Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses dog park proposal, signage and enforcement after persistent off-leash use at city park
Summary
Councilmembers and staff considered creating a fenced dog park on city-owned land, updating signage and enforcing rules after repeated off-leash problems at a public park; staff will obtain cost estimates and research ordinances.
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Pleasant councilmembers and staff discussed options for addressing dogs at the city park during the March 25 work session, including erecting a fenced dog park on city land, adding signage and enforcing existing rules.
A presenter (Speaker 8) told the work session the park currently has a no-dog rule that is widely ignored and proposed evaluating a half-acre parcel above the hydro—near Second North and Fourth West—for a fenced dog park. The presenter said staff would gather pricing for fencing and construction and recommended considering dispensers for dog-waste bags and signage while the council considers longer-term options.
Several participants recommended standard dog-park design features, including separate enclosures for small and large dogs (the group discussed a roughly 0–30 pound small-dog area and a larger-dog area) and a double-entry “greeting” area to reduce aggressive encounters. One councilmember said a dog park could reduce liability risk by keeping dogs away from areas where children play.
Staff (Speaker 1) reported they could not find an ordinance that prohibits dogs in the city park and noted there is an existing ordinance that prohibits dogs in the cemetery. The working group discussed whether to buy bag dispensers at an existing park (which might signal permissiveness) or install dispensers only at a new dog-park site if council decides to proceed. Participants also suggested a resident poll on the city website to gauge demand.
No formal ordinance change, funding appropriation or vote was recorded in the transcript. Staff said they would return with cost estimates and a draft plan for council consideration.
