The Platte City Board of Aldermen’s recent special meeting prompted disagreement over why the dog park warranted further discussion as construction nears completion.
City Administrator Bryan Richison said he expects Riverview Park’s newest addition to open by the end of the month, barring unforeseen delays. It will feature two separate enclosed areas, one for large dogs and another for smaller dogs.
“We’ve had the county funding for over two years and we’ve been talking about creating a dog park for 10 years, so I’m not sure why we’re here to discuss this tonight,” said Mayor Amber Brune.
Questions over size and planning
Ward 1 Alderman Dan Laxson said what was being constructed was not what the board had agreed to initially.
“The grant was for a one-acre park, not six acres,” he said. “They didn’t follow directions. Where is the site plan? If this would have gone to the parks and recreation committee, it would have been discussed. Where are the restrooms? Where did the disconnect come from?”
Richison said he was unaware of discussions before he was hired, but his understanding was that the current park master plan allocated $30,000 solely for the initial design to convert the entire area once occupied by six softball fields into a dog park.
“Our guys stepped forward and felt like they could reuse the existing fencing to build the dog park now, not at some point in the future after the design was done and more money was budgeted for construction,” Richison said. “I commend them for stepping up and showing the initiative.”
Laxson said he didn’t disagree and thought the staff had done a good job. However, he said the grant was for a one-acre dog park and the master plan never received final approval.
Ward 2 Alderman Jesse Bennett said he had sat there for two years while the board discussed details about the dog park design, such as where the trash bins should be placed and he didn’t see anything wrong.
“But then the second a decision is made, we’re automatically upset for the initiative that our public works staff took to get something done,” Bennett said. “It’s good that we’ll be utilizing the space, those ball fields haven’t been taken care of.”
Laxson said he was looking 20 to 30 years down the road and worried the dog park was being made too big and would utilize space needed for something else in the future.
“You can’t make the park larger than we originally planned and people get used to it, then you have to make it smaller to better utilize that space for other things later on. That would be more upsetting to the public,” he said.
Ward 3 Alderman Ken Graham pointed out that Richison had stated the $30,000 budget for the dog park had been spent already, so redoing it to make it a one-acre park would be “adding a considerable expense to this project.”
Graham held up a printed diagram of the park in front of the board to determine exactly where the fencing was being placed.
“I think the real problem is the project has gotten done without a plan,” Graham said. “It would have been great if public works or whoever would have said ‘OK, here’s what we’re gonna do’ and then run it by us. But that didn’t happen.”
Bennett said he recalled Richison speaking of utilizing the existing fence in past meetings in order to save money and, “it didn’t just go up overnight.”
“They actually did it the most economical way to use the space appropriately,” Brune said.
Richison said the board and committee had extensively discussed converting the entire area into a dog park while reviewing the park master plan, and “at no point did anyone say this needed to be adjusted.”
Ward 1 Alderman Vickie Atkins disagreed, saying when the park master plan was presented to the parks and recreation committee, they “accepted it as a guideline, not as a policy that we were going to follow that entire framework. Then before anything really could be discussed further, the parks and recreation committee was suspended.”
Ward 2 Alderman Scott Poague, the mayor pro tem, agreed it was intended as guidance and the board never voted on a final plan.
Atkins stated, “we never had any input, as a full board, as to how big the park would be. Something got changed and the board wasn’t aware of it. That’s the disconnect.”
Debate over the board’s role
Brune attempted to redirect the conversation by saying the board exists to make policy, future plans and big picture moves, not argue about the size of a dog park that has already been completed.
“You guys are focused on and spending your time discussing how a dog park looks,” she said. “When we could be discussing how to change the code for e-bikes and how we can change the code for kratom and how we can make things that could impact the future of our city? It’s almost comical to me. That we’re upset the dog park is a larger size. That our city staff took initiative to do it. They came in under budget and completed it in four months.”
Another disagreement ensued when Poague jumped in, asking “how about getting a finished plan? There’s no shelter, there’s no water, there’s no signs, the guys strung up fences on their own. And nobody knows where the place is. Have a little bit of sympathy for the argument this plan fell short.”
Poague told Brune there was no need to be defensive about it after she replied the signs have been ordered and it’s not ready to open yet. Poague accused the “staff of doing things halfway” before Richison joined the debate and said the city could “build this thing for $30,000, not just get a plan to build it for $30,000.”
Amenities still being added
“We have the water fountain that both dogs and humans can use and we’re working to extend the water line,” Richison said. “We’ve ordered benches, they’re on the way and the doggie bag holders have been installed.”
Richison assured the board that public works staff did their due diligence by meeting with the fencing contractors and gathering estimates from multiple vendors to price the items before choosing which to purchase.
“It was thought out,” he said. “They were trying to be efficient and make good use of city resources.”
Richison told The Landmark that shade sails will be added to the backstop fencing left erected in the middle of both the large and small dog fenced-in areas. Portable restrooms will be installed initially, with permanent restrooms planned.
A specific opening date for the park has not been decided.
How to reach the dog park
The new dog park is located within Riverview Park at 150 W. Mill St. Visitors on foot can reach it by following the hiking trail from the bottom of the hill, past the pond.
Visitors arriving by car with their dogs must use the gravel road. The nearest cross streets to the dog park entrance are Wallingford Drive and Orourke Street, in the residential area. The gravel road, bordered by white fences on both sides, curves around a tree-lined bend before reaching the parking lot.
Directional signage will be added on Second Street at Cox Park to guide residents up the hill to the dog park, with two additional signs planned farther up the road.
