Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Parks board approves $6,900 design contract to build dog park at Patriotic Park

May 03, 2025 | Columbia City, Whitley County, Indiana


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Parks board approves $6,900 design contract to build dog park at Patriotic Park
The Columbia City Parks Board voted April 28 to authorize $6,900 for JPR to produce conceptual design work for a proposed dog park at Patriotic Park, moving the project into a paid design phase.

Park Director Lehi presented JPR’s conceptual plan, which divides the site into separate small- and large-dog areas, reuses portions of the existing skate-park concrete, and shows amenities including perimeter chain-link fencing, seating, shade structures, a potential dog-wash station and vehicle parking. The board approved the payment and asked staff to obtain an authorized signature before the end of the meeting so the firm could begin the design work.

The nut graf: the design contract authorizes planning-level work only; additional services such as staking, surveying or geotechnical work are offered a la carte and would require separate cost approvals. Board members emphasized practical site issues — drainage in a low area, parking near the playground, and maintaining sight lines and safety — as the primary near-term risks to the project.

Board discussion and supporting details

Lehi told the board the conceptual package from JPR would include a basic plan, optional 3-D renderings and an itemized list of additional, hourly services. The firm’s listed hourly rates referenced in the materials include $125 per hour for technical support and $175 per hour for professional surveyors; staff said these and any geotechnical fees would be billed separately if requested. The conceptual work price presented to the board was $6,900.

Board members raised operational and maintenance concerns to be addressed in later phases: keeping the fence trim clear of grass, whether to bury or set fence on a footing to prevent digging, gate widths to allow emergency access (staff suggested 10-foot gates), and who would maintain the site. The board discussed whether to make both small- and large-dog enclosures the same fence height for contractor simplicity and whether to incorporate a 2-stage entry alley (double-gate) to prevent dogs from bolting.

Site constraints and design choices

Lehi said the site plan reuses existing concrete and ramps from the skate area where feasible; some existing ramps could be repurposed as dog-play features after surfacing. The site sits in a swale that can remain wet in places; Lehi and JPR discussed integrating an existing dirt mound into the dog-park topography and designing seating and shade where concrete exists. The total area shown in the concept is “just a little over an acre,” which Lehi said falls within typical dog-park size guidance.

Public-safety, animal-health and programming considerations

Board members recommended contacting local veterinarians to advise on vaccination and training programs; Lehi said she would reach out to local vets and suggested vaccination checks or an access-control system tied to proof of vaccinations. The board also discussed potential parking reconfigurations to serve the dog park, playground and ball fields, and the possibility of a short pedestrian connector or small bridge to improve access across wet ground.

Vote and next steps

A motion to accept JPR’s conceptual scope and pay the $6,900 passed with the board voting in favor. Lehi and staff will coordinate a contract signature and return to the board with costed options for any additional services (survey, staking, geotechnical) and a draft implementation schedule.

Ending

Design work will proceed under the approved $6,900 authorization; further board approvals will be required for construction-phase contracts and any budget amendments.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Indiana articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI