Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Access Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge fob-only access for Vickers dog park; city cites legal, staffing and funding barriers
Summary
Speakers asked the CRA to expand and secure the dog park with fob access and an annual registration tied to vaccination records. City staff and committee members said CRA TIF funds cannot pay maintenance, the city commission has declined fobing public parks, and implementing fobs would require new staffing and produce public records burdens.
Several residents and a neighborhood association representative asked the steering committee to consider expanding and securing the Vickers dog park, proposing fob-only access tied to vaccination records and an annual registration fee to fund maintenance.
Pat DeBose, speaking for the Old City South Neighborhood Association and Lincolnville residents, urged the committee to “give some sincere consideration for expanding the dog park, potentially making it a fob only for residents, expanding the footprint… and having an annual registration fee through the fob-only process tied to vaccination records.” DeBose said locked kayak storage and reconfigured parking could make room for shaded seating and a separate enclosure for small and large dogs.
Committee and staff responses framed the request as a city-level policy issue with legal and practical constraints. Jamie D. Perkins (City of St. Augustine) explained that CRAs are capital-investment entities and TIF funds are generally not available for ongoing maintenance. “CRAs are there to build infrastructure, not to do maintenance. We're prohibited from using TIF funds for maintenance,” Perkins said.
Staff said a fob program would likely require a new city position to manage registrations and access, create associated liability and record-keeping burdens, and that the city commission had declined such a path when the issue was previously raised. “It would require a new position,” Perkins said. Staff also noted that limiting access to a public park raises legal questions because public parks are generally open to the public.
Perkins recommended residents with continued interest contact the city commission, which would need to consider staffing, funding and legal changes. The committee did not adopt any new policy; the current position remains that the dog park is public and “at your risk,” similar to other city dog parks.
