City staff and RVi, Inc. consultants provided an update on the possible location of Garland’s proposed dog park. The consultants explained the importance of public input at the beginning of their presentation and said that there had been a great response to their survey from Garland residents.
It is estimated that there are 53,000 dogs living in Garland and there are more than 30 dog parks in the DFW Metroplex. Some purposes of dog parks include:
Provides an opportunity for dogs to play off-leash
Gives dogs opportunity to play with other dogs
Provides place for owners to play with their dogs
Provides area for pets to be trained
Serves as location for pet owners to socialize
The discussion first centered around building a six-acre dog park at Tuckerville Park at a cost of a little more than $2 million. The high cost is due to required construction of streets, access, parking lot, etc.
District 1 Council Member David Gibbons mentioned numerous surrounding cities whose dog parks are much smaller. He also questioned when Tuckerville Park had been chosen as the site, stating that not one citizen had indicated wanting it there on the Engage Garland website.
“I’m just perplexed that again, this council seems to be the last to find out what’s going on,” Gibbons said.
“I think this whole process has been improper from the get go and I’m very concerned that we are going down a path with Tuckerville that we shouldn’t. We have other options.”
He also explained that he is a dog owner but that he “cannot by any stretch of the imagination see spending $2 million on it.”
District 5 Council Member Rich Aubin asked how the above-mentioned survey was done and was told that city staff had done the survey online, sent it out, collected responses and shared those responses with consultants. Staff added that precautions were taken to be sure that only those who should have responded did respond.
Aubin said that he doesn’t understand why Central Park was overlooked as a potential location for the dog park because locating at Central Park, or another already-developed parks, would be less expensive.
District 7 Council Member Scott LeMay added that the Tuckerville site is not the choice of many of the council members.
“I don’t see this Tuckerville thing going anywhere,” he said.
He added that his opinion is that there should be more dog parks, smaller in acreage.
District 3 Council Member Jerry Nickerson said that the criteria given to staff was not correct in the beginning and that he would like to rethink it using a “redevelopment’ theme using assets the city already has.
District 8 Council Member Robert Smith added that Central Park was unanimously voted down as a location for the dog park a few years ago.
The plan is to rework the criteria for staff and the consultants and take another look at potential locations.