The potential for a new dog park in the city of Bowling Green took a step forward Monday.

Council approved revisions to the Parks and Recreation Department’s five-year master plan, with an added amendment to examine the possibility for such a facility.

“This is not an issue that anybody is being blindsided with,” said Councilman Jeff Dennis after presenting his amendment to the document.

Talk about the idea of an additional dog park in the city has increased at public meetings in recent months; the topic was recently the focus of the April 26 meeting of the park and recreation board. The current Wood County Dog Park is located at 1912 E. Gypsy Lane Road, but concerns have been voiced that that location is not easily accessible for some residents.

Council was scheduled to vote on revisions to both the Parks and Recreation and Economic Development sections of the city’s master plan on Monday. The planning, zoning and economic development committee of council held a public hearing on both matters prior to the council meeting.

Jodi Anderson, the parks board chair, addressed the committee, saying the master plan revision was a “carefully constructed framework” and that she was concerned by the suggestion that an off-leash dog park be incorporated into the master plan at this late stage.

She pointed out the already-existing dog park on Gypsy Lane, and the concern that the use of city resources for an additional dog park would be duplicative.

Anderson said she would like to see other projects already included in the master plan come to fruition before others are added, and that the number of dog owners in the city should not be used as a metric for how many people in Bowling Green would actually be interested in using a dog park.

Anderson also noted concerns from the board, including that the minimum size of a dog park would be hard to identify on current parks lands, and the concern that such a reallocation of space would remove a previous use for other citizens.

Among other points, she also addressed the issue of walkability.

“I am still having trouble identifying how reallocating those spaces described would benefit anyone outside of a close proximity to a dog park,” Anderson said. “You have to live kind of close for it to be walkable.”

Resident Jo Ascunce spoke in favor of a dog park.

“There has been an outcry from BG residents to create a space for dogs and their owners to exercise, socialize and enjoy public land within our beautiful city. We are talking about easily accessible public space that our residents from all walks of life and all parts of town can socialize with their pets, share conversations about dogs, training tips, resources, as well as everyday topics,” she said.

“While the Citizens for BG Dog Parks Committee fully understands the maintenance commitment for dog parks, and intends to research ways to support the maintenance issues, having the dog park concept included in the city’s master plan would help to solidify the importance of these types of facilities for Bowling Green.”

Ascunce later stated that dog parks “are a highly desirable city facility for dog-owning young families, young professionals, prospective residents and those living across town in need of an off-leash area to exercise their dogs.”

Resident Rose Drain said she found aspects of the Wood County Dog Park “undesirable” and that when she travels, she and her husband book their stays near cities where there is a dog park.

“This could have an economic benefit to Bowling Green in terms of travel and tourism and people spending dollars” in the city, Drain said.

Resident Jenny Swope said she did not advocate for amending the master plan, noting the already-existing dog park.

Addressing walkability, she said “somebody’s going to have to drive to that dog park. Our city is big enough that it’s not going to be walkable for everyone. I just think duplicating the services is too much to ask taxpayers.”

Swope noted the positivity and motivation of those in favor of the dog park, and suggested their energy could be used to partner with the county on making the current dog park better.

Bowling Green Parks and Recreation Foundation President Enrique Gomez Del Campo said that “a good decision is a decision made based on fact.”

Those in favor of a new dog park did not have “hard data to back them up. … As president of the foundation, I strongly encourage you to approve the plan as presented, with no amendments, no changes. I think it’s a very strong plan, and we work hard with the parks to make all that possible for all of the residents of BG,” Del Campo said.

Councilman Greg Robinette, a member of the committee, said he supported the Parks’ master plan update as written, and didn’t favor a dog park amendment.

“I welcome the discussion, and any future dog park may be worthy of inclusion or discussion,” he said.

But a last-minute change to the plan is not the way to go about it, Robinette said. Such an amendment, he said, sends the message to commission members that “their work may not be respected and it may be set aside by council” without the opportunity to hear their concerns.

Councilman Nick Rubando, who is also a member of the committee, said a number of 1st Ward constituents had spoken with him in favor of the dog park.

“I’m of the philosophy of I am governing for the people of Ward One,” Rubando said, “and I am trying to stand up for the people, and what the people are telling me is they would like a dog park.”

“By amending this master plan, I don’t think anyone is saying you must create a dog park right now. It’s saying work with citizens” to discover how to create one in the future, Rubando said.

Due to the absence of Mayor Mike Aspacher at the meeting, Council President Mark Hollenbaugh served as acting mayor and did not vote with council. He addressed council, saying that, as an educational matter, he wanted to talk about the process of amending the parks plan.

“This is kind of an unusual process to do this,” Hollenbaugh said, “especially this late in the process. Changes have happened before, but usually this is during the process when both the parks board and the planning commission would have a chance to weigh in and participate in the process. As council president, I do have a tremendous respect for our boards and commissions that fulfill such an important role in the governing of Bowling Green.

“And I think that, however your discussion goes, and should you decide to make last-minute changes, be mindful of the message that that might send to our members of our boards and commissions.”

Councilman Jeff Dennis said he has been at park board meetings where the issue has been discussed.

“There have been multiple steps where everybody has been able to provide input” on potential amendments, he said.

When the matter came up for a vote near the end of the meeting, Dennis proposed an amendment which the park board “considers opportunities to repurpose public land that may be suitable for off-leash areas” and that they would “work with a committee of citizens to establish walkable, accessible neighborhood dog parks.”

Dennis said that discussing a location or costs at this stage would be premature.

“I think at this point what we should be doing is establishing this as a priority in this five-year strategic plan and beginning the process to evaluate some of the challenges” that will come up, he said.

Dennis also said there is evidence in the parks’ own survey that residents support dog parks. Dennis said that in feedback gathered from citizens, dog parks were mentioned 32 times – more than pickle ball courts, which were mentioned six times.

Councilman Bill Herald stated his belief in the importance of the work the city’s boards and commissions perform, but said he viewed council’s ability to amend the parks plan as part of the process.

“If we weren’t meant to weigh in, why would there be a public hearing? And we heard from the public and we may make some adjustments. We usually don’t. The nature of making this amendment is a very legitimate part of the process,” Herald said. “I think this is a good example of the legislative process.”

Robinette said he would vote no on the amendment “out of deference to the parks board and the foundation.”

Councilwoman Rachel Phipps is chair of the planning, zoning and economic development committee. She said she was “happy to support this amendment. To me, it simply continues the discussion about dog parks in the community, it does not mandate dog parks.”

The amendment passed 5-1, with Robinette voting against.

Subsequently, the amended Parks and Recreation Five-Year Master Plan passed on a unanimous vote.