Recommendations and Guidelines for A Pittsfield Dog Park

Pittsfield Dog Park Study Committee, 2017

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

A Brief History ...................................................................................................................................3
Establishment of Dog Park Study Group ...........................................................................................4

RESEARCH AND FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 5

Current issues/problems

SITE SELECTION

Guidelines for Placement of New Dog Parks

Types of Land Considered

Preferred Alternatives

OPERATION & POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Guidelines for Design of New Dog Parks

Dog Park Rules & Regulations

Community Participation & Stewardship

Preliminary Cost Analysis

Potential Funding Sources

Green Dog Program

Background History

Public desire for an open space area for unleashed dog recreation was first heard in Pittsfield in the
1980s, at which time a small push to create such an amenity failed to gain momentum.

In the mid 2000s, growing interest in the concept of a dog park gained steam, in part due to complaints.
In August 2006, the Parks Commission considered a ban on dogs first at Burbank Park, then in all 29
park areas, due to excess amount of dog droppings. This discussion ultimately lead to the formation of
an ad hoc committee formed that fall under the auspices of the Parks Commission to select a site and
develop a plan. Chaired by Parks Commissioner Sheila LaBarbera, the committee reviewed several
sites before determining Springside Park or Kirvin Park to be the two top candidates, of which
Springside was the choice proposed, in Fall 2007. This proposal sought to locate a one half acre fenced
enclosure near the North Playground, at the site of the former Petting Zoo, in the center of Springside.

From its first suggestion, the plan was strongly opposed by then Parks Commissioner Charles
Garivaltis, as well as members of the Friends of Springside, the Hebert Arboretum, BEAT, and the
Miller family who donated the land at Springside to the city. After some debate, the Parks Commission
voted 3-1 to approve the site at its December 2007 meeting. Following a presentation to the City
Council in early 2008, the Commission reported the plan was ready to move ahead, and needed only
funds to purchase the needed fencing.

Apparent funding did not come until late 2013, when an offer of potential grant funding from the
Stanton Foundation opened up to Pittsfield. Referring back to the 2007 plan, the city made
preparations to proceed with acceptance of grant funds to pursue a dog park at Springside. This new
proposal, however, called for an even more elaborate construction than previously imagined. It was
again opposed, this time directly to the City Council who agreed the process should be reexamined
before accepting a grant of funds for the site.

Continued sporadic discussions continued in pursuit of a more amenable site throughout early 2014 but
fell short of solidly identifying a parcel.

In April 2016, the pursuit of a dog park was re-instigated by the Animal Control Commission,
following a spike in animal complaints in parks. Announcement of a new search committee to study
the issue generated several volunteers for a study group, formally convened by Mayor Tyer in Fall
2016.
Establishment of Dog Park Study Group

The new study convened in late 2017 was comprised of members of the Animal Control Commission
and Parks Commission and a variety of other qualified Pittsfield residents with canine and other
relevant expertise. Staff support for the study group was provided by Jim McGrath, Parks & Open
Spaces & Natural Resources Manager for the City of Pittsfield.

Members

Beth Barbarotta
Scott Clark
Renee Dodds
Leigha Durfee
Joe Durwin
Earl Persip

In a formative memorandum dated October 25, 2017, the study group was tasked by Mayor to develop
a final report that summarizes its findings all of the following areas:

Survey possible locations,

Summarize must have and wish list amenities,

Consider how other communities have developed dog parks,

Create a set of rules and regulations that will guide a Pittsfield dog park

propose a maintenance plan, develop a cost analysis

Provide any other observations and recommendations

Current Issues/ Problems

-Many unlicensed, unvaccinated dogs in Pittsfield

Creation of the new park offers an additional opportunity for increased public outreach and publicity
designed to draw attention to the importance and benefits of licensing, including the ability to use the
dog park and attend other dog-friendly public events.

-Animal Control capacity, enforcement obstacles

Recommendation: refer to Animal Control Commission for more comprehensive analysis on which to
base recommendations to Mayor, Chief of Police.

-More policy signage needed in parks

Recommendation: refer to Parks Commission for further discussion
-Lack of information about animal control
Recommendation: create page on city website for Animal Control Commission

Dog Waste
Recommendation: Engage the Department of Health on the need for more education/outreach efforts,
and Animal Control for more strict enforcement.

Guidelines for Placement of New Dog Parks

Size: The size of dog parks will be dependent upon the particular park in which it is proposed, other
park activities, facilities, proximity to residences, etc. Larger is better (at least acre), but if a
smaller dog park area is all that can be accommodated in a particular park, and if there is
community support, then a smaller size will be considered.

Buffer from Residential: It is crucial to provide a buffer between nearby residences and the dog
park. The buffer should allow for neighbors to have no more disturbances from a dog park than other
typical park uses. Buffers may include vegetation and/or berms to aid in noise/visual attenuation.

Non-residential Adjacent Land Use: Depending on the type of business or institution, a dog park
may be considered either a beneficial amenity or an undesirable facility.

Drinking Fountain: A source of drinking water is highly desirable within or adjacent to the dog park
area.

Parking: Sufficient parking, convenient to the site, should be provided such that the dog park does not
create undue burden on surrounding neighborhoods.

Land Suitability: The site should be relatively flat and have permeable soils. If a desirable site has
excessive slopes, it should be designed such that erosion does not become an issue, water bodies are
protected, and visibility to all dogs is possible within the fenced in area.

Shade: Shade is highly desirable. The site should provide a good mix of mature trees and open
space/turf grass.

Use Conflict Avoidance: It is important to provide a sufficient buffer between the dog park area and
other recreational facilities such as playgrounds, trails, ball fields, picnic shelters, game courts, or any
existing heavily used or programmed area.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 9

Protect Natural Areas: Dog park areas should not be located in or in close proximity to natural areas
where flora and fauna, such as ground nesting birds, small mammals, and native plants, would be
disturbed.

Geographic Distribution: In the event of multiple dog park areas, these should be distributed in the
City such that there is equitable distribution to dog parks in the City.
Site Categories

Park Property
Pittsfield's existing park system is comprised of 29 parks, playgrounds and open spaces of varying size.
Of these, only 9 are of a size ten acres or greater that might theoretically allow space for a new dog
park facility.
In a majority of these, existing athletic infrastructure and programming accounts for significant
utilization of the park's space. In most cases, the creation of additional facilities of this kind was seen
as potentially creating conflict between user groups as well as potential traffic and parking issues. Two
exceptions, Coolidge Park, and Burbank Park, were seen as possessing areas of land that would be
viable for construction of a dog park.

Conservation Property
The City possesses 5 conservation properties totaling nearly 400 acres of mostly undeveloped land.
Use of these properties is governed by Article 97 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and regulated locally by the city's Conservation Commission. Following a brief
discussion, this category of properties was ruled out for consideration due to the nature of this land and
regulatory restrictions placed on it.

Other City Property

The site selection also encompassed a variety of municipal and quasi-public properties which did not
fall into the category of park, conservation, or school ground.

-William Stanley Business Park

-Valentine Road & Lakeway Drive [Property ID #F110008022]

- Barker Road & Tamarack Road [Property ID #D020002005]

-Berkshire County Softball Complex

-Other Airport-adjacent property

Available Private Property

A perusal was made of current local real estate listings for land that could potentially be purchased or
otherwise acquired by the city for the purpose, if necessary, at a price not too insurmountable for the
overall project cost. Of the properties examined, very few sites available met the proposed criteria for
a dog park, and those which did were listed at costs which would dramatically increase the total cost of
a dog park project.
Sites Examined

Article 97 Neighbors? Water line 2 acres? Env Sensitivity

Parks
Springside Park N Varies Varies Y Y
Kirvin Park UNK Y Y Y N
Softball Complex N N Y Y Y (see notes)
Burbank Park (water tower site) N Just 1 Y Y N
Coolidge Park N Y Y Y N

Conservation
Wild Acres Y N Y Y Y
Bratlebrook Y Varies Varies Y Y

Other City
Corner Barker and Tamarack N Y Y Y N
Valentine Rd / Lakeway Dr N Y Y N

Other
PEDA site in general N N Y Y N
Airport land in general N N Y Y ?
Preferred Alternative #1: Burbank Park
This park parcel, by the water tower adjacent to the main access road entrance to Burbank Park, was
deemed the most desirable site of those examined. Of all sites examined, it best meets all of the
selection criteria and presents the least complications and additional site expenses. This site's high
visibility and accessible location was deemed advantageous, and is complimentary to the overall use of
Burbank Park without overcrowding existing utilization of that park. Generally, it was noted that this
site is proximate to existing city water infrastructure, is large enough to accommodate both a large and
a small dog area, is not prone to disrupt sensitive environmental sites, is city-controlled, and sits in an
accessible location easily accessible from the city center. It offers shade but requires some degree of
clearing, is adjacent to existing walking trails and proximate to Onota Lake. The parks natural setting
is also a positive attribute.
Preferred Alternative #2: Coolidge Park
Coolidge Park ranked high as a potential site due to a large amount of available, under-utilized park
space and neighborhood walk-ability. Occasionally wet/muddy ground conditions, and slightly obscure
access via Taubert Avenue were seen as challenges. Additionally, depending on where within the park
such an amenity was sited, achieving shade and access to a city water line may be a problem. The park
also sits adjacent to a neighborhood and the Conte Community School, both of which could be an asset
or a liability. The sites central location is seen as advantageous.
Preferred Alternative # 3 - Valentine Road
A parcel of city owned land adjacent to Burbank Park on the east side of Valentine Road also shared
some of the advantages as the water tower-adjacent site, but involved more challenging terrain and
potential clearing needed that would likely incur a somewhat more substantial cost than other sites. Of
all the sites considered, this site provides the best availability for parking as it would utilize the gravel
lot the site on the north east side of the Valentine Road / Lakeway Drive intersection. The site sites
proximate to several residential properties, and adjacent to a busy stretch of Valentine Road. It also sits
adjacent to a small pond, and environmental permitting could be a challenge.
Preferred Alternative #4 - Softball Complex site on East St.
Unused land at the Pittsfield Softball complex had potential for development of a dog park that was
seen as not being in conflict with the use of the complex. The site is desirable primarily due to the fact
that no residential neighbors abut the site. Though, aesthetic appearance of the site, potential DEP
regulations to be considered (the site is a capped landfill) and the need to alter the existing lease
agreement, which expires Dec 31, 2017, were seen as disadvantages. The approach driveway to the
site occasionally floods.
Guidelines for Design of New Dog Parks

Fencing Height and Type: A minimum of a 4 foot high chain link fence, either galvanized or vinyl
coated, be installed around the perimeter of the site.

Perimeter Plantings/Buffers: If the budget and site permit, and if it is necessary to buffer the dog run
area, vegetation should be planted on the outside of the fence to aid in the aesthetic quality of the
site and to assist in mitigating noise associated with the dog park.

Entrance Design: An entry corral, consisting of at least an 8 foot x 8 foot fenced area with two gates,
should be provided to allow for pet owners to safely unleash their dog prior to letting them in the dog
run area.

Visual Character and Aesthetics: Dog parks should be located so as not to detract from the aesthetic
quality of a park or open space. Ideally, the dog park should be designed to integrate well into the
existing site.

Surfacing: A variety of surfaces may be used within a site. Crushed fines at the entry are
recommended as this area has a concentration of use. In smaller dog run areas, a larger crushed fines
area is recommended as the concentration of dogs may not allow grass to grow. All surfaces should
be easy to maintain. If possible, lawn areas should be rested periodically to allow the turf to recover.

Separate Areas for Large and Small Dogs: When space permits, separate small dog areas should be
provided for dogs up to 25 pounds.

Signage: Rules shall be clearly posted, including codes of behavior, hours, and requirements for entry.

ADA Accessibility: Barrier free access to the site shall be provided, as well as an area through the
corral and at the entry. Barrier free paths through the dog run area should be provided if space and
funding permit.

Trash Containers: Trash containers and waste removal bag holders shall be provided in the dog run
area, making sure that they are located with easy access for maintenance vehicles.

Site Furniture: Ideally, several benches should be provided in convenient locations to allow for
gathering and resting throughout the dog park area.

Pathways: Walking trails around the perimeter would encourage owners to interact with and monitor
their dogs more closely, as well as to provide additional ease of access to the entire site, and should
be provided if there is sufficient space and funding.

Shade: Trees and/or small shade structures should be provided if the site has insufficient shade to
allow humans and dogs to retreat from the sun.
Recommendations and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance
Page 10

Water: Drinking fountains should be provided if water is readily available and should include a dog
drinker/bowl.
 Lighting: As the park areas are open from dawn to dusk, lighting need not be provided as an
additional amenity.

Agility Equipment: Amenities such as agility equipment may be included if a user group desires
them.

Ease of Maintenance: Service gates and trash barrels should be located such that maintenance
vehicles may easily enter from an existing park road, parking lot, or street frontage.

Bulletin Board: A community kiosk and bulletin board should be provided to provide a place to post
notifications for meetings, work days, and events.

Donation Box: A sturdy, secure box for members of the public to make donations to support the
upkeep of the dog park.

Event Space: An ideal amenity to include in the design of a dog park would be an event space in the
form of a gazebo or pavilion structure. Such an event space could either be part of the initial
construction or allowed for in design as a later addition.
Recommended Rules & Regulations

1. All dogs must be legally licensed and have a current rabies vaccination.
2. All dogs must be leashed upon entering and leaving the off-leash dog areas.
3. Dogs in heat or younger than 4 months are not allowed in the park.
4. Dogs must be removed at first sign of aggression to other dogs or humans.
5. The owner or custodian of the dog must remain in the dog area with the dog.
6. Dog feces must be cleaned up by the dog owner or custodian.
7. Holes dug by dogs must be filled by the dog owner or custodian.
8. No pronged training collars of choke chains allowed.
9. No glass containers or food of any kind are permitted in the park.
10. Dog handlers must be at least 16 years of age or older.
11. The dog park is closed when Parks Department Personnel are conducting maintenance. The park
must be vacated during park maintenance.
12. The park is open from dawn to dusk.
13. Violators are subject to removal and/or exclusion from the dog park.
14. Owners or custodians are responsible for all actions of their dogs.
This park is made available in accordance with laws governing recreational use (M.G.L. Chapter 21
Section 17c.

The City of Pittsfield does not assume responsibility for injuries or damage to personal property.

These guidelines have been reviewed by and are in accordance with the City of Pittsfield's insurance
policy coverage with MIIA (Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association.) It should be noted that
the Dog Park Study Committee deliberated at length about a dog park visitor age restriction, which was
originally established that no one under age 10 shall enter. The Committee reached out to MIIA and
this was their response: The age restriction for children under the age of 10 was just a suggestion, not
a MIIA requirement. Liability would not be increased as there is no difference in whether or not a child
or an adult gets bit by a dog. The age of 10 was suggested as younger children tend to run around and
be loud which could get dogs excited. I would recommend changing the language to read that children
under 10 must be accompanied by a responsible adult. The language at the bottom of my
recommendation (rules document) states that the park is made available in accordance with laws
governing recreational use (MGL cited) and that the city does not assume responsibility for injuries or
damage to personal property. So, in a nutshell, I'm okay with allowing children under 10.

The Committee is recommending that more focused discussion on appropriate visitor age be
undertaken. The Committee is keenly aware that dogs can be unpredictable around children, especially
in a setting where multiples of dogs could be gathered at one time. Additional consideration of
appropriate age restriction is necessary to ensure the safety of all who may choose to utilize a city dog
park. It is recommended that input from the Animal Control Commission, Animal Control Officers,
and Parks Commission be sought on this matter.
Community Participation & Stewardship

In establishing any new dog park facility, the study committee strongly recommends that the city look
to foster, and then collaborate closely with, a Friends of volunteer group comprised of individuals
committed to its success. Virtually all successful dog parks have some form of active volunteer group
associated with them; so much so that formation of such a group is even a stipulation of Stanton
Foundation funding for dog parks.

Such groups are essential in helping maintain the condition of dog parks, fundraising and planning
events and programs as applicable.

The study committee recommends that efforts to foster such a Friends of group be referred to the
Animal Control Commission for further planning.

Preliminary Cost Analysis

Costs of dog park projects comparable to that recommended here tend to vary, depending on site
chosen and desired amenities. Generally, however, recent dog park projects of similar size and scope
undertaken in other Massachusetts communities in recent years, have ranged between $100,000 to
$250,000 in cost.

Potential Funding Sources

Stanton Foundation
As part of its mission of encouraging positive dog/human relationships, the Stanton Foundation
supports the development of enclosed dog parks in Massachusetts cities and towns. This support takes
the form of a series of grants to support park design, park construction, and capital improvements in
parks supported by the Foundation. Design grants typically range from $10,000 to $25,000 and are
intended to cover up to 100% of the costs of taking a dog park from initial concept to bid-ready
construction documents. Construction grants will fund 90% of the parks hard construction costs and
are capped at $225,000. Capital improvement grants fund the purchase of new equipment and
landscape or repair and replacement of items that were included in the original construction grant. A
community is eligible for capital improvement grants at 12, 18, and 24 months after the park opens.
Each grant is equal to 5% of the hard construction costs and requires an application from the
community. They may not be used for routine maintenance. Grant applications are accepted on a
rolling basis.

Capital Budget: The Citys capital improvement program (CIP) provides a blueprint for planning
Pittsfields capital expenditures and is one of the most important responsibilities of local
government officials. It coordinates community planning, financial capacity, and physical
development. A CIP is composed of two parts a capital program and a capital budget. The
capital program is a community planning and fiscal management tool that spans five to ten
years. The capital program identifies capital items, which are typically defined as tangible assets
or projects that cost more than a certain threshold (e.g., $25,000) and that have a minimal useful life
span (such as five years), provides a planning schedule, and offers financing options. The capital
budget is the upcoming year's spending plan for capital items that is presented to the legislative body
for approval. The development of a municipal dog park has been included in the Citys CIP and seeks
funding support in FY 18.

Community Preservation Act:

The Community Preservation Act (CPA) is a smart growth tool that helps communities preserve open
space and historic sites, create affordable housing, and develop outdoor recreational facilities. The CPA
works by adding a 1 percent surcharge on property after the first $100,000 of assessed value. Low-
income residents, senior citizens and veterans who own homes would be immune from the surcharge
under the Pittsfield CPA ordinance. Pittsfield adopted the CPA in 2016 and takes effect beginning July
1, 2017.

PARC Grant
The Parkland Acquisitions and Renovations for Communities (PARC, formerly the Urban Self-Help
Program) was established in 1977 to assist cities and towns in acquiring and developing land for park
and outdoor recreation purposes. Any town with a population of 35,000 or more year-round residents,
or any city regardless of size, that has an authorized park /recreation commission is eligible to
participate in the program. Only projects that are to be developed for suitable outdoor recreation
purposes, whether active or passive in nature, shall be considered for funding. Grants are available for
the acquisition of land and the construction, or renovation of park and outdoor recreation facilities.
Access by the general public is required. Grants are typically submitted in July of each year. Pittsfield
is eligible for up to $400,000 in grant funding, and a local share is required. The community must also
have on file an approved OSRP.

Supplemental Recommendation: Green Dog Park Program

In addition to the creation of a new dedicated off-leash facility for dogs, the study committee also
recommends that the city explore the possibility of implementing a complimentary program based on
the Green Dog Program. This program, which operates in addition to two dedicated traditional dog
parks in Brookline, which allows canines to go off-leash within a variety of other parks within carefully
defined time periods.

Based on information given to the study committee by Brookline staff, this non-fenced off-leash park
activity encounters less issues than the two fenced dog parks. Staff indicated that program is shaped
as a privilege and sustained by a base of committed volunteers.

The Green Dog Program is an optional recreation program and requires a fee to participate. All dogs
must be wearing a current green dog tag to take advantage of off-leash privileges. Green Dog Program
fees ($50) cover the calendar year, expiring at the end of each December. Staff indicated that in
addition to local registrees, the program has over 1500 non-Brookline registrants, at a cost of $100
each.

The study committee recommends that the Mayor consider this concept and refer it to dually to the
Parks Commission and Animal Control Commission for further discussion into the possibility of
adapting some version of this program for Pittsfield's park system.