Boston Dog Owners Group

[eb_sower]

Please consult this section to view past and present meeting notes.

[eb_sower]

September 21, 2009 - Meeting Notes

Thank you to Colleen Ryan for producing the meeting notes below:

Update on the consensus of majority of BostonDog members at the end of our meeting regarding what our urgent priorities are:

1) Getting our existing proposal to reflect our new plan to ask for first a temporary park with temp fencing in the designated pink palace area that we have already outlined.
2) Heidi, Judy, Liz & Colleen to meet with city and parks to share new proposal for pilot enclosed park
3) Complete the 5013c application -- I touch based with Chris Leung this AM to relay info from last night
4) Next meeting tentatively scheduled for October 19

Goals:-
- Figure out if we have the support to go forward with building a pilot plan for enclosed dog park with temp fencing near pink palace
-- Figure out if we have sound enough plan to fundraise at Halloween for BostonDog
-- Become an official nonprofit group
___________________________________________________________

Please note Alain's Follow up to the above message origionally sent by email:

"Thanks for the summary, Colleen. And thanks to everyone for coming out last night.

Regarding item#3, Chris, Ben and I have already exchanged several emails; BostonDOG's 501(c)(3) application ill be ready to go prior to the next meeting.

Regarding item #2, I believe what was discussed last night was a meeting with the BHCA and Parks, specifically Colin Zick on behalf of the BHCA and either Bernie Lynch or Toni Pollak on behalf of Parks. I would participate in this meeting and, if possible, would like Mark to attend as well since he participated in the February meeting. I left messages for both Toni and Bernie this morning to request a meeting with them but have not heard back as of 1:30pm.

Earlier today, I spoke to Colin Zick about pursuing a "temporary enclosed space" next to the Pink Palace. Based on last week's meeting with Mike Ross, Colin urged us against doing so without an endorsement from one of the restaurateurs who've expressed interest in doing business on the Common. Lacking that endorsement, both Colin and I feel that we risk losing Mike's support for this project.

So perhaps a logical next step is to reach out to the restaurateurs? I believe that Babek Bina (of Lala Rokh) is one of the interested parties; I also found the following excerpt from the Boston Herald:

Several chefs of "high-end" Hub eateries have expressed interest in the location, including KO Prime/Clio/Toro owner Ken Oringer and B & G Oysters/Eastern Standard owner Garrett Harker, both of whom attended a recent City Hall hearing on the "pink palace," Ross said.

Thoughts? Volunteers?"

[jmatar]

I can't imagine any of those folks would consider the "pink palace" as a high profile location. With that said, do we want to shoot for a temporary fence at Joy Street?

[eb_sower]

Judy,
I think this is our next logical step; we already have the dedicated space at Joy Street, and we know they are OK with us being there. It is in an area where thy have already allowed fencing (playground) and while it isn't ideal, maybe it will act as a catalyst. What does everyone think? -Liz

[jmatar]

I agree with Liz, and I think we should take it a step further. Area A should be off the table completely because the city is seeking a revenue generating entity to refurbish the pink palace. The following URL describes the guidelines for refurbishing an historical landmark; obviously the city is using this tax credit to entice businesses to fund the project. BostonDOG, as a non-profit entity would not be entitled to a tax credit. My sense is we are their "fall-back" plan, in case they can't find a suitable " suitor". That would explain why they are non-responsive to Alain's request for a meeting and vague in their communications regarding a revised proposal. If we were to fund to the rehabilitation of the pink palace, the city would get the tax credit and the depreciation. I say we move on and let them stew in their own juice.

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/brochure1.htm#20

With that said, Area B (the Parade Grounds), should also be off the table. As a special interest group, it would be selfish of us to propose that area for a dog park as so many people use it. I think we would lose public support. That leaves Joy St and Area D. (nearby the Visitor Center)

My group is meeting tomorrow night. Originally, the intent of the meeting was to measure Area A for the basis of estimate for temporary fencing. In light of this tax credit issue, I will propose that we measure the remaining two areas along with a third spot identified by Frank and Aaron a few weeks ago. (base of the hilltop between Joy Street and Area D)

My personal opinion is the new alternate spot and Joy St will be the most costly to develop because of the tree roots. Excavation that is neccesary for drainage would damage the tree roots; we might risk loss of public support, extra cost associated with replacing trees or outright denial by the Parks Department. At any rate, we will select the two areas closest in size and bid both.

In regard to temporary fencing. Our definition of temporary fencing differs from the industry definition. The welded-wire fence Alain described to me would require post & rail installation; i.e. pounding the posts into the ground. I'm fairly certain this would not be approved and the additional aggrevation of hiring a contractor to build and install such a fence would be costly. (for a structure to be later destroyed). The only stand-alone (with feet) type of temporary fence commercially available for our needs is chain-link, simliar to what surrounds the Brewer Fountain site. Minimum height is 6' and the minimum price is $5290 installed. There could be additional charges if we were to extend the rental period beyond 3 months, which most likely we would.

I say we scrap the temporary fence and shoot for the full proposal at another site.