NOTES:� DOG PARK INFORM MEETING

Mt. Kemble Lake

March 6, 2010

PURPOSE:�

� To inform residents about a possible plan to construct a dog park at the lake

� To gain community input concerning the proposal

� To determine whether there are other issues related to the dog park that must be investigated

ATTENDANCE:�

� Approximately 30 people attended the meeting, including seven Association Board members

� The meeting, held at the chub house, lasted approximately 1 � hours

GROUPED UNER THE FOLLOWING MAJOR HEADINGS ARE THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

� Letter from the Harding Township Health Department to Austin Godfrey was read.� It cited provisions of State law and regulations that should be met by the dog park

� Concern about runoff that could impact the lake

INVESTMENT

� Estimates for building the dog park ($3500 if a contractor performs the work) were presented along with the estimate of the on-going annual cost ($300 to $500)

� Supporters indicated that they felt this was a reasonable amount to spend

� Opponents argued that there are other priorities in the community and that the dog park had not been identified as an item when the last community survey was taken three years ago.� It was pointed out that this project was not a part of the long-range planning but that the future use of that land is a possibility for community use.

LIABILITY

� There were a number of concerns about the safety of people, especially children, with the park because of the potential for dog fights

� The estimated increase in cost of insurance was cited as approximately $300

� It was noted that the Association carries a $15 million umbrella policy

PROPERTY VALUES

� It was argued that having this facility would pull down property values

� This was countered by another view that studies have shown that there is a slight increase in property value with a park

BOARD AUTHORITY

� Some attendees questioned the authority of the Association Board to move on this proposal without a survey of the entire community or a vote of the entire community to achieve a two-thirds majority for approval

� The by-laws were cited that indicate that the Board has authority to make expenditures of up to $10,000 without community approval

GUESTS

� Concern was expressed about the provision is a set of draft rules for the dog park that guests would be allowed to have their dogs use the facility.� This is especially true for children whose friends might come with their dogs

RULES ENFORCEMENT

� It was argued that rules should not be put into place that are not enforceable by the community

� This was countered by the reality that Association rules and regulations are essentially self-enforced or are enforced by residents telling offenders to change their behavior

EXPERT ASSISTANCE

� If the park is built, the Board should consider engaging expert help to advise on its construction and operation (St. Hubert�s was mentioned in this connection)

RELOCATION

� It was suggested that the old ballfield be graded and used for the dog park rather than the lot adjacent to the parking lot at the club house

CONCLUSION

� While there were more negative comments than positive ones made in the course of the meeting, there was no clear indication that the majority of those attending were opposed.� Attending dog owners were generally in support though some would prefer a different location, such as the ballfield.

� Those in support of the proposal cited the park�s value to dog owners and the social aspects of owners meeting with others to exercise their dogs.

� The meeting closed with a review of the above categories.� No additional comments were made.� Attendees were invited to get in touch with Board members should there be additional comments that they want to have filed.