Minneapolis Findings and Recommendations Citizen Advisory Committee October, 1998 Of course what he most intensely dreams of is being taken out on walks, and the more you are able to indulge him the more will he adore you and the more all the latent beauty of his nature will come out. Henry James, on his dog "Max" TO: Scott Nieman, President, Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board The Honorable Sharon Sayles Belton, Mayor of Minneapolis Jackie Cherryhomes, President, Minneapolis City Council RE: Report of the Minneapolis Citizens Advisory Committee on Off -Leash Dog Exercise Recreation Areas Attached is the report of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) on the Minneapolis Off - Leash Dog Exercise Program. The task has been demanding and has required extraordinary dedication from the committee members, as well as considerable time and assistance from the Park Board staff. The CAC has been meeting biweekly since April. The members have sifted through a considerable body of information on off -leash recreation areas (OLRA's). The members have further spent many hours designing a program based on the best features of successful OLRA's in other communities. The attached report details the CAC's process, findings and recommendations for creating OLRA's that will be well-suited to Minneapolis. OLRA's have been very successful in other communities; we strongly feel that they will provide a tremendous community benefit here as well. We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to serve on the CAC. We have enjoyed contributing to this highly promising project. Our canine companions look forward to enjoying the opening ceremonies at the first Minneapolis off -leash recreation areas! Sinc rely A,' 110— Laurie H. Greene, Chair, Citizen Advisory Committee and the Members of the CAC for the Minneapolis Off -Leash Dog Exercise Program cc: Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board Commissioners David Fisher, MPRB Superintendent. Members of Minneapolis City Council Its always 24' 'Stay, "Heel- never Think,' Innovate,' Be yourself.' " Table of Contents Page 1 Executive Summary Page 3 Introduction Page 5 Planning Process and Methods Page 7 Findings Page 10 Recommendations Page 10 I. Site Selection Page 15 II. Communication Plan Page 17 Ill. Off -Leash Recreation Areas Design Page 19 IV. Rules for OLRA Use and Permit System Page 23 V. Public/Private Partnership and Financial Considerations Page 25 VI. User Groups: Relations and Expectations Page 26 VII. Liability of Off -Leash Recreation Areas Page 27 VIII. Legal Considerations Page 28 Acknowledgments Page 29 Appendix Executive Summary The Off -Leash Exercise Feasibility Study Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was established by a resolution of the Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board QVIPRB) and approved by Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton in September 1997. The nineteen members of the CAC were appointed by MPRB Commissioners, City Council members, and the Mayor. The CAC was charged with studying the feasibility of establishing off -leash dog exercise areas within Minneapolis city limits, and making a recommendation to MPRB and City Council about whether and how to proceed with establishing such areas, based on the committee's fmdings. The CAC met every two weeks from April through October 1998. During that time committee members interviewed a variety of experts to gather information on such topics as dog behavior, health and liability issues, successful off -leash programs in other cities, and local views of off - leash areas in the Twin Cities. Our research led us to conclude that off -leash recreational areas (OLRA's) are highly successful in other cities and should be successful in Minneapolis as well. The documents we reviewed and officials with whom we spoke indicated a minimum of problems with established OLRA's, and no liability or public health issues to date. Cities with established OLRA's cited a number of benefits of the parks, as noted in the findings section. Highlights of findings include: An increasing number of dog owners are requesting off -leash recreation areas. Creating off -leash recreations areas is a popular, legitimate recreational use of public and private lands. The knowledge needed to establish and effectively manage off -leash areas has been developed over the past decade. The program to be developed in Minneapolis incorporates the best components from established, successful off -leash areas throughout the U.S. and Canada. Off -leash recreation areas pose a very low liability risk that is equal to or less than many other established recreational activities. Off -leash recreation areas promote healthier communities by bringing people together in a way that is socially comfortable. People that otherwise would not speak to strangers feel safe initiating conversations with other dog -owning people. Off -leash recreation areas decrease dog nuisance behaviors such as excessive barking by giving owners a legal place to keep their dogs well exercised. Based on numbers obtained from Seattle, Washington's OLRA program, the expected costs for starting ten OLRA's with an average size of 2.5 acres each would be approximately 250,000-292,000. T summary., the CAC funds that off -leash recreation areas (OL R 1's) area viable, popula3 and legitimate recreational use of available land with little risk or liability. We recommend that the MPRB and City Council proceed to establish a minimum of six to ten initial OLRA's throughout Minneapolis that will be operational within the next 12-18 months. (This represents 7-11 dog years). A suggested starting placement of the OLRA's would be one per park district, with additional sites placed in areas of identified need. We further recommend that additional OLRA's be established in the future to provide easy neighborhood access to OLRA's throughout the city. This will diminish overuse of any one site, and increase compliance with off -leash laws by providing easy access for most citizens to a nearby OLRA. 2 Introduction Throughout the centuries, the importance of dogs has become well-established in many cultures. Evolving from the earliest stages of domestication, dogs now occupy a multitude of roles from herding livestock, pulling sleds and retrieving wild game to partnering with police officers and assisting the blind and disabled. However, for most people, especially for those living in urban areas, dogs are most closely associated with people as companion animals. This companionship can take many forms from providing status and security to'being treated as a member of the family. It is this strong bond between people and their dogs, along with citizens' rights and responsibilities, that has created both the opportunities and challenges associated with an off -leash recreation area program for dog owners. Whether it is a purebred show dog or a loveable mutt, all dogs need food, water, shelter, attention and a certain amount of play and exercise. For people who have a small dog and a larger yard, providing adequate space and exercise is usually not a problem. For those people with larger dogs, adequate exercise is more difficult to provide. Merely walking a larger dog on a leash does not provide adequate exercise for the dog. In many cases, running with a leashed dog on a daily basis can meet activity needs for the dog and the owner. However, despite ordinances to the contrary, an increasing number of people are exercising their dogs without the use of a leash. These responsible dog owners, many who are otherwise law abiding citizens, have chosen to break the law since there are no legal alternatives currently available. As a result, there are now several de -facto off -leash dog exercise areas scattered throughout the city. Individuals with or without dogs complain about the free running dogs because of fear, chasing wild animals and other reasons. When the laws are enforced, ticketed dog owners complain about not having a place to legally recreate with their dog(s). This situation has created an increasing number of problems and with the estimated 90,000 dogs living in Minneapolis, the problem is not likely to go away. These problems are not unique to Minneapolis. Similar situations have been occurring all over the country. Whereas Minneapolis is often seen as a leader when it comes to dealing with many urban issues, we have not been at the forefront when it comes to the issue of off -leash options for dog owners. In fact, the city is lagging behind a significant national trend which emerged over 25 years ago for cities to provide off -leash areas. Fortunately, with this long history, there is now overwhelming evidence that off -leash areas can and do work in a variety of settings including densely populated urban areas. During the past ten years, there have been numerous citizen efforts in Minneapolis to resolve the issue of providing legal, safe and functional off -leash sites. Focusing primarily on park areas, each of these attempts were either not well organized or they were met with some degree of opposition and the initiatives never succeeded. During this same period, Suburban Hennepin Parks established three off - leash dog areas within their park system. While this constituted the first such facilities in the metropolitan area, their large size (30 acre) and relatively remote location did not provide a suitable comparison for the City of Minneapolis. It was not until 1997 when the Ramsey County Park System created two off -leash areas that were more similar to the facilities envisioned for the city that efforts 3 were renewed to establish off -leash areas in Minneapolis. Since that time, the Cities of Bloomington and Roseville also began studying the feasibility of creating off -leash areas within their park systems. Hearing many more requests for off -leash dog exercise areas from their constituents, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) and the Minneapolis City Council agreed to establish a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) to determine if and how an off -leash dog exercise area program could be successfully implemented in the City of Minneapolis. This committee would study the numerous related issues and determine the feasibility of such a program. if the Committee agreed that the program is both needed and viable, they would proceed with developing the parameters and processes for implementing this new program. This Final Report, prepared for both the Minneapolis_ Park and Recreation Board and Minneapolis City Council, contains the findings and recommendations from the CAC. 4 Planning Process and Methods The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) consisted of 15 members appointed by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, three members by the City Council and one member by the Mayor. MPRB staff developed, organized and facilitated the CAC meeting topics and schedule. The CAC process was divided into two main phases. Phase 1 consisted of five, two-hour educational sessions between April 7, 1998 and June 1, 1998 that were designed to provide comprehensive and credible background information for the committee. Since many decisions would eventually have to be made, this approach ensured that committee members would make informed decisions. A variety of experts including Park Police staff, Animal Control officers, veterinarians, environmental specialists, animal behaviorists, staff from other park agencies, a Park Board attorney and members of ROMP Responsible Owners of Mannerly Pets) provided valuable information on a number of topics including: Dog behavior - what is normal and how can it be modified? Exercise and socialization needs of dogs (and humans) Bond between humans and their companion animals Problems and perceptions of dogs being exercised off leash Liability issues Current dog -related laws and ordinances Public health issues Ecological issues The CAC members viewed videos and reviewed numerous articles, reports and documents about other well-established, successful off -leash programs in other cities. The CAC also conducted teleconferences with staff from Seattle, WA and Missassauga, Ontario (suburb of Toronto). Although both of these cities are comparable to Minneapolis in many ways, the processes used to study and develop their successful programs were quite different. A detailed list of meeting topics and schedules is contained in the Appendix. Based upon a thorough review of these materials and programs, the CAC voted unanimously to acknowledge both the need and the feasibility for creating a successful off -leash dog exercise program in Minneapolis and to proceed with Phase H. Phase II of the Citizen Advisory Committee focused on the development of an Off -Leash Recreation Program for the City of Minneapolis. Having become familiar with the many prospective components and consideration for this program and the limited schedule, the full committee decided to divide into the following four Sub -Committees: Site Selection-Private/Public Partnerships Communications -Program Design Each Sub -Committee worked independently but presented interim reports to the full committee on a regular basis. In addition to meeting every other Tuesday evening, Sub -Committee members would often meet at other times to complete their work. Draft Sub -Committee reports were presented to the full committee on September 29, 1978 for review and comments. A new Sub -Committee, consisting 5 of representatives from each of the four original Sub -Committees, the Chair and MPRB staff, was formed to integrate the individual reports into a draft Final Report. The draft Final Report was reviewed by the fall committee on October 13, 1998. Suggestions and changes were incorporated into the Final Report which was presented by the CAC to the MPRB Planning Committee on October 21, 1998. The topics and meeting schedules for Phase II are also found in the Appendix. C -j Findings Benefits of Off -Leash Recreation Areas in the Community: Off -leash recreation areas OLRA's) exist in many cities in the U.S., Canada, Australia and Europe. They have proven to be successful and popular. Even municipal officials who were at first skeptical about establishing such areas generally agree that there have been minimal problems with the OLRA's in their communities, and that they are popular. The knowledge to establish such areas has been well-developed over the past ten years (see attached Planning for Pets by the National Recreation and Park Association for example). Therefore, the members of the CAC feel that OLRA's will be very successful in Minneapolis as well. OLRA's benefit a community in many ways. In some communities, the creation of OLRA's reclaimed parks that had been overrun with trash, vagrants, drug users and other illicit activities. OLRA users frequently report that they have met neighbors they never would have spoken with if they did not have the common bond of owning dogs. Being in a public area with a dog gives people the confidence to initiate conversations and friendships with other people that have dogs. People with dogs are generally perceived as less threatening to approach; and having a dog provides an immediate topic of conversation. Thus dogs provide a kind of "social lubricant" that allows people to interact comfortably, when normally they might have avoided each other. Another benefit that OLRA's provide is a decrease in nuisance behaviors and improvement of social manners for dogs. Dogs that are well -exercised are far less likely to engage in nuisance behaviors such as constant barking. Dogs that are in frequent, active contact with other dogs and humans are calmer, and tend to have better social manners. Also, OLRA's provide ideal settings for conducting dog obedience and puppy socialization classes. Such conveniently located classes would be easily accessible to many neighborhoods, and would further enhance desired social behaviors in dogs. Overall, OLRA's do tend to improve responsible dog ownership and promote good citizenship. Liability Issues: Communities with OLRA's have had no liability or public health issues reported to date. Plus there are several ways to mitigate liability, which are explored in the Recommendations section. Illegal Off -leash Activity: Although cities with OLRA's did not report a significant decrease in the number of citations given for dogs found illegally off -leash, this may not be an accurate method of determining whether there is a true net decrease in the number of people exercising their dogs off -leash outside of an approved OLRA. For example, if 50 citizens a day normally used an area illegally to exercise their dogs, and this number dropped to 20 a day after opening a nearby OLRA, this would be a significant improvement. However, law enforcement officials could still find and cite people with dogs off -leash in this area, so that the actual number of citations might not diminish, even though the number of violators had diminished greatly. At this time, there may not be an accurate method of determining illegal use of specific areas before and after establishing OLRA's. It is expected that illegal off -leash activity will be lowest near the OLRA's, with greater amounts of illegal activity farther away from the OLRA's. This is another reason for having adequate numbers of OLRA's spread throughout the city. It is possible, however, that citizens will initially place more calls to local and Park Police and Animal Control Officials after an OLRA opens nearby, since there will be 7 a heightened awareness of illegal off --leach art_iAty, and heightened expectation that dog owners should be using OLRA's. OLRA Start-up: When establishing OLRA's, there needs to be a balance between initially starting enough parks to avoid overuse of any one area, yet be manageable. As the success of each new OLRA is gauged, and the city and citizens learn how to properly manage them, new OLRA's can be added to assure that there are enough of them in convenient locations to encourage their use. To start, the CAC recommends a minimum of six to ten OLR A's be established_m Minneapolis, to be operational within 12 to 18 months. To assure widespread distribution for the OLRA's, CAC recommends one per park district initially, with additional OLRA's placed in areas of highest need. This should be a manageable starting number of OLRA's that does. not incur a tremendous cost, nor stretch the public and private abilities to manage and maintain them. Ensuring OLRA Success: In the Recommendations section, the CAC has included detailed information on site selection, program design, funding options, public-private partnerships, mitigating liability issues, and legal issues to be addressed for the OLRA's. These have been developed from the best programs in other cities and are designed to encourage the success of OLRA's in Minneapolis. Factors That Promote OLR_A_ Success: Based on the experiences of other cities, the CAC has found that there are basic requirements to help ensure the success of new OLRA's. These include: Fencing and natural barriers; Easily accessible entries; Adequate signage; Trash cans and "poop" bags; Neighborhood -friendly siting and care of the OLRA's; Use of a permit system. Fencing and barriers: First of all, the selected area should be delineated by a fence or other natural barrier (lake, river, cliff, etc.). These keep the dogs safely within the boundaries, and keep them separated from other park users that do not wish to be in contact with dogs off leash. Although the Ramsey County off -leash areas are not fully fenced at this time, many users have expressed concern about proximity to busy roads, which could be dangerous for the dogs. Some owners say they would be more likely to use those areas if they were fully fenced. Entries: The entry ways should be ADA accessible if possible, there should be signage at the entrances explaining park rules to users, and there should be trash cans and plastic bag dispensers in the OLRA's to encourage proper disposal of dog feces. The easier this is for OLRA users, the better the compliance. (See the recommendations section for more details on recommended items and amenities for OLRA's). Signage: This should be adequate to define the boundaries of the OLRA for the benefit of dog owners and non dog owners alike. The rules of OLRA use should be simple, easily understood, and posted in a conspicuous spot near the entrance. N Neighborhood -Friendly: Other considerations include siting OLRA's so that they neighborhood - friendly. This means they should be easily accessible, have adequate on or off street parking to avoid being a burden to nearby neighbors, and be placed to minimize barking or other noise from the OLRA. The fencing should also be landscaped to make the OLRA's aesthetically pleasing to neighbors. Some concerns expressed by neighbors before a park goes in is that dogs turned loose in an enclosed area will fight, or form large packs, or create a lot of noise. These fears are unfounded, and do not correspond with dogs' natural behaviors. Such problems have not materialized in OLRA's in other cities. Noise levels have been no greater than for other pre-existing activities in -nearby parks. When dogs are together, they tend to form small, loose play groups, not large packs of strange dogs. They use body language to convey who is who in the play group, and to avoid any aggression. (Dogs, like humans, prefer to avoid aggressive interactions). Dogs like to get acquainted with certain dog buddies," and enjoy seeing the same friends, much as humans do. Frequent contact with their peers improves their social graces and leads to much more mannerly conduct. While occasional dog scuffles can occur (usually over a toy, much like children), these are rare and tend not to be serious. Parking and traffic is certainly a concern; however, use of the OLRA's is often spread out throughout the day and evening, with some peak periods in morning and evening. If there are several widely spread entrances to an OLRA, this can help spread the cars out rather than concentrating them in one area. Also, areas with pre-existing off-street parking can mitigate neighbors' concerns. Since many areas are already being used illegally for off -leash activity, there may not be as much of an increase in traffic to an OLRA as may be anticipated. Trash cans and dog waste: Park users also express concern about dog waste in parks. The existence of OLRA's should actually improve that situation. The dogs will be in enclosed areas, which should greatly reduce or eliminate dog waste in other areas of the park. Poop bags and trash cans will be easily accessible, so that cleaning up the dogs' wastes will be easier. Other communities report that within OLRA's, peer pressure is quite high to encourage waste pick-up. Also, the neighborhood user groups (see Recommendations section for more information on user groups) will sponsor park and OLRA clean-ups periodically to ensure strong citizen involvement with these areas. Permit System: The CAC strongly supports use of a permit system for the OLRA's. This helps defray some of the cost of establishing and maintaining them. A permit system also provides a means of further educating dog owners about guidelines for using the OLRA's, and on good canine citizenship. If permits are linked to licensing, this can also encourage licensing compliance. There are several kinds of permit systems that could be instituted; these are explored in the Recommendations section. In summary, the CAC fords that off -leash recreation areas (OLRA's) are a viable, popular and legitimate recreational use of available land with little risk or liability. Concerns about potential problems can be easily mitigated. We recommend that the MPRB and City Council proceed to establish an initial minimum of six to ten OLRA's throughout Minneapolis that will be functional within the next 12-18 months. 0 KrIte uiil'1@quailililS I. Site Selection One of the most important and potentially controversial considerations for an off -leash dog recreation program are the actual sites. There are many interrelated factors involved in evaluating the suitability of sites for an off -leash dog recreation program. Considerations include the following: Size, shape, and number; Proximity to residents and other recreational activities; Ecological features such as topography, soils, and vegetation; Access to parking and amenities such as toilets, water, and benches. Each of these factors will influence the success or failure of the program. Since these characteristics will differ from site to site, it will be important to recognize that each site will be uniquely different from other sites within a city program. Nevertheless, there are several principles that are common to most successful facilities. These broad principles can and should apply to each selected site since they form the philosophical foundation for the overall program. They also form an initial "filter" for selecting a set of potential sites which will be evaluated in greater detail through the use of specific criteria. The General Principles for Successful Site Selection include the following: Sites should be distributed throughout the city. Numerous large sites are preferable to fewer small sites. Sites should be "neighborhood friendly," respect established activities and not unduly harm the natural environment. Sites should be safe and readily accessible. Based upon these general principles as well as other considerations, the Citizen Advisory Committee has developed the following recommendations: Sites should be evenly distributed throughout the city and be based, in part, on public demand. It is important that multiple sites be located throughout the city to provide opportunities for all residents to use the sites. There will likely be a direct relationship between distance and use. The closer, more convenient a site is to a resident, the more often it will be used. In some cases, this may mean having a few sites located close to each other if there is high demand for OLRA's in that areas. However, there will be practical limitations to equal and convenient distribution. There should be a variety of sites ranging between one and five acres in size. Options to expand or contract the individual sites should also be considered. Smaller sites (less than one acre) could fit a greater number of potential locations with less difficulty or controversy and they would be less expensive to establish. However, there is far more potential for 10 overuse, resulting in erosion, vegetative damage, and other problems. If larger numbers of dogs are crowded into smaller areas, there is greater potential for conflict among some of the dogs or humans. The greater site degradation could actually increase some of.the maintenance costs. Small sites can be good for smaller dogs, or for puppy kindergarten classes. Larger sites (greater than one acre) are preferable to small sites because they could accommodate a greater number of dogs with comparably less damage to vegetation, soil, etc. They would also provide more diversity for the dog and owner. It will be more difficult to find sites larger than five acres since there are fewer potential locations within city limits. Generally, larger sites would be more expensive to establish and maintain. However, the benefits of less environmental degradation, greater site diversity, and less potential for conflict outweighs the cost disadvantages. In general, larger sites (greater than one acre) are preferable, but some sites that are less than one acre could be considered if they have great natural advantages. Planning for size flexibility would allow smaller initial sites to be enlarged if the site was successful and the number of participants warranted the change. Conversely a site could be reduced in size to solve management problems such as allowing worn areas to re -generate. Four foot high, chain link fencing or other suitable barriers should be used to delineate site boundaries. Options to alter the shape for various reasons should be considered. The shape of the site should respond to the topography as well as other natural and built features of the site including existing barriers. These barriers serve two main functions: Keeping dogs confined to the designated area and to keep children and others from accidentally entering the off -leash area. The perimeter and interior spaces within the site should be visible from numerous locations. The shape should be flexible to respond to seasonal conditions or to restore portions of the site. Generally, a long, linear site is less desirable than other shapes in terms of functionality, enjoyment, security and cost. The Committee recommends a minimum of six to ten sites, with at least one site per park district, be initially established and operational within twelve to eighteen months. If there are very few sites, particularly at peak times such as evenings and weekends, there is a greater chance for overuse and associated problems. This situation could fuel the argument for those opposed to a nearby site on the basis of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) since there could be many other locations that may be less objectionable. This scenario could be modified through the use of a permit/key card system which could effectively limit the use. Having fewer sites would make it less convenient for residents and thereby not likely reduce the number of people exercising their dogs off - leash in other parts of the city. A large number of sites would enhance convenience, reduce illegal behavior and lessen the problems with overuse/overcrowding. At the same time, the start-up costs would be greater, and it would be more difficult to supply enough volunteer support to adequately fund, maintain and monitor the sites early on. 11 The CAC believes that initially_ establishing six to ten sites, using established park districts to distribute the sites throughout the city, will provide the balance between having too many or too few sites. This modest number of initial sites would allow the program to take full advantage of non- governmental resources and yet be manageable, to ensure a high quality result. The committee recognizes that there are many steps between program approval and actual implementation. Final site evaluation and design, developing educational materials, public hearings, Rind raising, installation of fencing and signage, ordinance changes, etc. must take place before any program begins. however, it is hoped that the Park Board and City Council will respond favorably to this report, approve the program and direct staff to begin working on the next stages in early 1999. It would seem reasonable and indeed desirable for the sites to be open by Spring, 2000. After all, for those with canine companions, their dogs would have "aged" almost 20 years between the time that the CAC was first established in 1997 to when the sites would actually open! Prospective sites should not displace positive outdoor activities already well- established on the site. Within parks, the site should not be located adjacent to developed recreational facilities. The site needs to be "neighborhood friendly." Current and adjacent land use will be one of the most important considerations for selecting a particular site. In a fully developed city like Minneapolis, large undeveloped, attractive sites are seldom available. Attractive open spaces such as parks already have high levels of varied use. Since this is a new initiative, it will not be feasible to displace well-established activities and people. When sharing land with other activities, it is important to minimize potential problems with children and adults who do not have dogs nor wish to be around them. Avoiding close proximity to such park locations as buildings, tot lots, wading/swimming pools, basketball/volleyball/tennis/ and horseshoe courts, picnic areas, designated athletic fields, paved paths, etc. will make the establishment of an off - leash site more acceptable. This also includes avoiding well-established, passive recreational activities in natural areas. In residential settings, sites should be located as far from nearby residences and business as possible. Topography, vegetation, and overall site design should be used to provide noise and visual buffers for nearby residents. Off-street parking in front of houses should be avoided. Sites need to be accessible to the general public, including people with limited mobility, as well as maintenance, police and emergency vehicles and personnel. Accessibility for different purposes is critical to the success and safety of the program. Sites need to be easily accessible by the general public. This includes gated entrances being located near existing parking lots or off-street parking. It would also be an advantage if existing amenities such as toilets, drinking fountains, benches, etc. were also accessible from the site. Since maintenance functions such as mowing, ground cover replacement, fence repair and waste removal will be part of operations, 12 provisions need to be made for staff and vehicles. Health and safety will be major concerns to potential participants so easy access by emergency vehicles and staff should be available for most sites. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) should completed for each prospective site, resulting in a negative declaration. There are many ecological considerations which must be addressed by this type of program and land use. Reduced water quality and species diversity, increased soil erosion/ compaction, disruption of wildlife and increases in traffic and noise could result from poorly selected or designed sites. These and other concerns would be assessed using this widely used and accepted procedure. If a site has to many negative_environmental impacts, it should be withdrawn from consideration. Direct support by site users, local residents, organized groups of volunteers and/or a non-profit organization to help establish, fund, operate, maintain, and monitor each site should be required in some capacity for each site. While governmental agencies will likely have jurisdiction over most sites and may contribute to both the capital start-up and operating expenses for the program, there must be ongoing public support for the program it is to be successful. There are not enough governmental resources to fund all of the expenses associated,with this new program. In addition, it has become more acceptable for users to at least pay part of the real costs for providing facilities and services. This helps promote ownership in the program. Quantitative Site Evaluation If a prospective site demonstrates that it meets or exceeds the general principles as described by the recommendations, it may be important to quantitatively evaluate each of the sites. Staff, an appointed volunteer committee or a combination could use an established set of weighted criteria and use a standard evaluation process to numerically rank each site. Points would be tallied and the site with the most points would have the highest ranking. This process could be invaluable in prioritizing sites city-wide or explaining why a certain area was chosen over another site within a certain park. As useful as this tool might be, it will be important to also retain some flexibility throughout this evaluation process. For example, a site may have a relatively high ranking but contain several critical disadvantages. Or a site may not be highly ranked but still possess several outstanding features and is the only potential site in a certain portion of the city. A sample evaluation tool is found in the appendix. Potential Sites A number of sites located throughout the City of Minneapolis have been identified as potential sites 13 for Ofr--Leach Recreation Areas, Although detailed evaluations have not been conducted by the CAC for any of these locations, they either appear to meet many of the guiding principles and/or they have been historically used as off -leash areas. This preliminary list demonstrates the real potential for establishing a number of varied sites throughout the city. This is not intended to be a final list. A process should be developed to encourage the inclusion of other potential sites by soliciting suggestions from staff, the general public and elected officials. Potential sites which warrant further evaluation include the following: Sites within Parks West end of Lyndale Farmstead Park below the MRPA office Shingle Creek Corridor Portion of B.F. Nelson south of Boom Island Park West end of Riverside Park Back Forty Prairie Area in Wirth Park North end of Kenwood Park between Kenwood Parkway on the north, Douglas Avenue on the south, Morgan Avenue on the east and the woodland/prairie on the west Portion of the proposed development area in North Mississippi Regional Park between 51'` and 49th streets. Area between Lake Hiawatha Golf Course and Minnehaha Parkway Area north of the prairie planting at the Lake Nokomis Lagoon Powderhorn Park Southeast comer of Folwell Park East side of Martin Luther King Park along the freeway South section of Armatage Park Area south of Ridgway Parkway Fuller Park Minnehaha Park south of 50 Street Wirth Parkway near 260' Avenue North Non -Park Sites include: Public Works property between 41" and 42nd Streets South and Bloomington and 150i Avenues South Water Works property near 400i Street and France Avenue South Kenilworth Corridor between Burnham Road and I-394 Area northwest of Hi -View Park Area west of St. Anthony Parkway near Honeywell 14 H. Communication Plan Due to the complicated and potentially controversial nature of this initiative, it is very important to develop a comprehensive communication plan that provides consistent, understandable and effective messages for key audiences. Reaching specific audiences is more critical than communicating with the overall general public. Identifying community opinion leaders and a variety of audiences who will be involved and/or impact the decision-making and implementation phases of this program will be very important. Audiences for which special materials and strategies could be developed include the following: Decision Makers- Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Minneapolis City Council Mayors Office Hennepin County Board Board of Education Implementing Staff- MPRB (Planning, Park Police and Operations) Department of Public Works Minneapolis Community Development Agency Regulatory Services (Animal Control) City Attorney Advocacy Groups- Organized volunteers, non-profit organizations, neighborhood groups and others who may provide financial and other types of support.. Potential Partners- Public/Private Partnerships can lend financial and other support through donations, grants, in-kind, etc. Facility Users- The people who will participate in the program and use the facility Other Site Users- There may be other groups such as Park Councils, and recreational interest groups Neighborhood Residents Residents living near potential sites should be contacted early in the planning process and kept informed during implementation. This should include residents in adjacent suburbs. Neighborhood The appropriate Neighborhood Association should be Association- involved in the site planning and decision making process. Local and This will be a key group to distribute information, Major Media- announcements, etc. 15 Dog Owners- There is an opportunity to get higher compliance with licensing and laws and providing education and training opportunities. Canine Professionals- Veterinarians, groomers, trainers, etc. can provide important venues to reach dog owners and could be potential partners. Key Messages There are many successful, well-established models of existing off -leash areas throughout the U.S., Canada and elsewhere. The program being developed in Minneapolis incorporates extensive review and integration of the best components from these programs/sites. An increasing number of dog owners are requesting off -leash recreation areas. Exercise is critical for a healthy dog and will contribute to fewer nuisance -type problems. The strong emotional tie between people and their dog(s) needs to be effectively communicated to non -dog owners. Off -leash Recreation Areas pose a liability risk equal to or less than many other readily accepted recreational activities. There have been no liability claims in other established programs. Off -Leash Recreation Areas will be clearly marked, fenced, and signed to delineated the boundaries and guidelines for both dog owners and non -dog owners. Off -Leash Recreation Areas promote healthier communities by bringing people together who might otherwise not have reasons to get to know one another. Fostering this kind of positive interaction among community residents is critical to building better communities. There are a number of unfounded myths and misperceptions about OLRA's that some citizens will express. These can be addressed with accurate, positive information. The use of a special permit system will minimize potential problems and provide revenue for the city. Off -Leash Recreation Areas can provide numerous community benefits. There are significant opportunities to create private/public partnerships to reduce governmental expenditures in implementing this program. A four-phase Communication Plan which could be adapted to reflect the program specifics has been developed and can be found in the Appendix. 16 III. Off -Leash Recreation Areas Design Successful off -leash recreation areas (OLRA's) need certain design elements and ongoing maintenance. The CAC recommends the following, based on discussions with and documents received from other cities with successful OLRA's. OLRA Set-up Core: Fence construction — can be any materials such as chain-link, wood, etc. Mechanism to restrict entrance/exit. Should be ADA friendly; recommend double gated system to prevent dog escapes. Also, larger gate areas should be provided elsewhere to allow maintenance equipment inside. Signage describing boundaries and rules of the OLRA. Parking design and implementation. Installation of recycling containers, trash cans and poop bag dispensers. Crushed limestone, wood chips, or other surfacing material on heavily used areas. Desirables: Bulletin Board/Kiosk construction with suggestion box installation. Water fountain (available to humans and pets), also pet pool for hot weather. Toilet facilities. Emergency phone line installation. Landscaping, including vines or shrubs for fences, drainage and surface materials, benches. Small dog area, where small dogs can be safely exercised off -leash away from large dogs. This is also a good area for puppy kindergarten classes. Year Round On -Going Tasks: Designated parking area maintenance. Poop bag dispenser refill (may be done in conjunction with volunteer group). Trash removal and recycling pick-up. Lawn maintenance and snow removal. Landscape upgrading (may be done in conjunction with volunteer group). Toilet facilities maintenance. Rationale for Core and Desirable Items Fencing and Gates: For the safety of the dogs and of park users that do not want to be in contact with dogs, fencing or other natural boundaries are needed. Official in other cities with successful OLRA's cite fencing or natural barriers as key ingredients to the OLRA's success. Also, fencing will tend to decrease the liability for a governmental entity by ensuring that park users wishing to avoid contact with off -leash dogs can reasonably do so. This is especially true if an OLRA is near a street, where dogs could run into oncoming bicycle or vehicular traffic. Entry to the OLRA's should be compatible with ADA standards. Double -gated entries provide greater security by preventing dogs from escaping, but they must be designed to accommodate wheelchair entry. 17 Signage: The boundaries and rules of use of the OLRA's must be clearly indicated at all entry points. Also, notice that the users are responsible for all problems, injuries and liabilities that may be associated with use of the OLRA's (similar to hold -harmless agreements in use with other park activities such as softball). This decreases the risk of problems, accidents and injuries to users and dogs in the OLRA's. This also decreases liability for the associated governmental entities. Signage car, also be used to educate OUA users on expected conduct for themselves and their dogs. Parking: The most successful OLRA's in other communities can be readily accessed by foot or by car without adding unduly to the amount of traffic within the neighborhood.So pre-existing parking lots or accessible street parking helps the OLRA to succeed. Trash containers and poop scoops: The major concern of most citizens regarding dogs in parks is feces control. The easier it is for dog owners to promptly remove their dogs' waste, the more likely that it will be removed. Having adequate numbers of trash cans near entrances (and elsewhere in larger OLRA's), and readily available plastic bags to pick up the feces will encourage cooperation from the OLRA users. Gravel and other surfacing materials: The experience of other parks has shown that certain areas such as entry points) will be so heavily used that grass will not grow, and muddy conditions or other environmental degradation will quickly follow. Entry ways and perhaps other heavily used paths or play areas will need to have a durable surfacing material placed on them. One possibility is to use the wood chips generated by the MPRB forestry division. These are already gathered and chipped by the city. To ensure ADA compliance, entry ways may need to have hard packed sand, gravel or paved surfaces. Bulletin board or kiosk, suggestion box: This is an excellent means of communicating with park users, encouraging neighborhood contact and care for the OLRA's, soliciting comments and ideas, demonstrating community support, and continuing to improve the facilities. For example, dog training classes could be held in the OLRA's and announced on the bulletin boards. This would increase positive interest in the OLRA's, and provide an easily accessible method for owners to learn more about dog behavior and training techniques. The net effect: more mannerly dogs, better exercised dogs, and less nuisance behavior such as excess barking. Landscaping: This can be a rather critical element, since one thing that neighbors often object to is the look of fencing in an area that may not be currently fenced. A well landscaped area that disguises the fence with shrubs or vines and is aesthetically pleasing will encounter far fewer neighborhood objections. Benches, toilets, water and other amenities: Although not critical to the success of OLRA's, these amenities make the areas more inviting and therefore more likely to be used. Elders and families with small children especially appreciate the benches. Water is necessary for active dogs (and humans) on hot days. 18 IV. Rules for OLRA Use and Permit Systems The CAC discussed a variety of regulations for safe use of the OLRA's. We consistently found that the parks that worked best in other cities kept the rules few and simple. We are therefore recommending a few simple rules for use of the OLRA's that correspond most consistently with the rules used by other communities. There are two possible rules listed below that warrant further discussion. These rules state that the OLRA's are to be used by permit holders only, and that dogs must display valid Minneapolis pet licenses. First of all, this indicates that there will be a permitting system. A permit system is not necessary; the OLRA's can be designed to accommodate anyone who wants to use them without restrictions. One disadvantage of a permit system is that the additional cost could be a barrier to OLRA use for low- income dog owners. However, a permit system has several advantages that appear to outweigh any disadvantages. These include: Permits produce off -setting revenue for establishment and upkeep of the parks; They can be obtained in conjunction with pet licenses, and might therefore increase the number of pets that are licensed; and They allow for more thorough communication with and education of OLRA users. Because of the many advantages of the permit system, the CAC strongly recommends that permit system be implemented for using the OLRA's. If a permit system is adopted, there are several types of permits that could be used, such as: A weather-proof permit (such as plastic or laminate) that can be attached to a leash. A special type of license or permit tag that the dog would wear on its collar. This could be in addition to the regular license tag, or could be a special license tag that also permits use of OLRA's. Such a special tag would indicate current rabies vaccine status, as well as licensure and permit to use the OLRA's, all in one tag. A key card type of entry permit. The first two permit types are the least expensive, and would allow easy access to the OLRA's. Easy access could benefit citizen education efforts. For example, dog -training classes could easily be held in OLRA's and would likely be well attended if access to the OLRA's is easy. This encourages use of the OLRA's, participation in OLRA events, and should encourage purchase of permits if attendance in the class is limited to permit holders. Also, easily accessible areas may be more inviting for neighbors and citizens to participate in clean-up and landscaping events. But since these permit types would not physically restrict entry to the OLRA's, dog owners without permits could still gain entry. If it was deemed important to physically restrict entry, some method of restricted entry could be incorporated into the entrance gate. Entrance would then be limited to permit holders and to others with special use permits (such as those holding dog training classes). Restricted entry has the benefits of greatly increasing the number of dog owners that purchase permits since entry is otherwise impossible), improving the safety of the dog parks for the users, and decreasing the chance of illegal activities within the OLRA's. 19 One form of restricted entry could be a combination lock, which is inexpensive but could be lost stolen or broken easily. Another form of restricted entry is a key card permit. Although initially more expensive to install, key cards provide many benefits, such as ease of use, ability to track usage of the OLRA's, and selective entry denial to those who are not current on permit fees, or those who have been denied OLRA privileges. Following the section on OLRA rules of use is a section on permit guidelines. The second issue raised is resident versus non-resident use of the OLRA's. If these areas are to be for Minneapolis residents only, then it is appropriate to insist on Minneapolis license tags for dogs in the park. If this is not a major concern, then the dogs only need tags that indicate current rabies vaccine status. Since no other municipality restricts use of their off -leash areas to residents only, it may not be reasonable for Minneapolis to do so. OLRA Rules for Use: Below are the basic rules for OLRA use, with addendums for a permit system and Minneapolis license vs. generic rabies tag. RULES FOR OFF LEASH RECREATION AREAS POSTED AT THE PARK) Leash your dogs when entering/leaving the park. Pick up and dispose of all dog feces. No dogs in heat. Leash dogs at first sign of aggression. Keep dogs in view and under control. Children should be closely supervised. For the benefit of everyone in our community, please remember to leave our off -leash areas nicer than you found them. If a permit system is used, one or more of the following should be posted' Off -leash recreation areas are for OLRA permit holders only. OLRA permit must be visible on leash at all times. (if applicable to permit type) Dogs must wear current OLRA permit tag. (if applicable to permit type) One of the following should also be posted if a special permit dog tag is not used. Dogs must wear current Minneapolis pet license. OR - Dogs must wear current license. OR - Dogs must wear current rabies tag. Rationale for OLRA Rules These are consistent with the rules that have proven effective for managing OLRA's in other cities, and are self-explanatory. They are also consistent with the idea of simple, minimal rules that are easy 20 to understand. The rule forbidding dogs in heat is to prevent fighting among intact male dogs; they can at times fight over females in heat. Guidelines for Permit System If a permit system is to be implemented, the CAC recommends the following guidelines. The permits would be purchased from a city agency, and could be purchased in conjunction with a city dog license. To increase user-friendliness and ease of obtaining OLRA permits, we recommend that OLRA permits be available for purchase through other park systems such as Hennepin or Ramsey Counties, veterinary clinics and hospitals, animal shelters and pet stores. The permit should be issued to a household and the fee should be reasonable, perhaps between $15-35 per year. Alternatively, there could be a per dog fee, perhaps $10-20 per dog, so that multiple dog households, who might be expected to cause more wear and tear to the OLRA's, would be expected to pay a larger portion of the fees for upkeep of the OLRA's. Or, there could be a sliding fee scale based on the size of the dog(s), since larger dogs would have greater environmental impact than smaller dogs. Permit holders should also be able to obtain daily guest passes easily for a minimal fee, with the understanding that the permit holder is responsible for conduct of the guests and guest -dogs. Permit fees could also be reduced for dogs that have passed the AKC's Canine Good Citizen (CGC) test, similar to reduced license fees for spayed and neutered pets. A system of progressive penalties should be developed for those that do not abide by the OLRA rules, or that endanger the safety of dogs or users of the OLRA's. This could start with warnings and mandatory education, progress to fines and community service hours spent on park upkeep, and finally include revocation of OLRA permit. The following communication should be provided to permit holders: A permit is required to use the Off -Leash Recreation Areas (OLRA). The permit can be purchased from list areas or agencies where permit can be obtained) for (listfees). The permit will be issued to a household. The permit fee covers operational expenses for the privilege of using and enjoying the off - leash dog areas. Permit holders may obtain guest day passes and assume responsibility for their guests and pets (explain process andfees). The following penalties apply to OLRA users who do not follow the OLRA rules, or who endanger the safety of dogs or handlers in the OLRA. (List penalties) The above should also be posted at the entrances to the OLRA's. HANDLERS' RESPONSIBILITIES Handlers must have effective voice control over their dogs. Handlers must carry with them a valid off -leash permit obtained from the proper agency. Handlers will leash their dogs while entering and exiting this area. 21 s Handlers vrill have visible lea.,°hes available to restratin their dogs while in this area Handlers may bring up to 3 dogs into this area. Handlers will keep their dogs in sight at all times. Handlers must clean up all of their dogs' feces immediately. Handlers should care for the area, such as fill in any holes dug by their dog(s). Handlers will keep nuisance barking to a minimum — respect the neighbors. Handlers will keep infants and children under close supervision. Handlers must be fifteen years or older (in human years). Handlers assume responsibility for their guests following the guidelines. Cruel or inhumane treatment of any animals in the OLRA's is not permitted. DOGS Dogs must have a current rabies vaccination and be licensed with the City of Minneapolis or other municipality. Dogs must be trained and under effective voice control. Dogs must be leashed immediately at the first sign of aggression and removed if necessary. Do not bring female dogs in heat. Dogs who have been declared dangerous under Minneapolis or Minnesota law are prohibited from entering this area Dogs should be vaccinated according to the recommendations of their veterinarians. Please do not bring dogs less than four months of age. Rationale for Guidelines: These guidelines reinforce good etiquette among OLRA users and encourage good health care and training for the dogs. The 3 -dog rule complies with Minneapolis city statutes limiting the number of pets in a household. Also, it puts a practical limit on the numbers of dogs one person could reasonably control off leash. The minimum handler's age of fifteen years is to assure that the handler has the strength and maturity to adequately manage a dog on or off leash. The recommendation for dog vaccination is to prevent dogs from exchanging preventable communicable diseases with each other (most dog diseases are NOT contagious to humans). This also pertains to the suggestion that dogs under four months of age not be brought. Puppies under four months are more susceptible to communicable diseases. Also, when they are small, they are more susceptible to accidental injury if they are playing in a group of much larger dogs. However, it is also very important to socialize puppies, especially during the critical learning period of 6-16 weeks of age. This is when they learn how to interact with other dogs, and learn good dog etiquette. So there may be some benefit to bringing younger dogs to the park, but they would have to be carefully monitored. This is one of the benefits of having a few smaller areas set aside within the OLRA's that are designated for small dogs and puppies. They can socialize and exercise off -leash without fear of accidental injury from playing with much larger dogs. 22 V. Private/Public Partnerships and Financial Considerations Although there are a range of potential site owners, it is anticipated that the majority of Off -Leash Recreation Areas will be located on public property. Therefore, governmental agencies will have authority and final responsibility for the program and site. However, there are significant opportunities for private/public partnerships to form the basis for funding and operating this new program. The following table integrates the necessary activities to implement the program, who the key partners can and should be, and anticipated costs if they can be determined at this time: Activity Participants 1. Site Evaluation/ Design MPRB, City Planning, Citizen Advisory Committee Comments: Once potential sites have been identified, MPRB/City staff, preferably with the Citizen Advisory Committee or other official involvement of citizens, would have to allocate substantial time to complete an integrated site design and evaluation process. This would have to be coded to some program budget. 2. Information/ Educational Materials City Staff, MPRB, Humane Societies, R.O.M.P., NPRA pet food companies, Veterinary clinics, pet stores, dog clubs, kennels, groomers, etc. Comments: Prior to any program implementation, it will be critical to develop a range of materials, which will inform and educate the public about this new program Many of these materials have already been developed or can be by non-governmental entities. This effort could include mechanisms to get a higher license and ordinance compliance which could result in more revenue. Existing and new distribution systems should be utilized including the development of a newsletter. Social and educational events can be planned and promoted. 3. Capital Costs City Grants Office, People For Parks, R.O.M.P., etc. Comments: Of all of the expenses associated with the Fund Raising program, the capital start-up costs are the most significant. Chain-link fencing, with double gate entry system around the perimeter will be the single most costly item. The key -card reader (if used) and associated electrical needs will likely be the second most expensive item. A small kiosk for posting guidelines, announcements, comments, etc. and signs for the perimeter and parking area would also be needed. Some type of dog feces collecting device (plastic bag, e.g.) dispenser and waste collection containers would also be needed. Other items might include renting a portable toilet, benches and picnic tables. Labor costs to install these items, supervise and administer the program would also have to be taken into account. There are many models for paying for capital costs. In some cases, the public agency pays all costs. In some cases, there is a cost-sharing arrangement between the agency and partnering group. The city of Missassauga, for example, paid all start-up costs for their OLRA's; the sponsoring group used a portion of their memberships to reimburse the city over an agreed time period. Efforts to solicit donations (cash, supplies, labor etc.) from foundations, corporations, businesses, organizations, individuals could be undertaken by many partnership combinations and methods. 23 Using Seattle, Washington's new program as a model, a 2.5 acre area might require $20,000 - 25,000 in cash and in-kind services to provide the basic capital improvements necessary for each new Off -Leash site. Program Implementation and Operation Systems and support will have to be developed within various departments to work with outside partners to implement and manage different aspects of the program. These additional resources can be divided into short- and long-term operating expenses and involve such activities as: Monitoring contracts and projects such as fence installation Administering new special use permits, licenses and fees Park keepers and maintenance staff having additional requirements such as repairs, interacting with the public o Monitoring key card system Coordinating volunteers, special events, etc. Program monitoring and evaluation Although the program will be designed to be self-regulating, there may be increased expectations or calls for animal control agents and park police. If fines for off -leash violations are increased, there may be a desirable change in enforcement efforts since there is now a legal alternative and a revenue offset. Annual operating costs will vary with the final program and site design, level of volunteerism, use, site characteristics, etc. Since there are so many unknowns at this time, it is difficult to estimate the actual annual operating expenses for each site or the program in general. Nevertheless, the high level of interest, commitment, ideas and opportunities for meaningful contribution by citizens, businesses, and others indicates that annual operating costs can be significantly less than other current recreation activities. 24 VI. User Groups: Relations and Expectations An organization of dog owners that have an active interest in a successful off -leash dog exercise area in Minneapolis can be considered to be a user group of that site. There could be multiple user groups throughout the city. Based on the experience of other cities, such groups of committed volunteers and city residents are major components of successful off -leash dog exercise areas. These groups of active dog owners will be referred to as user groups of the off -leash dog exercise and training areas. User groups have different roles and perform a variety of tasks and responsibilities in different communities. Minneapolis should try to accommodate these different levels of involvement. One significant contribution of user groups is nurturing a sense of civic ownership and pride in the local OLRA site. The sense of ownership created by these dog owners and users is similar to the activity of neighborhood block club leaders who monitor the quality of life on their blocks. Possible roles of one or more dog owner/off-leash user groups: Act as stewards of local sites, including bringing problems to the attention of responsible agencies; Provide volunteer oversight and an "extra pair of eyes" to local sites on an almost daily basis; Act as good role models for other off -leash users, especially regarding compliance with rules such as scooping poop; Provide volunteer labor for improvement and/or maintenance projects on an as -needed basis; Assist in fund-raising for improvements to the site, including in-kind donations; Organize educational events, possibly classes and/or canine good citizen tests; Assist in developing and raising funds to print and disseminate educational information on responsible dog ownership; Provide a channel for user comments and concerns to city agencies responsible for various tasks at the sites; Provide a communication channel — via bulletin board posting, word-of-mouth, newsletter, website to concerned dog owners regarding issues and actions for the sites and for the overall off -leash program. If there is more than one separate dog owner user group in the city, there would need to be an umbrella or coalition group to work with the city agencies. 25 IJILd. Liability of Ofl-Leas nes, eat t:n n1 C"S The experience of other communities shows that liability is no more of an issue for off -leash dog areas than it is for other established recreational activities. Even though extreme situations can be imagined dogs injuring each other or other humans, humans injuring dogs or other humans, injuries resulting in fatalities), accidents and injuries have been very rare in off -leash areas in other municipalities. To date, no serious injuries or fatalities have occurred. There have been no reports of dogs attacking humans or vice versa. As Jim Michaels, Minneapolis Park Board attorney stated, off -leash recreation areas pose fewer liability issues than most other forms of recreation in the park system. Plus, the potential liability of a government entity can be effectively managed. Three basic approaches to the issue of liability for off -leash areas have been identified through CAC research. One makes the dog owner responsible for damages; another requires area users to agree to hold a government entity harmless; and the third approach stresses that reasonable precaution must he exercised in the design of off -leash areas. Each of these approaches is discussed in the remainder of this section. Individual Responsibility: Dog owners may be held responsible for damages due to accidents or injuries caused by their dogs. Many states have statutes that already hold dog owners responsible in this way. (In Minnesota, the pertinent statutes are 347.01 Owner's liability, penalty, and 347.22 Damages, owner liable.) This approach has been used in the off -leash program recently initiated in Seattle, Washington. Signs for each off -leash area state that owners are responsible for the action of their animals. This has been effective in the communities in which it has been used. But there is still concern that a government body such as the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) could be sued for damages given that it has much "deeper pockets" than the individuals involved in liability cases. Hold Harmless Agreement: Through such an agreement the people who use off -leash areas would waive or forfeit their right to sue an involved government body in the event that they or their dog were injured. These agreements would need to be integrated into a permit process. A person applying for a permit would need, among other things, to sign a formal agreement holding the MPRB and the City of Minneapolis harmless for any damages suffered while using areas designated for off -leash activities. These agreements would have no effect on other parties involved in accidents and injuries occurring in off -leash areas. In particular, one individual could still file sunt against another individual for damages. In addition, it must be stressed that hold harmless agreements would pertain only to permit recipients. Other individuals injured in a designated off -leash area and individuals injured in adjacent areas would retain their right to sue the city for damages. This observation suggests that certain design features may merit special consideration. For instance, it may be desirable to use keycard locking mechanisms to restrict access to off -leash areas to permit holders. Similarly, the boundaries of a designated area should be clearly marked, and to the extent possible, the area itself should be enclosed with natural or artificial boundaries such as hedge rows or fencing. 26 Responsible Program Design: What is stressed in the final approach to liability is that reasonable precautions must be taken to ensure that off -leash areas are safe. This view recognizes that a governmental body is legally bound to fulfill its "duty of care" in organizing recreational programs. Responsible rather than negligent conduct means that these programs must be designed to meet or exceed prevailing standards. If off -leash areas are so designed, it can be argued that reasonable precautions were taken if a suit were filed against the WRB or other governing body. Different kinds of standards are at issue in the design of off -leash areas. Some standards apply to acceptable behaviors within designated areas, e.g., dogs should respond to voice commands and handlers should leash their dogs at the first sign of aggression. Acceptable behaviors must be identified by rules that are conspicuously posted at each area designated for off -leash activities. (An example of posted rules developed by CAC members is found elsewhere in this section of the report.) These rules and the guidelines for off -leash permit holders are needed to ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to minimize the risks arising from unacceptable human and canine behaviors. Other standards concern the location and/or physical design of off -leash areas. Exercising reasonable precaution may indicate, for instance, that off -leash areas generally would be enclosed by fencing or substantial natural boundaries. At the very least, it would mean that an unfenced area would not be located next to a children's playground or in the vicinity of streets and roads. In summary, these three approaches to the issue of liability are not mutually exclusive. They can and should be used in combination with each other. Together, they should adequately protect governmental entities from most liability issues. VIII: Legal Considerations Some of the Park Board and City ordinances pertaining to dogs will need to be amended. For example Park ordinance 96-104, which pertains to dogs in city parks, states ...`where such animals are permitted, they shall be restricted at all times by suitable leash..." This will need to be amended to allow dogs to be off leash in approved OLRA's. 27 3j ccial i 1an" i u: CAC members Vicki McElvy Michelle Cummings Tom Cook Carla Nelson-Rohwedder Leon Green J. Elizabeth Anders Lynnda Lenzen Ruth foster Susan Weaver Chuck Finckler Marjorie Kelly Keith Prussing Pam O'Shea Jean Johnson Elizabeth Popalisky Robert Marotto Jim Nelson Laurie Greene, Chair Belinda Davis Al Singer Lisa McDonald, City Council Leslie Yoder, Animal Control Supervisor Mark Themig, Ramsey County Parks & Open space Beth Nash, Suburban Hennepin Parks Laura Jean Rathman, ROMP Dr. Elaine Robinson Jim Michaels, MPRB Attorney Bill Jacobs, Captain, Park Police Dewey Potter, Seattle Dr. R.K. Anderson Josie Green, MPRB Staff Shalagh Delaney Peg Naumann Staff at Bryant Square Park 28 CAC Meeting Topic and Schedule PHASE I Meeting #1: Introduction, Issue overview, Current Situation, Potential Benefits/Challenges/ProblemsMsks, Philosophical Discussion about the merits for or against the program and distribution of background materials collected from the Internet and many other sources Meeting #2: Discuss the Requirements of Dogs (food, exercise, play, etc.), Dog Behavior, Responsible Pet Ownership, and Human/Dog Interactions Meeting #3: Park Police discussed Legal and Enforcement Considerations. MPRB attorney discussed Liability Issues. Resources were distributed and Dr. Greene discussed Public Health Considerations such as disease transmission from dog to dog and dog to human, and injuries. Meeting #4: MPRB Environmental Operations staff discussed Environmental Issues Such as water quality, vegetation damage, harassing and injuring wildlife, etc. Operational Considerations such as site locations, rules and hours for use, signage, fencing, traffic, noise, etc. Staff from both Suburban Hennepin and Ramsey County Parks described their programs and shared their thoughts and concerns about an off -leash program in Minneapolis. Meeting #5: Staff from Seattle, Washington and Missassauga (suburb of Toronto), Ontario were contacted to provide extensive background to the CAC since their respective programs take place in cities with similar demographic conditions. Teleconferences were conducted with staff from each city. Phase H Meeting #6: The CAC reviewed and discussed all of the material and information provided during the previous meetings. It was decided that it would be more effective for the full committee to divide into four Sub -Committees to work on the following topics: Meetings #7 - 11: Meeting times were devoted to each of the Sub -Committees developing their respective recommendations and regularly reporting back to the full committee. Sub -Committees also met at other times to fulfill their continued working on their tasks. Meeting #12: The Sub -committees distributed and presented their respective draft recommendations to the full committee. Comments and suggestions were incorporated into their second draft that was submitted to the new Sub -committee formed to draft the Final Report Meeting #13: The draft Final Report was reviewed and approved as amended by the CAC. The Report will be ready for presentation to the Planning Committee of the Minneapolis 29 Park and Recreation Board on October 21,1998 and to the Transportation and Public Safety Committee of the Minneapolis City Council at a later time. Example of Quantitative Site Evaluation Tool Size: X points for each acre of area of the designated site Shape: X points for being circular or elliptical, X points for one side being no more than two times the length of any other side, X point for one side being more than two times the length of another side Topography: X points for varied topography without threat of erosion, and ease of maintenance, X points for some topographical variation, X point for having a fairly uniform surface elevation. Vegetation: X points if existing vegetation provides adequate and varied ground cover, positive perimeter buffer, shade, and visual interest, X points if the vegetation provides adequate ground cover and possesses two of the other desired characteristics, X point if the vegetation provides adequate ground cover and possesses one of the other desired characteristics. Parking: X points if it there is an existing, off-street parking area for more than Y cars, X points if there is existing, off-street parking for fewer than Y cars, X point if there is on -street parking nearby. Fencing/ X points for every 20% of the perimeter which has fencing or other Barrier: adequate type of boundary barrier. Drainage: X points if the entire site is well -drained, X points if more than 70 % is well -drained and X point if more 95% of the site is well -drained. Utilities: X points each for nearby availability of running water or electrical hook-ups. Amenities: X points for each of the following existing, nearby amenities: drinking fountain, toilets, two or more benches, bike rack, waste disposal container, or pay phone. Community: X points if the site would provide a new, or additional, positive activity to the area. Four Phase Communication Plan Planning for Pets Four Phase Communication Plan Phase I: Plan Design Identify and prioritize targeted audiences for initial communications, including considerations for primary contact person Determine effective communication strategy for each targeted audience, including one-on-one communication with elected officials, individual opinion leaders, neighborhood representatives, staff, etc. Identify key supporters and nay -sayers who influence public opinion. Tailor key messages to audience. e.g. Elected officials may be more interested in liability issues or ensuring support from a non-profit organization whereas background training for park keepers would be more appropriate. Define clear, consistent responses to common questions about or objections to Off -Leash Recreation Areas. Develop a simple, inexpensive Q & A brochure for distribution to supporters and advocates, as well as MPRB and City Council officials and staff. Organize when and how to use community support, including residents contacting elected officials. Deterniine benchmarks to assess effectiveness of plan and create a follow-up plan to address problems. Phase II: Develop Communication Tools Define an identity/look/image to give cohesion to all print materials Prepare materials such as fact sheets on various topics, for public speakers/proponents, to use at public meetings. Prepare media kit, including background information on other successful sites/programs, quotes and testimonials from opinion leaders who favor Off -Leash Recreation Areas. Create standard column/article format for local residents to submit to neighborhood newsletters and newspapers. Develop a Web page to keep citizens informed about new sites, volunteer opportunities, classes, work projects, etc. Develop a crisis communication plan to address potential problems which may emerge. Phase III: Plan Implementation Communication channels are established between MPRB, appropriate city departments, and non-profit support groups Spokespersons are designated to represent the key partners in the program Maintain regular communications with key neighborhood people and media outlets. Discuss implementation with key staff people Phase IV: Monitor and Follow -Un Solicit and tabulate regular and spontaneous feedback from site users and affiliated groups. Request feedback from elected officials (primarily based upon constituent comments) and staff. Respond as necessary. APRS Management Aid Series Pinning Parks National Recreation and Park Association A FORWRRD practice, cm am the days when the orjy program for dogs and d obedience classes. In 1996. pets OW considered to be am of dw fastest growing areas for entertainment erpenditures in Amenco. The plethora of pet 11 "e't indicating that not only do A people own pets. but they am spending sizable dollars to give their pets the very best core and treatTOnt- F15 I ham troveled nationwide it has amcged me that so MQnY pork and recreation pmfeziwxAs own dogs ondl admit they treat these pets with oil the love and attention of family. Adviowledging their own desire to recreate with their pets. these some professionals cite limited access In public parks to walk. rm, and interact with their petL spaces for aHistorically, local ordinances ham excluded dogs from Public = activityvariety of safety ond use reasons. However, this standard d jVZ-,Nprt;-v7,0 their owners con safely and equitably In public park spaces with non1W users. Especially in urban settings where ew rcise space for pets is limited, porks become a natural place for The interest in writing this management aid started as I heard on teievisl that there was a growing ffilotchkeYm pet problem, In Flmedca. FlIthough my nooction was am of obsurd disbelief, I was stuck by the stork contrast with ano dogs allowee signoge founcl in most public parks. This, coupled with the projections for Increased e3perldiltures in the 'Pee OMO sparked On interest to es coulcl top dw revenue Kathy J. Spongier. CLIP RPRS Staff Liaison INTRODUMON WHAT IS R DOG PRRK? R dog pork is a contained public area utwre dog owners may allow theirdogstorunoff -leash. This Facility is referred to as o dog park For conveniencesSOWMoughoutthismanrwbhouiever, it is important to now that some PorkdeporvnentsPrefertocolitheFacilityon "off -leash dog exercise area." The idea behind this alternative title is that the expression, "dog Park°• has theconnotationofbeingaporkfordogsonly, rather it= being a legitimatemaeotionaioutletforpeople. This manual addresses questions concerning the development and maintenance of such off -leash nyeas,as ll as pertaining to liability, legislative reform and partnership w e OFFAIERSH DOG ARERS? WHY SHOULD PRRKS CReRTe F, few city OM caunty pork depammus a=% the united States ham begin to integraw off4sosh dog porks into their f0c:11111:11M The Impetus behind ft rrayernent is the combined influence of public demand by dog owners aridtheneedforparkandfiecreationDepartments; to have an effective means Of control over dogs in public Park kvW- The lorgiescale grawth Of uiban population has mode open space for dogs and their owiners increasingly scone- As a mwlt dog oumnemm commonly use pork spow as a place to take their dogs. Since many dog ow feel &got On4eash walking is Insufficient exercise for their Pets. the (11101ndotory leash Iaw is oftenignored. resulting In Potentiony dangerous conflicts with other park usemBectusedogownerscornPrissW/o of the American Population and are continuing to Inciaose, these .. Designating - ns am not likely to improve. Rather than bai dogs completely from parks, it Is often in 0e best Interest of the parksystemthatacompromisebereodiedfulfillingftneedsofbothparksaiddog in addition to these immediate benefits. the introduction of o designated dog run a tco has also brought unexpected perks. including: tg ottrnctlons to parks and can sometimes be a) Dog paw ase odded4{ revenue generates. b) Dog parks ore more accommodating For physicllY ik withtheir 1) pens and senior citizens who cannot always I and serial outlets for dog c) Dag parks create unique reaeationo l owners. d) Dog parkspromote behavioral sociolization for dogs andIresponsiblepetownershipforowners. Ib e) Some dog parks have discouraged delinquent odivity in inner city parks, - f) Dog parks hpYe Offered an alternative for dog owners who ore nolan9erpermittedtowalktheirdogs f as where dogs present ecological hazards to the CRERTING R DOG PRRK The overall rwture of a dog Pori(ultimotely depends on the chocter oftheOreoinwhichItIsbuilt. Eodr dog Pork is individuol to the Pardo I0rdemandsofItscommap. it might be wise to run the dog pork on o six-month pest basis before investing fully into the mprroje following istionof by n meats a list of requirements for dog parks. but CHOOSING R SITE ps with ON park W,,ty, da grOur" t that theSportingtheirdogsbA4carsoItislmpo(oomvisimmwillbetrofInginconditions &lot are muddy - dogs will not be fUnn ly fromhicalkytofexistingdogPar's vary consideobThegeogrOPfor0dogporkisaplain, 91=05MYmostcommonsetUP4 .*'= iT forested areas. f FENCING R 5 to 6 foot fence endosing the dog pork is essential. While some of thewWdogpa" lads fencing, the majority are enclosed. fencing enwrestlntandenda> r theorOW people in the GVM will not escape GVM the fence can be node of dwinaink or a lumbo[ prnacy fenCe' so WQ as there are no gaps dva+gh whirl, o dog might escape. It Is also t to ins0oll a fence that emends I event the to preventcaescaping wheIIt mayfromsuppingunder. in odd should have o double gate sysmm• another animal enters. the fencing s With springs' also be helpful to construct seg -closing gOCe most ed field. some have individual nm sWhile eparated ngorshrubbery- Inc the cm onecases. the general Suds lines altofieldsallow fer faro few a only more freedom and are alltime more popular for this°a ot EQUIPMENT Most dog parks find It convenient to require that dog owners dean up after their pets. Only in dog parks with o large amount of oaeoge Is owner dean -up not required. The most effective way to facilitate this form of self - maintenance Is to provide the necessary dean up tools on site. Purls requiring owners to bring their own equipment experience more problems enforcing the deon-up rule. 0) Matt Mitts Mutt Mitts ore plastic biodegradable bogs that reverse and tie to contain and seol In dog feces. Intelligent Products Inc. (800) 697-6084) Water Source Most dog pods provide water fountains. lourel Canyon dog park hos drinking fountains with spidrets on the bottom for dogs and the off-leosh dog area at los Palmas Pork hos Tido Fountains", especially designed for dogs. Dog Playgrounds R dog pork In Belgium offers play equipment specifically ,4/ designed for dogs and their owners. Equipment can consist of plastic dog -size tubes, hurdles, hanging tires, and Frisbee courses. Ploy Signs posting hours and rules should be placed at various intervalsdnougtoutthedogparktoensurechat &hay are ten. The previcusiy noted dogdean-up products can also be ordered with dispensers that hove sigrss. DOG PRRK RULES The Word consensus among pork officials regording dog pork rules is to Map them as simple as possible. Unless the dog Pork wants to pay an attendanttomonitorporkactivities- simplicity is ttre nosiest avmrwn to ensure ttrot rulesamhollowed. Generally, peer influence between dog owners is enough toenforceporkrules. Perks on the smaller side tend to have tha most success in ruleenforcementsincethedogownersoreallwithinviewofoneonothaesactions' The following are o set of males. universal to most existing dog Perks Dog feces must be cleaned up by owners Dog owners must be in the park and within view of their dogs Dogs must be removed from the dog park at the first sign of aggression Dog owners must have a leash in hand at all times Keep small children and infants under strict supervision LEASH dogs while entering and exiting the dog Park Female dogs in heat are prohibited from entering the dog park Fill any hole your dog digs (it may be helpful to provide a shovel an the grounds for this Purpose) Aggressive dogs are not permitted on the premises Dogs should be under voice control (ie. they should come when called by their owners) 1SAll dog owners who fail to camply, with the above rules can be ticketed by park police and animal control officers. RDMITTRNCE POUC4 While most dog parks hove an open admission policy, there ore a few &hot carpe an entrance fee. Entrance fees corer maintenance costs a d fundWisconsin reainitiationofotheradog parks- The Dante County dog parks in charge a seasons pass of $5 and will soon raise the fee to $10 per year ($1 for a doily pass). Rt the Wlnnedoa Dog Beach in Illinois. the fee for a seasons passcosts $25, with $5 for each additional dog: for non-residents the season fee climbs to $15O. Rdmlmwm fees do not seem to deter owners from bringing their dogs to the parks. An odmission policy hos its benefits. In charging o fee, certain requirements con be made to implement more effective safety control over the dog pork. forexample, in order to purchase a season pass, the pork may require ttat the dog be up to dote on its voccines; hove completed an obedience cause; ondfor hove verification from a veterinarian of no Previous d Of vicious behovioand money raised from admittance fees not only helps pork Pay for t con also help to fund other facets of the general park The Winnedo Dog Beach,maintain the dog fadlities, but Ifor example, mode an e>tro S8,000 which It used tcuard other pork activities. A drawback to charging on admittance fee is that it becomes necessary to have an attendant an site during operating hours to check for passes. An alternative to this Is to provide o combination code to those registered, who con then let themselves inside the park. Still, a major drawback remains that entrance fees pronate an exclusionary policy toward the public DOG PERMIT APPLICATION To apply for a dog permit through the mail please providethefollowing information: Name _ Address Phone Number & ADAM - 4:30 PM Dog License No. NO - No, No. Daly Pass $1.00 Date Requested Pines send your application and check to: County Parks Deparmhsnt your address) For further information c89 (your phone) DOG PARK HOURS PARKING LOT R dog pork should have a handicap-occessible parking lot in dose proximity to its entrance. fie amount of parking spaces willdepend o tithe e use of the park. people will also be arriving to the pork by bike. cv might be a consideration. People tend to let their dogs run loose in the parking lot on the way in and out of the off -leash area. As this can lead to hazardous situations it is important iotoconspiausly post the rules in the parking tpeople see them before entering the lot. LANDSCAPING UTERRIURE AND PROGRRMMING . I A dog pork is o good Place to disseminate material regarding god rinary neces- sary f MM, mmvocdneinfootion, and neutering and spaying concerns. It to post or provide handouts with cautionary information. Dog owners should especiolly be aware of the pork's Iloblil y policy. Some dog Forks that are particularly large have literature urging owners to stay within view of 1'' thi their pedue to the dangers of poisonous naturali elements. dog and axMids with wild animals. 0 end ish rty of ot nd it C. MAINTAINING R DOG PRRK a Dog ports are nMoUvely low maintenance. It Is 1, recommended that parks have maintenance windows where sections ore dosed off every few months for repair. Due to the high volume use most dog parks receive, it is often necessary to reseed the grass, especially around the gate area. In some cases, the wear Is so great that It Is impossible to maintain gross in certain patches of the dog field. These areas con be covered with cedar drips or mulch (depending on geographical location, the gross may also require irrigation). Troch containers should be emptied doily and waste scoops restodsed when needed. While owners are required to dean up after their dogs, it Is Inevitable that some areas will be missed. Cleon-up raids should be made doily or weekly to make sue that the pork is free from waste. It is also recommended that the fencing, tree _trunks and other equipment be hosed dawn to prevent urine stains and odors. The dog park will require mowing and should be handled in the some way as any other area of a park. The laurel Canyon dog pork treats Its grounds with a flea control mechanism to eliminate canine parasites. The treatment eliminates fleas through Ad nematode porosites that attack "-voe before they con hotcr. Due to its biological nature, the treatment is not harmful to humons or animals. The product hos proven effective and would be beneficial to any dog pork that experiences high levels of use. , O, For Information regarding a biological fleo control product, refer to the appendix. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING A DOG PARK between $50 and $1 OU. The cost of Other -- fountains will depend On the Pork I'd departments equipment supplier. toonamage, the cost of canstructing a dog park con run hm 30,000. much higher. Maintaining a dog Park is estimated to cost OPPrcgdmOWY ... . FRCTS RBOUT PEOPLE AND PETS A recent survey by the American Animal Hospital Association shows the extent of core and attention toward dogs. 79°/a give their dogs holiday or birthday presents 68% bring their dog when they travel 64% sign letters or cords from themselves and their dogs 61 % believe coring for their dogs fulfills their need to parent 33% talk to their dogs o the phone or through an answering machine while away 32% of dogs sleep in their owner's beds 77% spend the night Indoors American Pet Products Monufoc uer's Association a PRRTNERSHIP WITH RDVOCRCY GROU 5 0 1. 1W policy. In rnany CM S, 0&11=cy groups have helped to kind equipffient for dog pork, as well as baken responsibility in providing dog park Iltm"e andplanningrelatedevents. POJvOcQcV groups also too a role in moniboring Pork odivities including dean -up and o&w mintenonce projects. If your area does not how a dog lotion it is easy to gother one. Ije unofficloll designated dog areas who's users would SUCE OF UFE The Chicago White Sox held the first ever'Dog Day Evene on August 28, 1996. Over 350 pets and their owners sat in bleacher seats for this special promotion. Autodesk Corporation in Son Rofoel, Califomia allow canines to accompany about seventy employees to work. The company has a three stricks (poops) and you're out policy. Dogs for Dummies' author. Liso Abbot Blarney cites that more and more, pets are welcome in places such as hotels, stores, workplaces, operwir restaurants, and tourist attractions. USA Today August 20, 1996 s CORPORRTE SPONSORSHIP schedule a talk on health cam for animcb. R C. of corporate sponsorship in practice Is demOnsbcOd through the actions of the Los AVeles Poft DeportmeAL the same depariment that manages the successful Lourel Caj yon Dog pork. The Porks Deportment Is dogcurrentlyworkinginpartnershipwith0corporatesponsor0createa12 -weporkattheSepulvedaftcreCtionftwintheSonkmOndOWMV- The sPansar will donate $5o,00D toward the oomtruction of the dog pork. URBIUTY CONCERNS The first issue that comes to mind when a wisioning an in not one re up to tuenty-Five dogs Play at once is the possibility adog 9 hL In fact, of the dog Pods from this study has a Pork experienced any incidence resultinginalibelsuit. Whlle one or buo cases of a dog biting another dog.have occurred, the skin was not broken i ts not ont ccurred, there' Pelt of the reason suggested even in dog Parks that haveFor ng f is that the dogs wrsider the Pork to bebeenfunctioningforoverhruenb) years. neutral territory. Furthermore, dog owners are responsible for Mashing and removing their onimol from the Pak at the first hint of aggression. Neither have there been any incidents involving dogs attacking humans in the dog Pods• Rccording to some Pork officials, one e*lan®bon is that dogPodstendtoattractthekindofresponsiblepatronthathastrainedand socialized his or her pet. Nevertheless, even if there have not been any precedented cases of liability involving dog attacks, It is essential that parks Implementprecautionarymeasures. Most states have "Dog -Site Statutes•• that automatically make the dog owner legally liable for any injury ordamagethattheirdogcauses. To be on the safe side, however, many dog parks have inserted waivers in their city ordinances stipulating that the owner take full responsibility for the dog's actions in the park. The waiver should be submitted to the city attorney's office for liability review and approval. The implied consent waiver should then be posted in conspiaaus locations on the dog park site. In one instance, a dog was hit by a car after escaping from Holmes Dog Pork in Uncoln, Nebraska. Because the pork warned In its regulations that dogs could escape through the fence, and because the rules stipulated that the owner be responsible for the pet, no liabilities resulted. In cases where a dog attacks a human or another dog, the issue should be settled between the involved parties. Often, disputes of this nature are settled outside of court through negotiation and compensation by Insurance companies. 70i ROOM - I Overall, many pork officials who were Initially hesitant about liability problems have been pleasantly surprised to find that dogs off -leash pose little threat to pork safety. While legitimate concern, It Is no more o problem with dog parks than any other pork -sponsored activity. A 1990 study concerning the liability problems of Palo Alto's city parks reported the following observation: "...the facts are that 80 dog visits per day in Polo Alto almost half a million since 1974 — have not produced a single liability claim, while the city's swing sets account for about 168 cases annually Animals, April 1990). AMENDING THE CRY ORDINANCE Ndxt city ordinances contain 02g at dco ses that prohibit dogs from running ofleash In any public cram In order to leactly ish a dog pork this 1G CONTRCTS: OTHER EXISTING DOG PARKS Dog exercise Areas of Alexandria, VirginiaTwentysixdesignatedareashavebeenestablishedfor orrxrers to allow theirdogsoff4eash. Due to conflicts resulting from dogs interfering with other porkactivities, the city initiated off leash areas during the mid-seventles. The areasDOettoanocre. ors not fenced and most consist of I DD by n up. The overall cost oP the dog areas. mostch was are responsible for dean up. spent on signs, is estimated to be around 57,000. No liability suits have been reported. S4njar& City of Rlexandrio. Dept. of Recreation (703) 838.4340 Ashland, Oregon In response to kxd demands, the city flshl provided an off two vides an the outskirtsOrfar dogs in November of 1994. The porktownsurroundedbyowirefencewith a picnic table and oAvA milk Jugs for The totm The total cost of the pork is estimated at $4,000. 2enU& Ken Mickelson (541) 488-5340 Done County Dog Parks, Madison, Wisis inconsin of being builtdogporksnumber5andasixthdogpork each dog pork consists of o 17 to 20 acre designated area within a previouslymdstingPork. The dog Panks were started as a result of a problem with leoshdowbreakersaswellasarecognitionthattheyserveaslegitimolmrecreational outlets for citizens. R fee of $5 Is required for o season pons: dolly Pass. There have been no liability suits. The Parka Department is in the process of finishing a 3-,becr study on their dog Ken Lupine (608) 246.3896 Holmes Pork Dog Run, Lincoln, Nebraska The Pork was established in 1990 and consists of 12 cres. s. Int is 0 water link fencing. owners Oreo of unused lend thea n fenced este. O d ire the 4r= Is Purposely keptCkunetsorenotrequiredtodeanupdog Wxjw in order to help filter dog waits. R dog once escaped through thefencingand , Contoct LincolnParks andRecreation 441-7847 11named. Katherine Kearney CorPenter Pork, Mequon, WI . R 36-ooe park donated to the city of Mequon. The pork is landscaped with hundreds of trails. Due to Its large size, there is no requirement to pick up after one's dog. S Mequon Parks and Building Works Laurel Canyon Park, Los Angeles, CR. R park once considered to be unsafe is now a dean, well -used public facility as a result of the efforts of ParkWotdr, o nonprofit dog owners group. The group began using the pork in 1982 and by 1968 the pork become officially ordinanced as a dual -usage facility in partnership with the LA. Park and Recreation Deportment. ParkWotdr privately funds security patrols as well as deanup and landscaping measures. Dog owners enjoy off -leash hours before 10 a.m. and after 3 p.m. while the day hours ore restricted to the leash law. Duol-use of this nature hos created multiple problems and pork officials recommend that dog Parks hove full-time hours. The pork constitutes 4.4 acres. The grounds ore treated with a biological onti-flea parasitic nematode. The park provides handouts with vaccination and neutering Information. The pork has gates that are spring self -dosing. No liability claims have been Contact Jone Purse, President of ParkWatch (213) 2547069 Dick Ginneban, LR. Parks Deportment (818) 756-8060 Long Beach Dog Park, California This dog pork was largely constructed and funded by o local dog association but received support from long Beady Poria 6 Recreation Department The porkk Is opprozinaoaly 500' z 200' and Is surrounded by fencing and gores, with water troughs, walkways, and security lighting. Due to the large -stale use of the park, maintaining ground turf hos been o problem. The dog association hos decided to scop seeding efforts and maintain the park as is, Irrigating the ground Periodically to eliminate dust build-up. There have been no reported liability problems. CD Phil Hester, Manager of Parks (310) 428.1824 Marium yorden, Dog Association Head (310) 428-1824 Ohlone Dog Pork, Berkeley, CR. One of the first dog. Parks to appear in the U.S.. the Pork began in 1979 and wasofficiallyordinotxedin1985. The pork constitutes 1R an we of unused lord IndowntownBerkeley. The dog pork is Jointly maintained and financed by lire dal of Berkely and the ODPR (Ohlone Dog Pork Association). The ODPR sponsorsactivitiesincludingfleadips. carnivals, and selling T-shirts to false 1110My for the dog No lliab ility doims have been reported, cantq Doris Richards. President of ODPR (510) 843-6221 UM I Sri r • Point Isobel, Son ROVICh to, CR. The dog park was fonndly recognized in 1984 and consists Of Pl saes of afairrrerlandfill. It was once considered an unsafe area for public use until PIDOPointIsabelDogAssociation) began bringing their dogs to the park There is now a picnic area, an open -grass ace° for fdsbes retrieving and winding footpoths along the shoreline. No liability doims haus been reported. S Mitchell Boum, East Boy Regional Park District Suorin park anda - - 60ch dog park is oppr= 80 ocres aid constructed Upon d iOnINIII sitm Theporkswerestartedasaremitofpress" from am clog-ownfir bdions porks previously prohibited 00 dogs, their thanporks). The overall cast is estimated to be lessandownersamrequiredtotaketheirdog's feces ham with them The furidl% bought signs, a Wasik a picnic table and 0 drinking fount0im This is the Q* ParkofficialtowhornIspokewhosoldthatftmIs0IOWPrObImudthdogowners following the posted rules. This con proloody be 00butOd to the 10d that nobogsortrashreceptaclesareprovidedandthat80itdifficultfor dog owneirs to police one another as is carriniari in most dog poile. There have been no reported , , 5 it Sunnyvale, Las Pelmas Dog Pork, California The Sunnyvale Neighbodmod Dog Pork first started In 1992 on a .5 oce site. The park was started In a Joint effort behueen a kxai group. D.O.G.S. and the poria deporanene. The dog park costed appradmotely between $20.000 to $30,000 to w nsu= There is a "Fido Drinking Fountain' scooper dispensers and ben&as for the owners. There is no record of liability claims. City of Sunnyvale Parks Division (408) 730.7506 Winnetka ... Beach, Illinois The park was started In 1986 after a pork beach area ism dosed to d -a public year for mwesidents. T m dogs must have vaccine records In order to maws pass. The dog beach Is guarded by a staff ffmnber during day hours, and a how 24 hour access. 1he park has invested opprox I u/$7,000 In the dog pork, mostly on 16,000. No liability dolins have ever been reported. Park officials ore looking Into building onotlier. George Alemoff, Recreation Coordinator 1: 446-0080 Temps Dog The park ux3s started In 1994 on a fornier elernentary sdml yord site approccl- 22EY x I W. 1 a RPPENDIX Pet Waste Products Intelligent Products incorporated 10,000 Lower River Rood P.O. Boa 626 8uriingotn. My 41005 Phone 800-697-6084 GOLDENLRB Enterprise P.O. Boa 44285 f Modison, WI 5374444285 phone; 608.271$663 Dispoz-a-scoop Petro 26s -I South piorfo: f?derxee Culver City, CR 90232.9811 a C t l i f e s t y l e s ko 7- APRS Management Aid Series Planning Barks is o `3' M i J National Recreation and Park Association Table of Contents Preface...... ...................................................................... 1 f Forward ..•.... lntroducti6m............................................... 1 1 Whatis a dog park? ................. . ......................................... Why parks should create off• e-csh dog areas 1 3 Creating o Dog Park.................................................................... 3 Choosing a Site ......................................... Fencing........................ Q 5 Equipment Needed .................................................... Rules to be posted ............................................. 6 7 Admittance Policy .................................................... 18 Programming and Literature ......................................... Maintaining a Dog Park .................. ....................................:....... 9 The Cost of Constructing and Maintaining a Dog Pork ................ 11 Partnership with Advocacy Groups .............................................13 15 Corporate Sponsorship.............................................................. LiabilityConcerns ........................................... I.............I.............. is Amending the City Ordinance ................................................... 16 17Contacts: Other ExlstinglDog Parks ........................................... 41 Appendix................................................................................ FORWARD Gone ore the days when the only program for dogs and their owners were bbedlence dosses. In 1996, pets ore considered to be one of the fastest, growing areas for entertainment expenditures.In fimerlca. The plethora of pet super' stores now highlight the retail landscape lndicating that not only do more people own pets, but they ore spending sizable dollars to give their pets the very best care and treatment fts I have traveled nationwide it has amazed me that so many park and recreation professionals own dogs and admit they treat these pets with all the love and attention of family. Acknowledging their own desire to recreate with their pets, these some professionals cite limited access in public porky to walk, run, and Interact with their pets. Historically, local ordinances have excluded dogs from public spaces for a variety of safety and use reasons. However, this standard practice is shifting to one of understanding that pets and their owners can safely and equitably coexist in public parli spaces with non -pet users. Especially in urban settings where exercise space for pets is limited, perks become a natural place for activity. The interest in writing this management old started as I heard on television that there was a growing'iatdrkey' pet problem, in Rmedca. Aithough my reaction was one of absurd disbelief, I was struck by the stark contrast with no dogs allowed' slgnoge Found in most public porim. This, coupled with the proJectlons For Increased expenditures in the "per area sparked an interest to look at ways public park and recreation agencies could top the revenue potential and expand service areas to support the life-style interests of consumers who own pets. This manogeme6t aid provides a resource For pursuing the development of pet pork areas by using the experiences of other agencies who have already developed pet perks. In the age ,of'doggle day care, dog vacation camps, dog obstacle courses, and super pet stores where'petsl ore always welcome", we wish you wall In expanding your service parameters to reach this sizable market Kathy J. Spangler, CLP ApSS Staff Llolson ' INTRODUCTION WHAT IS A DOG PARK? " R dog park Is a contained public area where dog owners may allow their dogs to run off -leash: This facility Is referred to as a dog pork for convenience's sake throughout this manual; however, It Is Important to note that some pa departments prefer to call the facility an "off-leosh dog exercise area." The idea behind this alternative tide Is that the expression, "dog pork", hos the connotation of being a park for dogs only, rather than being a legitimate recreational outlet for people. This manual addresses questions concerning the development and maintenance of such off --leash areas, as well as issues pertaining to liability, legislative reform and partnership with advocacy. groups. WHY SHOULD PARKS CREATE OFF -LEASH DOG AREAS? R few city and county pork departments across the United States have begun to Integrate off -leash dog parks Into their facilities. The Impetus behind this movement is the combined influence of public demand by dog owners and the need for Pork and Recreation Depar ments to have on effective means of control over dogs in public pork land. The largo -scale growth of urban population has made open space for dogs and their owners Increasingly scarce. Rs a result, dog owners commonly use pork space as a place to take their dogs. Since many dog owners feel that on -leash walking Is Insufficient exercise for their pets, the mandatory leash low Is often ignored, resulting In potentially dangerous conflicts with other park users. Bemuse dog owners comprise 48% of the Rmerlcon population and are continuing to Increase, these conditions ore not likely to,improve. Rather than banning dogs completely from parks, It Is often in the best Interest of the park system that a compromise be reached fulfilling the need's of both ports and dog owners. t Designating an area where dog owners can allow their animals to run off-leosh successfully remedies this problem In porke where the concept has been introduced. Violations of the leash low and subsequent public complaints have decreased: and dog owners have a place to legally exercise their pets. o' Crit k In addition to these immediate benefits, the Iritroductidn of a designated dog run area w ° has also brought unexpected side benefits to J J I parts, Including: a) Dog parks are added attractions to, parks and con sometimes be revenue generators. b) Dog parks are more accommodating for physically disabled persons and senior citizens who cannot always walk with their dogs. c) Dog parks create unique recreational and social outlets for dog owners. d) Dog parks promote behavioral socialization for dogs and responsible pet ownership for owners. I e) Some dog ports have discouraged delinquent activity In inner city parks-. i f) Dog parks have offered an alternative for dog owners who ore no longer permitted to walk their dogs on -leash In areas where dogs present ecological hazards to the park environment. CRERTING R DOG PARK f The overall nature of a dog park ultimately depends on the dloracter of the area In which It is built Each dog pork Is Individual to the particular demands of its community. It might be wise to run the dog park on a six-month test basis before Investing fully Into the project. The following Is by no means a list of requirements for dog ports, but simply a compilation of options. CHOOSING R SITE 5 The land for a dog pork con be public land or a purchasable or leasable lot of private land. it is preferable to develop a designated dog area of an established pork so that dog owners can be Just as Included In park planning and programming as ore softball players or joggers. The land selected, however, should be relatively low -use to avoid opposition that would arise upon taking land away from any other group. In cases where pork land Is unavailable, it is possible to develop other unused areas of the city. for example, the Point Isabel dog pork In Son Francisco was a former landfill; other parks have been built on abandoned residential lots, former school yords and various other unused plots of land. It 1s important to gouge the anticipated amount of use the park will receive. Many existing dog porks suffer from over use because they are often the only off -leash facility in the area. For this reason, it may be ber5gEldal to establish more than one dog pant site for your park or city. Some park officials suggest that the pork be located away from residential areas due to the noise level such ports can create. Trees and other foliage can be planted to provide a noise buffer, if necessary. If shrubbery around the fence Is not an option, It would suffice to cover the fence with a material, such as opaque plastic sheeting. In addition, by concealing the view outside the fence, dogs are less likely to bark at activities taking place beyond the dog area. Concealing the outside view would obviate problems like the one experienced at o California port, for example, whehe the dogs aeoted a noise problem by baking at passing golfers on the bordering golf aaumo. Between one and five acres of land Is the Ideal size for a dog park. although existing dog ports volt' In size from as small as half on ocre to as large as 70 acres. Parks smaller thou 1 acre have sometimes experienced overcrowding problems, while pocks exceeding five acres are sometimes ,,,ltoolargetobewell-controlled. 10 i Rs with any pork fodllty, the ground should hove good drainage. Most isitors will be tronsporttng their dogs by car so It Is important that the ogs will not be running In conditions that are muddy. The geographical layout of existing dog parks vory considerably from pork pork. Whlle the most common set up fora dog pork Is a plain, grassy field, orae parks are built along beaches and others in forested areas. FENCING F1 5 to 6 foot fence enclosing the dog pads is essential. While some of the ager dog pads lads fencing, the majority are enclosed, fencing ensures that bgs will not escape and endanger themselves or any people In the area. The fence con be mode of droln-link or a lumbar privacy fence, so long as here are no gaps through which o dog might mope. It Is also necessary to istoll a fence that extends all the way to the ground to prevent small dogs am slipping under. In addition, to prevent animals from escoping when mother animal enters, the Fencing should have a double gate system. It may dso be helpful to construct self-closing gates with springs. t While most dog parks have one open -fenced field, some have individual uns separcited by fencing or shrubbery. In these cases, the general guidelines all for a few or only one dog at a time In the run. The open -Fenced fields allow or more freedom and are generally more popular for this reason. EQUIPMENT Clean-up Tools Most dog parks find it convenient to require that clog owners dean up r .( after their pets. Only In dog parks with a large amount of acreage is owner dean -up not required. The most effective way to facilitate this form of self maintenance Is to provide [fie necessary deon-rap tools on site. parks requiring owners to bring their own equipment experience more problems enforcing the deon-up rule. 1 There ore many canine dean -up products on the market. Conine deorrup materials ore beneficial not only to dog parks but also to any area of o park where dogs ore permitted entrance under the leash low. A few of these products are as follows: o) Mutt Mitts Mutt Mitts are plastic biodegradable bogs that reverse and tie to contain and seal In dog feces. Intelligent Products Inc. (800) 697.6084) b) Dispoz-ft-Scoop: Dispoz-A-Scoops are biodegradable plastic bogs with a wired mouth wad on attached cardboard handle that allows a "no -'touch" advantage. yr... Some dog parks have large sand pit areas In order to concentrate dog feces In one place Instead of throughout the dog park. A drawback to this feature Is that dog owners ore less likely to pith up after their dog since they think of the sandbox as a litter box. Owners have also complained about the sand getting in their dog's coat doter Source Most dog parks provide water fountains. Laurel Canyon dog pork has drinking fountains with spidsets on the bottom for dogs and the offdeash dog area at Los Palmas Park hos "tido fountains', especially designed for dogs. 1' Dog Playgrounds A dog park In Belgium offers play equipment specifically 011,,0designedfordogsandtheirowners. Equipment can consist of plastic dog -size tubes, hurdles, hanging tires, and frisbee courses. Ploy equipment for dogs is more for the benefit of the owners than for their dogs; like nany conine products on the market, It is on -Issue of whot dog owners would like a think their dogs prefer. Play equipment is an odded erpense to developing a fog pork and It Is doubtful that the -Issue effects the dogs one way or another. a. Signs posting (tours and rules should be placed at various Intervals hroughout the dog park to ensure that they are seen. The previously noted dog heart -up products can also be ordered with dispensers that have signs. DOG PARK RULES The general consensus among pods officials regarding dog pork rules is to seep them as simple as possible. Unless the dog pork wants to pay an attendant a monitor park activities, simplicity Is the easiest avenue to ensure that rules Ire followed. Generally, peer Influence between dog owners Is enough to enforce pork rules. Parks on the smaller side tend to have the most success in rule enforcement since the dog owners are all within view of one another's actions. he following ore a set of rules, universal to most eristing dog pods: Dog feces must be cleaned up by owners Dog owners must be in the park and within view of their dogs Dogs must be removed from Pe dog park at the first sign of aggression Dog owners must have a leash In hand at all times Keep small children and infants under strict supervision LEASH dogs while entering and exiting the dog park Female dogs in heat are prohibited from entering the dog park FII any hole your dog digs (it may be helpful to provide a shovel on the grounds for this purpose) Aggressive dogs are not permitted on the premises Dogs should be under voice control (e. they should come when called by their owners) All dog owners who fail to comply with the above rules can be ticketed by park police and animal control officers. ADMITTANCE POLICY i . While most dog parks have an open admission policy, there are a few that charge an entrance fee. Entrance fees cover maintenance costs and fund the initiation of other area dog parks. The Done County dog parks in Wisconsin charge a season's pass of $5 and will soon raise the fee to $10 per year ($1 for k / a dolly pass). nt the Wlfmtka Dog Beach in Illinois, the fee for a $eoson's pass costs $95, with $5 for each additional dog: for non-residents the season fee climbs to $150. Admittance fees do not seem to deter owners from bringing their dogs to the pocks. Rn admission policy hos Its beneFits. In charging o fee, certain requirements con be mode to implement more effective safety control over the dog pork. For example, In order to purchase a season pass, the pork may require that the dog be up to dote on its vaccines; have completed an obedience course; andfor have verification from a veterinarian of no previous record of vicious behavlor. The money raised from admittance fess not only helps the pork to pay far and maintain the dog facilities, but it con also help to fund other roasts of the general parr. The Wlnnetko Dog Beach, for example, made on extra $8.= which It used toward other pork activities. A drawback to charging on admittance Fee Is that It becomes necessary to have an attendant on site during operating hours to check for pasw,s, Rn alternative to this is to provide a combination code to those registered, who cm then let themselves Inside the pork. Still, a major drawback remains ffwt entronce fees promote an exclusionary policy toward the public Below is on example of a dog park admission pass. DOG PERMIT APPLICATION To apply for a dog permit through the mail please provide the following InfOrmation: Name Address S State A Phone Number 8:00AM-4:30 PM Dog Ucense No. No.- No.--No- Daily o. No. No. Daily Pass $1.00 Date Requested Please send your application and check to: County Parks Department your address) For further information call (your phone) DOG PARK HOURS PARKING LOT R dog pork should have a hondicap-accessible parking lot In dose proximity entrance. The amount of parking spaces will depend on the expected use of rods. People will also be arriving to the pork by bike, so bicycle stands might consideration. People tend to let their dogs run loose In the parking lot on the way in and hF the off -leash area. As this can lead to hazardous situations, it Is important nspicuously post the rules in the parking lot so that people con see them e entering the lot. LANDSCAPING The park may wont to plant trees and shrubbery In the dog park for retic purposes. Some parks have cemented walkways and podhs through the Is. Shoda trees are also Important For the summer hours. LITERATURE AND PROGRAMMING R dog pork Is a good place to disseminate material regarding veterinary vaccine Information, and neutering and spaying concerns. It is also neces- to post or provide handouts with cautionary Information. Dog owners should clally be aware of the padds liability policy. Some dog parks that are particularly large have literature urging owners to stay wlthln view of their pet due to the dangers of poisonous natural elements, dog thieves, and corAlcts with wild animals. Dog parks have been used for obedience classes, Frisbee contests, and other various dogfeotured activities. The ck- Son Leandro. CaI1Fomla hosted notional dog which brought increased revenue and public the city. it Is important, however, that the a basis for o dog pork — that of providing a recreational outlet for owners and their dog is not subverted by programming Interests. Dog park programming Is more appropriate for parks that hove a large amount of land to cater to many different interest groups. MAINTAINING A DOG PARK Dog parks are relatively low maintenance. It is ww// recommended that parks have maintenance windows where sections are dosed off every few months for repair. Due to the high volume use most dog parks receive, it is often necessary to re -seed the gross, especially around the gate orea. In some cases, the wear is so great that It is Impossible to maintain grass in certain patches of the dog field. These areas can be covered with cedar chips or mulch (depending on geographical location, the gross may also require Irrigation). Trash containers should be emptied daily and waste scoops restodsed when needed. While owners are required to dean up after their dogs, it Is inevitable that some areas will be missed. Clean-up rounds should be mode daily or weekly to make sure that the park is free from waste. It Is also recommended that the fencing, tree monks and other equipment be hosed down to prevent urine stains and odors. The,dog pork will require mowing and should be handled in the same way as any other area of a park. The Laurel Canyon dog pork treats Its grounds with a flea control melanism to eliminate canine parasites. The treatment eliminates fleas through nematode parasites that attack lorvos before they con hatch. Due to Its biological nature, the treatment is not harmful to Ihumans orcinimals. The product hos proven effective and would be beneficial to any dog park that experiences high levels of use. &IForInformationregardingabiologicalFleacontrolproduct, refer to the appendix. 0 THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING A DOG PARK - Considering the straight forward layout of a dog pork, Its construction COSI is normally relatively inexpensive. Signs and fencing are the minimum amount of equipment needed to construct a satisfactory dog pork. Pork systems often hove such equipment already in stock. Most dog porks have invested between $500 and $130O for signs, and fencing costs depend on the material and the amount needed. The installation of a sic foot dholn link fence around on 80 by 90 foot area, for example, is estimated to cost between 53,000 and $4.0..00, according to the C-reenbeit, Maryland Public Works Department. Scoop dispensers cost between $50 and 5700. The cost of other equipment such as benches and wate fountains will depend on the pork and deportment's equipment supplier. On average, the cost of constructing a dog park can run from $.8,000 to 30,000. In cases where the pork must buy the property, construct a parking lot. Install irrigation systems, or opts to provide multiple amenities, the expenses it much higher. Maintaining a dog pork is estimated to cost approximotely $5,000 a year This Includes about two hours a week In cleaning labor, refilling scooper disperc ers, printing costs for dog park literature and lawn care. In parks with high volrm irofFlc, turf maintenance Is constant and con become wpenslxe. The designated dog area of long Beach Park experienced this problem and now maintains an Irrigated dirt field which has posed no problem for pork users. Dog pads that hL personnel to monitor odmissions will obviously Inca higher maintenance costs. Working with local advocacy groups and fostering corporate sponsorship are options to help defray some of the costs Involved in malntolning and constructing a dog pork. Consult the Following sections for mare Information. FACTs ABOUT PEOPLE AND PETS A reou tsurvey by the American Animal Hospital Association shoos the extent of care and attention toward dogs. 79% give their dogs holiday or birthday presents 68% bring their dog when they travel 6E% sign letters or cords from themselves and their dogs 61 % believe caring for their dogs fulfills their need to parent 33% talk to their dogs o the phone or through on answering modtine while away F 3Q% of dogs sleep In their owner's beds 77% spend the night Indoors American Pet Products Monufocurers Association PARTNERSHIP WITH ADVOCACY GROUPS Almost every existing dog park started or, a result of local dog associations These associations have been the Impetus behind garnering public support, petitioning the city council and planning the speciftcs of a proposed dog park. Partnerships between advocacy groups and parks departments ore mutually beneficial. Advocacy groups perform the majority of planning and organization, while park departments offer legitimation of their muse, park land and a liability policy. in many cases, advocacy groups have helped to fund equipment for the dog park, as well as token responsibility In providing dog pork literature and planning related events. Advocacy groups also take a role In monitoring park activities Including dean up,and other maintenance projects. If your area does not have a dog association it Is easy to gather one. Almost all communities have unofficially designated dog areas who's users would be interested In establishing a legally sanctioned place to gother with their dogs. Done County Park Commission of Wisconsin, For example, conducted a telephone survey before starting, Its dog parks. The survey enabled the pork commission to gauge public interest and In so doing, collected names of those Interested in forming a focus group. Local Humane Society organizations are potential candidates for becoming Involved with the dog park, and can otherwise provide information regortiing citizens who may also be Interested.