I am not opposed to a dedicated dog park.

It is premature to either support or oppose any particular site. There are many outstanding questions that have not been answered. There has never been any public process to determine which site identified in the master plan is preferred by the community. Furthermore, this year’s budget called for a site selection study BEFORE pursuing a special use permit from USFS, not after.

I am opposed to the lack of transparency in the site selection and USFS application process

• IVGID only shared the application to USFS for the special use permit with select individuals. The attached document was obtained through a public records request.
• USFS requested evidence that community outreach had or would occur that showed the community preferred the USFS site over others. (see email below from Karen Kuentz to Kate Nelson). The response from Susan Herron to my request for public records relating to community outreach indicated IVGID provided no such evidence.
• In October 2021, the GM report stated that staff was planning community outreach – yet none has occurred.
• On December 1, 2021 Kari Ferguson said there would be more info posted on the IVGID website when she had “all the facts”. There is still no update.

If you listen to the livestream of the Board meeting from June 19, 2019, where the Board came up with priorities to be inserted into the final Community Services Master Plan, you will learn that rather than surveying the community with all of the proposed projects in the series of master plan documents, each Board member was asked to pick their own priorities. There was no community outreach to determine priorities or location of a dedicated dog park. That should have happened before approaching the USFS for a use permit. The email from Ms. Kuentz makes it quite clear that the forest service expected public outreach to occur before making any determination. At that same meeting, GM Pinkerton conceded that IVGID’s attempts to get title to the USFS parcel were unsuccessful and that a use permit application should be submitted. There was no discussion of how a use permit might not allow the type of dog park facility envisioned in the master plan.

And as for calling the GM for “accurate” information, that would be very inefficient. This is a topic of interest for many in the community. I already asked that IVGID post more information on its website, for everyone to see. To date, there is no further information on the IVGID website on this project.

When the master plan was developed, it contemplated a transfer of the USFS parcel to IVGID, not a use permit. USFS will have control over what is placed on their lands. As a result, here are just a few of the questions that need to be answered before a final decision is made.

• Will the Forest Service allow 3 areas with a minimum size of 100 x 100 feet to be cleared so dogs can chase balls (recommended in the master plan and studies on dog park best practices)?
• Will USFS allow grass in these areas (preferred choice for most dog parks)?
• Will USFS allow the entire parcel to be fenced?
• What is the maximum number of parking spaces?
• What are estimated maintenance costs now that the USFS has asked for IVGID to maintain the entire 13 acre site?

Unfortunately there has been no site selection study and no community outreach. We don’t need another staff appointed Advisory Committee making decisions behind closed doors. Citizens deserve an open forum. Sunshine Week (promoting open and transparent government) is only a few weeks away.

---

From: Kuentz, Karen -FS [mailto:karen.kuentz@usda.gov]

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 3:33 PM

To: Kate S. Nelson <ksn@ivgid.org>

Cc: Winquest, Indra S. <ISW@ivgid.org>

Subject: RE: [External Email]IVGID Dog Park – Follow Up

HI Kate – thanks for the nudge. I have forwarded the proposal to our internal team with a due date

for comments of August 6. If there are no major concerns about the proposal, I will invite you to

submit the full application and will work on the cost recovery agreement. Once that is signed and

the bill paid, we will conduct our NEPA and other required analyses, with an eye on that December

goal for a decision.

In the meantime, could you provide a summary of the public outreach efforts that you have already

conducted, and if there are plans to conduct additional outreach? A list of the types of publics that

you contacted (for example, the residents within 500 feet of the parcel, high school administrators,

etc), what type of contact (letter, public meeting), and any responses that were received. I know

that some information is included in the proposal, especially about other locations considered – a

summary such as “we received valid objections to the XX and YY locations, and received no

objections to the FS parcel location” with a little more detail would be very helpful. If you already

have a document with all the public involvement, please send that. I don’t need to you to create a

new document if you already have one. Thank you.

I may be on a wildfire assignment over the next couple of weeks, but I hope to still be able to make

progress while I’m gone.

Karen