SUNDRE – A proposed temporary dog park recently considered by council that would provide residents with pooches an opportunity to take their pets on an off-leash stroll was no walk in the park.
Council discussed the matter on June 26 for the better part of an hour during the last regular meeting before the summer hiatus.
“Many properties in town have been considered for this,” Betty Ann Fountain, senior development officer, told council.
“But unfortunately, part of that problem is we don’t own those lands,” Fountain said, adding the lands are either privately- or Crown-owned.
A temporary location administration was able to identify is a privately-owned parcel immediately adjacent and to the west of the town office, she said.
“That land is the TC Energy pipeline,” she said, adding the company did not “really offer any objections to us locating a temporary dog park there. But it was suggested that there be no disturbance to the land.”
That means whatever kind of fencing might be proposed must not involve putting posts in the ground, she elaborated.
Linda Nelson, chief administrative officer, told council a permanent location had been considered in the southwest industrial park but added that option is entirely dependent on a development timeline that does not yet exist.
“So it’s very, very difficult to assign a year to this project,” said Nelson.
Fountain also cautioned council that the estimated cost of the proposed temporary dog park on the TC Energy right-of-way accounts only for the fencing.
“We would (still) have to provide garbage cans and bags, we may even have to provide some sort of water trough – dogs like to drink water, especially on a hot day,” she said, adding parking would be accommodated in the lot immediately east of the town office where staff park.
Additionally, the dog park would need an equipment gate to grant maintenance vehicles access to for example cut the grass, which community services already mows a couple times a summer, she said.
However, that would still leave the question of what to do during the winter when the land is buried in snow, she added.
“Can we go in there and plow that? We’re not allowed to put gravel down; it has to remain naturally as it is grassed,” she said.
Additionally, the land is featureless without any trees for shade, she said.
“You can have a highly expensive type of dog park with all the toys and whistles and dog playground type equipment,” she said. “Or you can have just bare bones, which is grass and fence with a gate.”
Administration urged council to consider these factors and presented two possible motions: one directing municipal staff to proceed with the project at a cost not to exceed $30,000 with funds allocated from a restricted surplus account, or to have administration bring back the project to the upcoming fall workshop for a decision.
Coun. Todd Dalke moved the former.
“We’ve been needing this for a very long time,” said Dalke, recollecting a personal recent near-call while out walking a dog for a friend in Sundre’s northeast subdivision between 9th and 10th Avenues along the overflow rain basin.
A nearby resident and dog owner had thrown a ball that nearly ended up causing a conflict, he said.
“It could have been a wreck, because my dog really wanted his ball something fierce,” he said.
The councillor went on to say that his neighbour plans to move away from Sundre as they don’t have access to a dog park.
“We’re losing good residents because we haven’t supported these people,” he said.
Speaking in favour of the motion, Coun. Jaime Marr said the possibility of turning to the community to help raise funds has been suggested.
“Is there a possibility that we could engage the community; dog owners specifically?” she said.
“I know this is a trial project, it’s temporary space. But should it be successful, I think there are community members – dog owners – that would be interested in putting funds towards a top-of-the-line dog park, not just bare bones.”
As a dog owner herself, Marr mentioned some of the municipality’s planning documents have included a dog park for the better part of a decade.
“I would really like to see an off-leash dog park in our community,” she said.
Coun. Owen Petersen also spoke in favour but expressed a concern that the project could turn out like the outdoor rink.
“We went halfway with an outdoor rink and it was very difficult to maintain,” Petersen said, adding it was underused by the community.
He also wanted to emphasize that the dog park is a temporary situation and added, “Optics wise, this isn’t what the town dreams of for a dog park.”
But he favoured having something in place in the interim, and also said he hoped the fencing could still be used afterward.
“If we put $30,000 into this fence and then in five years build a really good proper dog park, that this fence isn’t just going to be thrown away,” he said.
However, Coun. Connie Anderson was adamantly opposed.
“We wouldn’t give $30,000 to a lot of other things,” said Anderson. “But we would give it to a dog park which is temporary? And it’s going to be damn temporary because this fence can’t be put in the ground, so it’s got to have legs sticking out. There’s going to be dogs hurt and we’re going to be in a lot of crap over this.
“It’s not my idea of where I want to see $30,000 spent,” he said. “I totally disagree.”
Taking a moment to compile his thoughts, Coun. Chris Vardas said he is also a dog owner.
“And I love my little dog,” said Vardas, adding regardless of whether it’s in an off-leash dog park or somewhere along local trails, the potential for altercations among dogs exists.
“Dogs are going to fight; that’s what they do – throw a ball, they’re going to go after it type of thing,” he said. “It’s not that I’m totally against this – I’m not. But I’m against the way we’re doing it.”
Vardas was also opposed to putting a temporary park on land that does not belong to the municipality.
“Would I like to see one in our community at some point? 100 per cent,” he said.
But rather than “spending a temporary $30,000 here and another temporary $30,000 there” Vardas said he wants a decision on a proper plan on land that is either town-owned or could be acquired.
“I just like to see us spend money on a dog park that’s properly done,” he said, suggesting there should not be a rush as residents have access to river and nature trails.
“If I’m going to walk my dog, I’m going to walk my dog along the river or wherever I got to go,” he said. “But if we’re going to put money into something like this, let’s make it permanent; let’s make it a nice place and not do a half job.”
Marr reminded her colleague a dog park was included in future plans a decade ago.
“We don’t have the time, we’re losing community members,” she said. “(And) who is going to support town council purchasing a piece of land for animals to frolic and play? I would be very interested to see how the community supports that. However, as a trial I think that this would be great.”
Vardas countered, “Everyone keeps telling me we’re losing community (members). How many people are we losing out of our community for a dog? (Or) are we losing people out of our community because there’s no places to buy, no rentals…I’ve never heard that other than when we’re sitting here talking.”
Offering his two cents, mayor Richard Warnock said he’s never favoured spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy land for a permanent dog park because of the steep cost.
“And we live in a community where you can walk your dog in a lot of places,” Warnock added.
While he supported allocating $30,000 toward the project, the mayor developed doubts about the proposed location.
“My concern is the property we’re putting it on,” he said, adding the cost only covers the fence and could foreseeably balloon.
“When I came to this meeting tonight, I was in favour of this project,” he said. “And now, I’m sitting here going, ‘This is maybe not the right time or the right place to do this.’”
The matter of possibly looking at the four-season east side campground and passive use recreational area was also brought up, but administration informed council that idea was taken off the books after prior public consultations.
“The people who participated in that consultation did not feel that a dog park should be in that area, so it was removed,” said Nelson.
Vardas asked about approaching a developer who might be willing to provide some land for a temporary trial dog park.
“It’s better to put it in a situation like that, than putting it on a piece of property that could be liable for us in many different ways,” he said referring to the pipeline right-of-way, adding the dog park isn’t the only project that’s been on the back burner for years.
“This is something that we need to move on now,” Dalke said, adding the town has the means to mow the grass and clear snow.
“We drive to Olds right now when it’s -30 to take my dogs to the park,” he said. “All of you are so shortsighted it ticks me off. We will pay $180,000 for a boardwalk, we will put lights up, have them destroyed, repair those same lights with another $70,000. But we won’t put $30,000 to do a trial program? That really ticks me off that we’re going to say look at another location when we don’t have any.”
The mayor eventually called a vote on Dalke’s motion, which was defeated with only Marr voting in favour. Coun. Paul Isaac was not present on an excused absence.
Vardas then motioned to allocate the funding as stated and to direct administration to bring back information as a result of the June 27 east side lands open house as well as further conversations with developers, and to bring back a report to council for a special meeting to make a decision.
“We need to do it right. Whether 30,000 or 300,000, we need to make good decisions,” said Warnock. “I would like to see this looked at in the very near future so that we can do something this summer.”
The motion carried with Dalke opposed.
