7/6/09

Regarding the Stevenson Ranch off-leash dog area.

Madam Mayor,

I need to express my reservations on the dog park plans on three specific grounds.

First, with the details of the cost and timeline of the project, I believe the city would be unwise to front all of the costs of developing private land, without any protection of that investment.  The proposed lease agreement between the owner and the city provides for termination by either party at any time.  In exchange, the city is agreeing to spend approximately $14,000 to $17,000  to develop the land from a sea of blackberry bushes to a walkable park.  While it may be permissible and even encouraged by the citizens of Washougal to develop a dog park, there is no guarantee that once developed, the lease would not be terminated and the land used by the owner for some private business purpose.  I am not trying to impugn the reputation or character of the owner, but rather am demonstrating that this situation does not protect the public’s money, and therefore its trust.  In short, the city would be assuming all the risk, and the private owner would potentially receive the benefits.

Second, while the money for this project was set aside three years ago during better economic times, the economy has changed.  This may indeed be the opportunity of a lifetime to develop a dog park and promote a better sense of community for Washougal.  However, last Monday, Director Bivens briefly mentioned that he is seeing a lot of money go out, and not a whole lot of money come into the city’s coffers.  It behooves us to listen to those responsible for the economic stability of our city.  Is this the time to extend our commitments further?  While our constituents are discussing which part of the family budget they are going to cut in order to stay solvent, we are discussing how to spend their tax dollars for a new commitment.  This seems out of phase with the economic reality of the people of Washougal.

I also would like to mention that the projected costs of continuing maintenance are $9000 per year.  This may not be a large sum to many people, but if we have already cut the budget of the parks department, then does that mean that we need to raise taxes next year to provide adequate maintenance?  I believe we should be cautious about extending ourselves at this time.

Third, we have a parks board that sets the stated goals and agendas of the development of our parks.  They have spent many hours developing that plan and I believe it would make sense for us to listen to their thoughtful concerns regarding this project.  The speed at which this was presented to the council leaves me no choice but to urge my fellow council members to refer the project to the parks board for their consideration.

Madam Mayor, I move that we refer this bill to the parks board for their consideration, requesting a report back from them.