A dog park grant discussion July 13 had local officials and residents barking at each other over the grant’s future cost.
Although the Township Council voted 3–2 to submit a dog park proposal for a $138,000 Bergen County matching grant—with township taxpayers providing half—the debate before the vote went quickly to the dogs as several residents and a councilman voiced opposing views that were ruled “off topic” by the council president.
Voting against the grant application were Councilmen Michael DeSena and Steven Cascio. Voting in favor were Council President Stacey Feeney, Vice President Arthur Cumming and Councilwoman Desserie Morgan.
During a 35-minute public hearing, Feeney told DeSena and two residents that they should not discuss future grant-writing activities or topics unrelated to the proposed dog park grant. DeSena and the residents were opposed to spending up to $69,000 of taxpayer funds on a dog park.
DeSena and residents Michael Ullman and Mary Gozel noted that a discussion on funding for the grant, which may require up to $69,000 in local funds, was relevant and not “off topic” as Feeney had previously said while trying to steer council and public comment back to the grant application up for a public hearing.
Feeney clarified that the council vote on submitting the grant did not mean the council was agreeing to spend $69,000 immediately but instead had the opportunity to get a county park improvement grant.
Township grant writer David Biunno, GLD Associates, said the council needed to submit the grant that night to meet the county’s deadline. If the grant is received, Feeney said, the council could decide then to not accept the grant and would not have to expend funds to match it.
Initially DeSena asked to table the application, but Feeney noted the grant application was scheduled for a hearing and when Biunno said he could offer background on the proposed dog park application for Sherry Field, DeSena agreed to go ahead with the hearing.
Biunno said he discussed the project with Boswell Engineering and he filed a “letter of intent” to submit a grant to Bergen County on May 14. He said a couple weeks later, the county approved submission.
Feeney raised concerns that the proposed park might infringe on wetlands or buffer areas and asked the administrator to verify the matter with Boswell Engineering, the township engineer. Biunno said the site was selected by Boswell Engineering and the only permit needed was a soil conservation permit.
Due to the proposed park’s location next to an area used to stockpile leaves every fall, DeSena said the site was “a poor choice” since heavy equipment and leaf piles would be there during fall months.
Biunno said he had met with local Green Team members in January to discuss the site and no objections were raised. He said if the grant is awarded—likely not until March or April 2021—and another park is found to be a better location, that county officials were generally flexible as to where the park is built.
The dog park proposal shows two enclosed areas, one for small dogs and one for large dogs on about a half-acre, or 18,000 square feet of land adjoining Sherry Field.
Some future project costs listed include: $38,750 for a four-foot-high chain link fence around the park; $15,000 for landscaping; $12,000 for site clearing; $7,500 for water service; $4,000 for tree removal and trimming; $2,500 for signage; and $1,500 for water fountains. Other budgeted items include gates, benches, trash receptacles and doggie bag posts.
When DeSena noted the state’s projected $10 billion revenue shortfall for 2020-2021, need to monitor future grant activities and said the township is “really going to have to tighten our purse strings,” Feeney said his comments were “off topic” while DeSena argued that his comments on funding were on topic.
Feeney said he should not be discussing future grant-writing concerns but instead focus on the dog park. DeSena said he was not discussing future grants and instead focused on the grant’s funding. At times, their exchanges became tense with both defending their views.
Resident Michael Ullman questioned the type of fencing to be used and wondered if it would be similar to fencing surrounding the county Wild Duck Pond dog park in Ridgewood. Biunno said the chain link fence specified was in the “conceptual plan” for the park but not a final plan of what might be used.
When Ullman said he agreed with DeSena’s comments that “we [the township] have not really tightened our belts,” Feeney urged him to state if he disagreed with spending funds on a dog park and not to talk about other grants.
Ullman responded he was not speaking about other grants and instead “asked the funding mechanism for this grant” and said he did not support spending $69,000 on a dog park.
Morgan said that Ullman made “valid points” but that “not approving [the grant application] would be irresponsible of us.” She said that submitting the grant was “moving the town forward” without risk of any immediate costs.
Gozel, of Van Emburgh Avenue, said she was watching the virtual council session and called in to say she agreed with Ullman and said that she noticed Feeney had cut people off who simply wanted to express an opinion. Feeney said she was asking callers and DeSena to stay on topic.
“People need to speak and announce their feelings,” Gozel said. She called a possible $69,000 cost “excessive, so you really need to hear what the public is saying.”
Both DeSena and Cascio said they also opposed submitting a grant to possibly take away funding from other towns should Township officials turn down the county funds. Morgan noted that funds return to the county Open Space Trust Fund should the Township decline them.