Town Council to Review Dog Park Hurdles

It was a little more than a year ago that members of the Bedford Town Council gave their blessing to the Friends of Canine Corner to move forward with a plan to build a dog park off Nashua Road.

Since that time, however, legal and fiscal issues, mainly surrounding liability and staffing, respectively, have hindered the project's progress.

On Wednesday night, members of the Friends of Canine Corner will present town councilors with a 50-signature petition requesting support for the park to be constructed with privately raised funds.

Because the group isn't asking for money to be allocated from the town, the   move comes under the category of initiative petitions, under the Town Charter, which allows 50-plus people to present the Town Council with an issue to dissect and take action on.

According to Bedford Town Manager Jessie Levine, the petition raises two questions. The first is a request that the council authorize the construction of a dog park on the aforementioned site on Nashua Road using privately donated funds.

The second question asks the council to place the first question on the town ballot on March 12.

"Because there is no specific dollar amount appropriated, it could go on the ballot and not have to go through the budgetary process," said Levine. "The first step, under the charter, is for the Town Council to hold a public hearing to consider the questions themselves."

Fred Hurwitz, chairman of the Friends of Canine Corner, said the purpose of the petition, which he submitted, is to fulfill the request of councilors, who suggested his group bring the subject to Bedford voters via the ballot.

Hurwitz said he and others originally formed a subcommittee in response to a callout from the Bedford Town Council to explore the feasibility of a dog park and to find a location.

Since that time, the dynamics of the project have changed, he said.

"Somehow, over time, this has morphed, at least in the eyes of some, to a group of private citizens trying to form a dog park," he said. "This is a town initiative. We were just citizens supporting the town's request, and that eventually ended up with them asking us to take on increasing responsibilities including seeking donations, as opposed to having this funded through taxpayers. They asked us to set up a nonprofit, just to show we can make that level of progress, and we were going to raise funds and take as much burden off the town as possible."

That much they've done.

But when the town asked the group to take on liability, Hurwitz said everyone involved agreed that the request was more than they were willing to accept.

"Their point of view is that we would lease it and run it," he said. "Why are we being burdened to do that, when we originally volunteered to help the town find a spot for this dog park?

"We've continuously pointed out that this was a town request or initiative, that we didn't approach you, you approached us citizens," Hurwitz added. "How is this not a town park? When a town looks for a place for a park, what is it? It's a town park. I don't understand the point of confusion."

Levine said the public hearing allows the council time to discuss the various challenges surrounding the dog park and the potential tax impact, both present and future.

"We still need to determine what, exactly, the construction costs would be, and what 'donated construction' means, who manages it, whether that would be a DPW responsibility or whether that would fall on the dog park folks, whether construction would include a maintenance contingency going forward because the petition only talks about construction not about maintenance at all," she said. "The petition implies once it's built it would then be a town park and thus be subject to our normal regular maintenance."

Levine has estimated the annual cost for the town to run the dog park would be about $12,000, though she noted the money wouldn't be added to the municipal operating budget. Rather, she said, it would force the town to reappropriate existing staff time and resources, a reality that would likely further dilute the town's already thinning resources.

"If voters approve this, we'd basically be expanding our town parks, and I think the biggest concern from the council, and from me, is making sure the voters have all the information about future costs and future obligations," she said. "Right now, my recommendation is that this isn't a priority for us. When we talk about how our staff time is spent, we have a lot of other parks that need to be maintained. We're just bringing on the Bedford Village Common without adding staff, and its just one more thing and we're spreading ourselves too thin and I don't think this is something we should take on at this point."

"There's mixed opinions about the history of this, whether it was always intended to be a town park all along, or if it was always intended to be a private initiative," said Levine. "At this point its kind of an issue with liability because under state law towns and even nonprofits that offer a piece of land for public recreation … the state statue proves some immunity. It doesn't prevent someone from being sued, but at least it provides some level of governmental immunity. Now, that applies if its a town dog park, and it applies if its a private dog park. It gets really muddy when it's a private dog park operating on town property."

Levine said she completely understands the apprehension by the Friends of Canine Corner to accept liability under a potential lease, but noted that for the project to move forward, now or in the future, the town will first have to have the issue fully defined in writing.

"I think there's a real strong sentiment to show the council that this a real citizen-driven initiative, that the majority of voters in Bedford think this is a priority," said Levine, "and if that's true, I think we'd all be willing to get behind it."

Levine explained the council now has the option to approve the motion as written, deny it altogether or amend it.

"The council kind of has a bunch of choices … they can say, 'yes, we'll agree to build the dog park without even putting it on the ballot,' they can just say, 'yeah, we agree to accept the money and build a dog park,' or they could say, 'no, we're not going to do it, but we do agree to put it on the ballot and let voters decide whether they want it,' or they could say 'no' to both and say 'we're not going to do it and we're not going to take it to the voters,'" said Levine.

"If they just flat out say 'no,' the citizens have the option to do a referendum, which is a lengthier process in which they have to get roughly 700 signatures, based on a percentage of the voting population, and then there would actually, because of timing, be a special election sometime in the next 90-120 days," she continued, "so it's not necessarily the end of the line with the council."

Levine also noted councilors have the option to consider the merits of both questions and then create their own alternate question to have placed on the ballot, which may or may not reflect the Friends of Canine Corner's goal.

"We'd like to see people show up and express their points of view, certainly supporters," said Hurwitz, "People ask me why this is a good idea for Bedford, and the biggest thing I tell them is dog parks are for people. It's a community thing. I mean, you go to a playground and parents are talking. Likewise, a dog park presents the community with the opportunity to get together and converse and make friends."

Check back Thursday morning for a detailed report on Wednesday's public hearing.