East Ridge council tables vote to relocate dog park after residents protest; staff to research alternatives

The East Ridge City Council on March 13 tabled a resolution that would have officially named a new location for the city's dog park after a wave of public comment and a council debate over site suitability, cost and safety.

Dozens of residents, many who said they use the park daily, testified during the meeting's public-comment period that the current dog park is a valued community gathering space and urged the council not to relocate it. Council members and staff raised concerns about the dog park's small size, soil and grass wear, and potential conflicts with a nearby event venue; the council ultimately voted to table the resolution and ask staff to research alternatives and funding options.

Why it matters: The decision affects a widely used city amenity and an active local user group. Relocation would shift where residents socialize and where nearby businesses see foot traffic; it could also trigger capital costs for fencing, restrooms and parking and require securing grant funding.

Residents who spoke described the dog park as a neighborhood hub. "The park is wonderful. Both of our dogs greatly enjoy going, and we personally enjoy the dog park as well," said Lisa Thompson, who identified herself as a recent East Ridge resident and city planner. Several other speakers said the park helps them avoid pet-care costs and provides important social connections.

Council discussion centered on three options: (1) keeping the park at its current site, (2) moving it to Springvale Park (a larger, underused city-owned green space discussed repeatedly during the meeting), or (3) using Camp Jordan, which some council members and residents said already supports larger recreation uses but also draws weekend tournament traffic. Councilmember Witt, who made the motion to approve the resolution naming Springvale Park as the new dog-park site, argued the city could build a larger, multi-pod facility there that would allow sections to rest and regrow grass.

City Manager Miller and staff cautioned that site development would carry costs. Miller noted a currently available T-Mobile "Hometown" grant of about $50,000 that requires a parcel identification before application, but he also said the city faces other budget demands and is short roughly $550,000 on a separate community-center project bid. Miller told the council the city has historically used grants and donations to establish the existing dog park and that any larger relocation would likely need additional funding, site preparation, parking and restroom infrastructure.

Public-safety and maintenance concerns were raised on both sides. Several speakers described finding syringes and evidence of encampments near Springvale Park and said they would not feel safe if the dog park moved there. The police chief reported limited recent calls for service at the dog-park address itself and said officers conduct routine park-and-walk checks; staff clarified part of the land behind Springvale had been purchased privately and the new owner would be responsible for cleanup behind that parcel.

Councilmembers also discussed operational trade-offs: a smaller existing park (council statements estimated it at about a quarter-acre) can become overused and require repeated closures for reseeding; a larger site (staff said Springvale is roughly six acres) could be split into pods so sections can rotate out of service to recover grass. Some members favored keeping the park where it is to preserve the existing neighborhood community, while others supported relocating to create a larger, more durable facility.

On a pair of formal motions, Councilmember Witt moved to approve Resolution 3664 to locate the dog park at Springvale Park; Vice Mayor Tyler seconded. Before a final vote on that resolution, Councilmember Cagle moved to table the measure and Councilmember Ezell seconded. The motion to table passed on a roll-call vote (Tyler: yes; Cagle: yes; Ezell: yes; Witt: no; Mayor Williams: yes), so the council did not adopt Resolution 3664 that night.

Next steps: Council members asked staff to continue to look for feasible parcels and to evaluate costs, grant eligibility and site improvements. The city manager said staff will review available properties and report back; council members also suggested community cleanups and civic-club involvement if Springvale is considered. The council did not set a firm deadline for a final decision.

Votes at a glance: Resolution 3664 (naming a new location for the East Ridge Dog Park) -- motion by Councilmember Witt to locate the park at Springvale Park; second by Vice Mayor Tyler; council later voted to table the resolution (Yes 4, No 1); resolution not adopted.

The council did not finalize a relocation and will revisit the matter after staff research and additional consideration of funding and site options.