Minutes_Park and Recreation Commission 7 24 12PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION WORK SESSION
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
5:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, Historic Federal Building
PRESENT: Bob Blocker, Chuck Harris, Paul Hoffmann, Ken Klinge, Karen Lyness, Evelyn
Nadeau and Dave Schlueter
OTHERS
PRESENT: Staff present: Marie Ware, Pat Prevenas and Eileen Trimble
Meeting began at 5:00 p.m.
INFORMATION Leisure Services Manager Ware said she checked with the Legal Department on
FROM LEISURE questions that had come up in previous meetings.
SERVICES
MANAGER: Fines: There is no specific fee or fine structure defined within the Park and
Recreation section of the Code of Ordinances. This means it becomes a
municipal infraction which would be a minimum $50.00 fine + court costs +
corrective action. The city goes by rates set by the state for municipal infractions:
1st offense is anywhere from $50.00 to $750.00; 2nd offense is up to $1,000.00
+ court costs and corrective action; and 3rd offense is contempt of court with
possible jail time. Pet waste not cleaned up by the owner falls under unlawful
deposit under the littering ordinance and that fine structure would be the same.
This is the fine structure unless commissioners wanted to define a specific fine
structure that would be for parks only. The Assistant City Attorney shared fines
are levied to gain compliance with rules.
Liability: Ms. Ware asked the city Legal Department if the city would be open to
liability if the ordinance was changed for pets to be allowed in parks and
someone was bitten or attacked by a dog. She was told that if there are usage
regulations in place, in other words if dogs are allowed in parks, the city would
not be at risk for any greater liability; the liability would fall on the pet owner.
Commissioners would not personally be open to liability because they fall under
the umbrella of the city and would not be liable unless they had willful, malicious
intent.
From department view: Iowa's other large cities have pets in parks and they get
calls with concerns. If we change the ordinance the department will get the calls
from people that didn't want the ordinance changed - they will expect workers to
go clean up dog waste right away and tickets to be issued. Other Park and
Recreation professionals would say they wished their city had it our way. Park
staff is concerned about opening up parks to pets because some parks are bad
now even though pets are not supposed to be there. If the ordinance is
changed, and pets are allowed in parks, department staff will not clean up pet
waste calls that come in; there is not the staff available for that duty.
• Compromise: If she was going to offer a compromise that hasn't been shared
she would suggest allowing pets on only trails first to see how it goes. We have
had people say they will police dog waste and help clean up other dog's waste.
This is typically shortlived. • Limit to certain areas of parks: does not think
allowing pets in only certain areas will work because people tend not to read
July 24, 2012 work session
page two
signs and it is more confusing. • Only certain parks: It has been said that a lot
of people visit certain parks so let's not allow pets in those parks. The problem
there is that those are the parks pet owners really want to go with their pets and
families. • Leash: If you recommend allowing pets, Ware would suggest a
maximum 6' leash, no retractables. • Getting hurt: Ware doesn't want to see
anyone get hurt but people visit parks every day. There is inherent risk in
participating in parks and recreation.
Ms. Ware said she observed people with pets on the River Walk - dogs running
free; people holding leash in hand while dog ran ahead; a pile of dog waste in
the middle of the River Walk, etc. as well as responsible pet owners. Ms. Ware
thinks you have to be all in or all out with limited exceptions. The more
exceptions you put on the rules, the harder it is for the public to follow and
understand and the harder to explain. Whatever is decided, education of the
public and consistent signage at all areas is important.
COMMISSIONER Commissioner Blocker said it looks like Dubuque is the odd man out in relation
COMMENTS: to other cities because their ordinances allow pets in parks and ours does not.
He feels pets should be allowed in every park except Arboretum/ Marshall Park
with a maximum 6' leash.
Commissioner Schlueter asked if there was anybody that wanted the ordinance
to stay as it is currently written, and Hoffmann and Klinge both said yes. In
regard to the suggestion about starting with trails only, he feels people already
have trails now because they are not really addressed in the current ordinance -
they are like a nondefined area.
Commissioner Harris thinks pets should be allowed in all parks except Eagle
Point, Arboretum /Marshall, Comiskey, Jackson, Murphy and Washington. He is
open to changing that but feels strongest about no pets in Eagle Point and
Marshall /Arboretum. Maybe we could add Eagle Point in the future after some
kind of trial period after we see how it goes.
Commissioner Lyness agrees with allowing pets in all parks except Arboretum/
Marshall Park but we should provide baggies and charge 25 cents per bag.
There will be a cost but we are going to pay for new signs regardless of what we
do. Pets should be on leashes with a maximum 6' length and we would need to
educate the public on fines.
Commissioner Blocker said Eagle Point is the most popular park so that is
where most people will want to go. He thinks pets should be allowed in all parks
except the Arboretum /Marshall.
Commissioner Nadeau said originally she had thought to exclude pets from
Eagle Point but now sees the value of consistency and thinks they should be
allowed in all except Arboretum /Marshall Park. She is wondering if we should
set some kind of age restriction for the person holding the pet's leash — she
wouldn't want to see a 7 year -old holding a lease, for example.
July 24, 2012 work session
page three
Commissioner Schlueter said why don't we take a consensus on the parks that
have been mentioned the most — Comiskey, Jackson, Eagle Point, Washington,
Arboretum /Marshall, Murphy, River Walk and Flora. The consensus seemed to
be to allow pets in all parks except the Arboretum/ Marshall Park and Eagle
Point.
FURTHER Commissioner Hoffmann said he was originally for some kind of compromise
DISCUSSION: but after the last meeting he changed his mind. He is hearing more and more
against allowing pets in parks. He was at a meeting the other day with 50
people and all 50 were against changing the ordinance to allow pets in parks.
Commissioner Harris said he has experienced the opposite — he was at a
meeting where over half the people were for changing the ordinance.
Mr. Hoffmann said he is not hearing any answers to the questions about who
cleans up after irresponsible pet owners. Who will enforce the new ordinance
and write tickets - the park patrol does not start until later in the day? Who is
liable if the pet owner has no insurance and their pet bites or attacks someone in
the parks? How do you collect fines if they have no money?
Mr. Harris said the city has general liability now if somebody goes into the park
and gets injured on a piece of play equipment. Are there lawsuits out there now
because of dog bites or dog - attacks in parks? How will be it any different than
walking up and down a city street where dogs are? Mr. Blocker said if other
cities don't like the ordinance, why haven't they rescinded it? Ms. Lyness said
Mr. Harris was right on the liability, there are hazards everywhere. Ms. Nadeau
said there are a lot of people that want the change. It would be wonderful if we
could respond with a trial of two years and say "let's try it and see how it goes,"
then revisit. Mr. Schlueter feels pets should be allowed in all parks, trails, etc.
except Eagle Point Park and the Arboretum /Marshall Park with a maximum 6'
leash, no retractable.
Ms. Nadeau said we should give some kind of criteria of why pets are allowed in
some parks and not in others. Mr. Harris said Eagle Point has some really large
events including wedding receptions that are planned 23 months in advance.
Mr. Schlueter said the Arboretum is taken care of totally by volunteers and they
put in a lot of hard work taking care of all the flowers and plants.
COMMISSIONER Mr. Schlueter proposes to change the current ordinance 10 -5B -4 as follows:
SCHLUETER A: Unleashed Animals Prohibited: No person shall be permitted to bring into any park,
PROPOSAL: any dog, cat or other domestic animal, nor shall any person permit such dog, cat or
other domestic animals to run at large in any park. Any unattended animal shall be
impounded and its owner may redeem the same upon paying the reasonable costs of
such impoundment. Change to: Unleashed animals are allowed in designated pet
parks.
B: Leashed Dogs and Cats Allowed in Certain Parks and Areas: Notwithstanding the
foregoing, leashed dogs and cats shall be permitted in the following: Granger Creek
Nature Trail, John G. Bergfeld Recreation Area, Medical Associates Greenbelt Park,
and Miller Riverview Park. Change to: Leashed pets shall be allowed in all parks
and on all trails and walkways except Eagle Point Park and the Arboretum/
DISCUSSION
SPECIAL GATED
AREAS AND /OR
AREAS WITHIN A
PARK
END WORK
SESSION:
July 24, 2012 work session
page four
Marshall Park, on a maximum 6' leash (no retractables). Owners are responsible
for their pets while in the parks, including behavior and unlawful deposits.
C: Unleashed Pets Allowed in Pet Park: Unleashed pets shall be permitted in
the pet park. Could be dropped since unleashed pets in pet park would be
covered in new A.
Nadeau thinks there is a value to a test period — it lets people know we are
listening. Hoffmann asked about enforcement and financial aspect to changing
ordinance. Lyness said there needs to be a time period to see how it goes.
Schlueter said there is currently no enforcement and there are pets in all these
parks now even though they are not supposed to be there. It will come down to
the City Council making the decision. He does not want to see citizens going up
to other citizens to try and enforce. Klinge said we need to recommend
something as a commission and the City Council will have to make the decision.
Blocker is open to a trial period.
Manager Ware said we need to think about areas like McAleece — a gated
facility; Flora Pool is a gated facility within a park. We have to call these types of
areas out and specify.
Ms. Nadeau asked if we could go back to her original proposal and include the
part which said pets should not be allowed in playground areas; areas where
food is consumed such as picnic tables unless the pet belongs to those
picnicking; areas where sporting activities take place, such as athletic fields,
skate areas; pools, disc golf courses and the like.
Ms. Ware said we will work on what the commission has said tonight and create
a draft, and she will take to other city departments and ask about their concerns
because this issue crosses over into other departments like Police and Health
and bring to the next commission meeting.
Work session concluded at 6:15 p.m.
Attest
Chairperson