HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-13 (Special) Meeting Agenda Packet
Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City of Englewood
(303-762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed.
1000 Englewood Pkwy – Community Room
Englewood, CO 80110
AGENDA
City Council Special Meeting
Monday, September 13, 2021 ♦ 6:00 PM
This City Council Special meeting will be a hybrid meeting. City Council, staff, and the public
are welcome to attend the meeting either in person or virtually.
To view the meeting, please follow this link to our YouTube live stream link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ficWcnlkss
I. Call to Order
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Roll Call
IV. Off-Leash Dog Parks Program - Information and Direction - 6:00 to 7:00 p.m.
a. Director of Parks, Recreation, Library, and Golf Christina Underhill, Manager of Open
Space Dave Lee, and Code Enforcement Manager Dave Lewis will be present to
discuss the Parks and Recreation Commission Subcommittee off-leash data and the
subcommittee recommendations for the off-leash program.
Presentation: 10 minutes
Discussion: 50 minutes
9a
V. Break - 7:00 to 7:10 p.m.
VI. Executive Session
a. Executive Session for discussion of a personnel matter under C.R.S. Section 24-6-
402(2)(f) and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of
the matter in open session; any member of this body or any elected official; the
appointment of any person to fill an office of this body or of an elected official; or
personnel policies that do not require the discussion of matters personal to particular
employees.
b. Executive Session for discussion of a personnel matter under C.R.S. Section 24-6-
402(2)(f) and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of
the matter in open session; any member of this body or any elected official; the
appointment of any person to fill an office of this body or of an elected official; or
personnel policies that do not require the discussion of matters personal to particular
employees.
11a and 11b
VII. Reports from Board and Commission Council Liaisons
VIII. Council Member’s Choice
Page 1 of 229
Englewood City Council Special Meeting Agenda
September 13, 2021
Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City of Englewood
(303-762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed.
IX. City Manager’s Choice
X. City Attorney’s Choice
XI. Adjournment
Page 2 of 229
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Christina Underhill
DEPARTMENT: Parks, Recreation & Library
DATE: September 13, 2021
SUBJECT:
Parks and Recreation Commission Subcommittee off-leash data
and recommendations
DESCRIPTION:
Parks and Recreation staff along with the Parks and Recreation Commission Subcommittee will
present off-leash data and the subcommittee recommendations for the off-leash program.
Christina Underhill, Dave Lee, Dave Lewis, Parks and Recreation Commission members will be
present.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council adopts the off-leash recommendations from the Parks and
Recreation Commission. Council options are provided below.
• Option 1: Accept the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
• Option 2: Council reviews each off-leash park and proposed off-leash park to determine
if it should be off-leash and if it should be fenced.
• Option 3: Make no changes to the off-leash program.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
2001
• City Council approved Council Bill No.36, Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001 an Ordinance
amending the Title 7, Chapter 1A of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, pertaining to
dogs and cats. This Bill made it unlawful for a dog to be off-leash running at large.
2002
• City Council approved Resolution No. 4, Series of 2002 establishing a Pilot Park
Program for off-leash dogs.
• On December 30, 2002, staff recommended the pilot program be retained on a
permanent basis for the 5 off-leash parks (Jason, Northwest, Bates Logan Duncan,
Centennial).
2003
• Off-leash privileges revoked by City Council for Bates Logan Park.
2004
• A presentation regarding unsatisfactory turf conditions related to off-leash at Jason Park
was presented to council by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
2009
• July 14-- After numerous complaints from residents regarding off leash at Jason Park,
staff presented possible solutions for off-leash at Jason Park.
o Designated times and days
o Limit to defined areas of the park
Page 3 of 229
o Remove Jason as an off-leash area
o Eliminate all off-leash areas and keep Canine Corral as the only off-leash park.
o Add natural barriers or fencing
o Construct another off formal dog park
• October 5—A public hearing was held to discuss the designated off-leash hours and
potential off-leash changes.
• October 19—City Council approved the following off-leash hours for Jason, Centennial,
Duncan, and the Northwest Greenbelt parks to be effective January 1, 2010.
Specifically: March 1 through October 31 — off-leash hours from 6:00 to 11:00 am and
6:00 to 11:00 pm; and November 1 through February 28 or 29 — 100% off-leash hours
(no restriction on off-leash hours).
2018
• The Off-Leash Dog Sub Committee was formed out of the Parks and Recreation
Commission in October
2018 as a result of increased complaints from Englewood residents about the off-leash
dog park program.
The Sub Committee met with three stakeholder groups from November 2018 to April
2019, including
Englewood Code Enforcement, Englewood Unleashed and Pirate Youth Sports.
2020
• March 30--Staff presents council with the current off-leash program and the public
education efforts and enforcement of off-leash dog rules. Council asks Parks &
Recreation Board for recommendation regarding the off-leash program.
• June 22--City Council directs staff to postpone further discussion on the
recommendations until Council can meet in person.
• July 6--City Council asks staff to bring the Board recommendations before Council at the
next available date.
• July 20 -- The Parks and Recreation Commission Subcommittee presented their
recommendations to City Council for the off-leash program.
• At the July 20, 2020 Council meeting Council requested new recommendations for the
off-leash program in addition to the Parks and Recreation Commission’s
recommendations. A task force was established and a mediator was contracted to
oversee the meetings.
• December 14-- after the Off-Leash Task Force convened five times the recommendation
was made to Council to produce a POLCO survey to find out how the residents felt
about the off-leash program and potential recommendations the Off-Leash Task Force
had discussed.
2021
• April 26, 2021 POLCO presented the dog park survey results. At this meeting Council
recommended the Off-Leash Task Force meet one more time to discuss the survey
results and possible recommendations for the off-leash program.
SUMMARY:
Off-leash dogs have been a oft-debated topic for the last 20 years in Englewood. On March 30,
2020 staff presented information regarding the off-leash program to Council. Staff’spresentation
was in response to a number of residents requesting Emerson Park become part of the off-
leash dog program along with numerous complaints regarding enforcement of the off-leash
program. Council gave direction for staff to take this topic back to the Parks and Recreation
Commission to find solutions for the off-leash program. Some of the responses from Council at
the March 30th meeting included adding a licensing program, adding Emerson Park as an off-
Page 4 of 229
leash park and adding a park on the north side of the City (Cushing) in addition to continuing the
“Take the Lead” off-leash educational campaign.
The Parks and Recreation Commission made the determination to reinstate the 2018-2019 Off-
Leash Dog Subcommittee. The 2020 Off-Leash Subcommittee consists of 3 Parks and
Recreation Board Members: Mark Husbands, Kate Truesdale and Stephen Young and a staff
liaison Dave Lee, Open Space Manager. On May 26, 2020 the Off-Leash Subcommittee met to
review and discuss findings from stakeholder meetings and determine a recommendation to
resolve the off-leash dog program issues.
On Thursday, June 11, 2020 the Sub Committee presented its recommendations to the Parks
and Recreation Commission to modify the off-leash program. The Commission unanimously
approved the recommendations.
On July 20, 2020 the Sub Committee presented the following recommendations to City Council:
• Off-leash dog privileges would be eliminated at Centennial, Jason and Duncan Parks.
• The Northwest Greenbelt will remain an off-leash dog park, and proposed Emerson Park
would transition to an off-leash dog park.
• The Parks & Recreation Department would develop a comprehensive plan and secure
funding for a new enclosed off-leash dog park at Cushing Park
• The Parks & Recreation Department would continue the “Take the Lead” campaign and
create content around the off-leash dog park changes.
• The Parks & Recreation Department would create new opportunities for Englewood
residents to socialize.
At the July 20, 2020 Council meeting Council requested new recommendations for the off-leash
program in addition to the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations. A task force
was established and a mediator was contracted to oversee the meetings.
• OFF-LEASH TASK FORCE meeting dates:
o September 22,2020
o October 6, 2020
o October 20, 2020
o October 29, 2020
o December 1, 2020
• Task Force Members:
o Mark Husbands, Parks & Recreation Commission
o Kate Truesdale, Parks & Recreation Commission
o Monica Johnson, Parks and Recreation Commission/Code Enforcement Advisory
Committee
o Stephen Young, Parks and Recreation Commission
o Paul Rogalla, Englewood Unleashed
o Steven Kelly, Englewood Unleashed
o Poorvi Pfenning, Englewood Unleashed President
o Jake Gilbert, Resident
o Martha Griego, Resident
o Allen McGirl, Pirate Youth Sports
• December 1, 2020 Find Solutions Moderator, Steve Charbonneau held the final meeting
for 2020 with the off-leash task force. Discussions on the off-leash recommendations
were held along with the next steps in establishing a POLCO survey to send out to
Englewood residents.
Page 5 of 229
• On December 14, 2020, Steve Charbonneau with Find Solutions and staff, presented to
City Council the Task Force's recommendations and explained that these
recommendations would be translated into a survey to obtain more community input.
This input would help provide direction for the off-leash program and assist with the
decision-making process.
• January 7, 2021 postcards were mailed to 5,000 homes in Englewood. Those who
received a postcard had a chance to respond until February 9th via online. Paper copies
of the survey were mailed to residents who received a post card and requested a paper
copy. A total of 520 random sample surveys were received and validated. An open
survey became active to all Englewood residents on February 10- March 3. A total of
424 open participant surveys were received.
• April 26, 2021 POLCO presented the dog park survey results.
o A total of 5,000 addresses were randomly selected from a list of all residential
addresses in Englewood. Each of these selected households were contacted two
times with a postcard invitation to complete the survey online (using the provided
URL). About 5% of the mailed invitation postcards (250) were returned due to
being sent to vacant housing units. Of the estimated 4,750 remaining
households, 520 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 11%. The
margin of error for this survey with 520 respondents is ±4.3%. The open survey
was available to Englewood residents starting on February 10th until March 3rd.
A total of 424 survey responses were received from the open survey.
o Highlights of the key findings from the survey:
• Most Englewood residents use city parks and value their maintenance and cleanliness.
• About half of households have dogs and 40% of those use existing off-leash city dog
parks or areas.
• Overall, residents feel dogs can be off-leash in city parks but in a fenced in area, and
dog park users prioritize park cleanliness and maintenance for a successful fenced in dog
park.
• While a majority of respondents support a fenced off-leash dog area or park in Emerson,
Cushing, Duncan, and Jason parks overall, support lessened for some when presented
with the fencing options.
• In general, many respondents support a dog licensing program in Englewood but are
more hesitant of policy changes for non-residents.
• On April 26th Council provided direction to staff to have the Off-Leash Task Force meet
one more time to finalize recommendations based off of the survey findings.
• June 9, 2021 the Off-Leash Task Force reconvened to review options for the off-leash
program. Since the December 1, 2020 Off-Leash Task Force meeting a few members
dropped out and new representatives from Englewood Unleashed (Doug Abramowitz
and Jon Lieberman) and residents from the Emerson Park neighborhood (Dean Kinblom
and Joran Storfa) were added for the June 9th meeting. Staff felt it was important to
hear from the Emerson Park residents before providing more information to City Council
on recommendations.
• August 10, 2021 the Parks and Recreation Commission- Subcommittee met to discuss
the POLCO survey findings and Off Leash Task Force data.
Off-Leash Dog Park History of Events 2001-2018
• November 2001 – City Council passed a law requiring dogs to be on a leash at all times
when not on their owners’ property. Englewood Code Enforcement Advisory Committee
determined that control by voice command has proved inadequate to maintain control of
dogs away from home.
Page 6 of 229
• January 2002 – City Council approved a one-year pilot program allowing off-leash
privileges at five Englewood parks: Bates-Logan, Jason, Duncan, Centennial, and the
Northwest Greenbelt area.
• February 2002 – Englewood’s leash law went into effect and the five off-leash dog parks
were open to the public.
• August 2002 – Staff reported off-leash areas being used and the system seemed to be
working. Englewood Code Enforcement reported a decrease in leash violations over the
first six months. There were very few complaints and dog owners seem to be satisfied
with the program.
• December 2002 – Minimal complaints from the community and relatively low number of
leash law violations have been recorded. The recommendation at this time was to
continue the program on a permanent basis with continued monitoring on statistics and
community feedback.
• January 2003 – Parks and Recreation Commission members reviewed the dog parks
pilot program for the past twelve months and discussed comments and complaints that
had arisen from the implementation of the program. After lengthy discussion, a motion
was made and seconded recommending that City Council make the Dog Park Pilot
Program a permanent feature of the leash law.
• January 2003 – Englewood residents told Council that dog owners and their dogs were
taking over Bates-Logan Park, which created much debate between park attendees and
dog owners.
• October 2003 – After much debate, Council removed Bates-Logan from the off-leash
program.
• November 2003 – The Off-Leash Task Force was formed to research the possibility of
establishing a dog park in Englewood, where that would be located, and what
improvements would be needed to accommodate dogs and their owners as well as ways
to fund improvements, promote responsible dog ownership, and ways to educate the
general public.
• July 2004 – Off -Leash Task Force prepared a final report recommending that City
Council consider Belleview Park Nature Area, Centennial Park (north side), and Cushing
Park (northeast corner) for dog parks. Belleview Park Nature Area was chosen as the
location for the dog park.
• June 2006 – A fenced in dog park named Canine Corral was built in the Belleview Park
Nature Area and Englewood Unleashed was established. Englewood Unleashed is a
501c3 organization dedicated to supporting off-leash dog privileges at designated parks
within the City of Englewood. Englewood Unleashed has a mission statement as follows:
“To work with, aid, and assist the City by raising funds and providing volunteer support to
improve and better maintain the off-leash parks in Englewood and to receive, invest, and
use funds to facilitate health, safety, maintenance, and improvement projects at off -leash
parks in Englewood.”
Page 7 of 229
• June 2006 – A cooperative agreement between Englewood Unleashed and the City of
Englewood was approved. Roles and responsibilities of each party are recorded in this
cooperative agreement.
• October 2009- City Council held a public hearing to discuss the off-leash hours, and
options for the off-leash program at Jason Park. Hours were modified as follows: March
1 through October 31 — off-leash hours from 6:00 to 11:00 am and 6:00 to 11:00 pm;
and November 1 through February 28 or 29 — 100% off-leash hours (no restriction on
off-leash hours).
• 2006 – 2018 – Staff fielded numerous complaints about dogs, safety, dogs running onto
athletic fields during games, etc. which had been discussed in Parks & Recreation
Commission meetings as well as City Council meetings; however, no action has been
taken to alleviate the concerns of the community. Code Enforcement and additional
patrols have only provided temporary and inconsistent assistance.
• March 2017 – The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is drafted. It addressed the need
and desire to have a long-term solution that will benefit dog owners and park attendees
equally. The Master Plan recommends a public process guided by the Parks and
Recreation Commission to define how the community should proceed in the future with
off-leash dogs. Additional maintenance, enforcement, and funding models employed by
other communities should be evaluated.
• October 2018 - The Off-Leash Dog Sub Committee was formed out of the Parks and
Recreation Commission in October 2018 as a result of increased complaints from
Englewood residents about the off-leash dog park program.
The Sub Committee met with three stakeholder groups from November 2018 to April
2019, including
Englewood Code Enforcement, Englewood Unleashed and Pirate Youth Sports.
ANALYSIS:
As of August 2021, the City of Englewood has four off-leash parks within the parks system:
Duncan, Jason, Centennial and Northwest Greenbelt and Canine Corral.
The current off-leash program hours allow dogs to be off-leash in the four parks during
specific times of day, and specific months of the year: March 1 to October 31; 6-11am
and 6-11pm AND November 1 to February 28/29; 6am-11pm.
The Parks and Recreation Commission Subcommittee recommendations are as follows:
• "The Parks and Recreation Department will develop a comprehensive plan
and secure funding for new enclosed off-leash dog parks at both Cushing
and Jason Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission believes all off-leash
dog parks should be enclosed. Along with Canine Corral, there will now be three
enclosed off-leash dog parks in Englewood. The concept for a dog park at
Cushing Park was first introduced in the 2017 Parks & Recreation Master Plan,
and was the most supported plan in both POLCO’s surveys. During Task Force
meetings, the most controversial discussions surrounded Jason Park and
representatives and community members in-favor of off-leash dog privileges were
Page 8 of 229
most vocal about this park. The location of this enclosed off-leash dog park will be
selected by the Parks and Recreation Department, and determined by cost and
ease of maintenance.
• Off-leash dog privileges will be eliminated at Centennial and Duncan Parks.
Since the off-leash dog park programs’ inception, the Englewood Parks and
Recreation Department and Code Enforcement have received multiple complaints
about dangerous, at-large dogs at these parks and there are genuine concerns for
the health and safety of Englewood’s children and families. These parks have
athletic fields, rental shelters and playgrounds. Eliminating off-leash privileges at
these parks will ensure all Englewood’s citizens can safely enjoy the parks, and
that the Parks and Recreation Department maximize potential revenue.
• The Northwest Greenbelt will remain an off-leash dog park. During the Off-
Leash Task Force discussions, the Northwest Greenbelt was rarely mentioned,
and does not have a history of at-large dog issues. Therefore the Parks and
Recreation Commission does not think changes to this park need to be
considered. However, the Commission supports this park becoming entirely on-
leash if City Council decides to make all parks on-leash, with the exception of the
three enclosed off-leash parks. We feel consistency across the parks will remove
ambiguity.
• Emerson Park will remain an on-leash dog park. The Commission believes
Emerson Park should remain on-leash for consistency within the off-leash dog
park program, despite the requests of residents that live in the neighborhood
surrounding the park.
• The Parks & Recreation Department and Englewood Code Enforcement will
develop a Dog Licensing Program. This concept was discussed in both the
original Off-Leash Sub Committee and the larger Off-Leash Task Force. The
Parks and Recreation Commission is supportive of this idea, and believes it will
resolve at-large dog issues and generate revenue, as well as create a sense of
community among dog owners. The Commission does encourage a scholarship
program to be created for community members that may struggle with the annual
fee.
• City Council makes a final decision regarding the off-leash dogs and
implement changes on January 1, 2022. At-large dogs are a health and safety
concern and a financial burden for the city of Englewood. The Parks and
Recreation Department, Commission, Code Enforcement and City Council have
been hearing concerns regarding the program since its inception. It is crucial to
make a decision on this issue, implement changes, and finally end the
discussions. It is time for our city to move forward."
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends Council adopts the off-leash recommendations from the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
Page 9 of 229
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Cost to change signage and fencing depending on the decision from council.
CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Safety - Protecting all park users and park assets
Neighborhoods- connecting residents with one another through use of neighborhood parks
OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS:
Through the Parks & Recreation Board meetings, Off-leash subcommittee meetings, survey
efforts and engagement with Englewood Unleashed, public outreach and communications has
been substantial.
ATTACHMENTS:
September 13, 2021 Off Leash Council Presentation (Power Point- PDF)
August 23, 2021 Off Leash Council Presentation (Power Point-PDF)
2021 Off-leash Dog Sub Committee Recommendations
Front Range Dog Park Information
POLCO Englewood Dog Park Survey Executive Summary
Code Calls for service 2005-2021 - Code Enforcement
Links to Off Leash Meetings - Parks and Rec Commission, Council, PR Subcommittee
POLCO Englewood Dog Park Survey Report
2009 City Council Minutes Off Leash Hours Page 4 to 19
Page 10 of 229
Off-Leash Program in
Englewood Parks
City Council Study Session-September 13, 2021Page 11 of 229
Legal Update: Off-Leash
•Dog Bites
•CRS 13-21-124: victim of a dog bite has a civil action against the dog owner
•CRS 24-10-108: Colorado Government Immunity Act; City is immune from
liability
•Emerson Park –14th Amendment: Due Process Clause guarantees
right to enter public parks; must carefully craft time/place/manner
restrictions, such as permitting system limiting number of dogs
Page 12 of 229
Code Enforcement Update Page 13 of 229
Option 1
•Accept the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations
•Reviews each off-leash park and proposed off-leash park to
determine if it should be off-leash and if it should be fenced.
•Make no changes to the off-leash program
Option 2
Option 3
Page 14 of 229
Off Leash Areas-Parks
•Jason
•Duncan
•Emerson-Propose to add
•Cushing –Propose to add
•Centennial-Propose to remove
•Northwest Greenbelt
•Canine Corral Page 15 of 229
Englewood Parks &
Recreation Commission
Off-Leash Subcommittee
Page 16 of 229
Our Recommendations
•The Parks and Recreation Department will develop a comprehensive plan and secure funding for
new enclosed off-leash dog parks at both Cushing and Jason Park.
•Off-leash dog privileges will be eliminated at Centennial and Duncan Parks.
•The Northwest Greenbelt will remain an off-leash dog park.
•Emerson Park will remain an on-leash park.
•The Parks & Recreation Department and Englewood Code Enforcement will develop a Dog
Licensing Program.
•City Council makes a final decision regarding the off-leash dogs and implement changes on
January 1, 2022. Page 17 of 229
Dog Area-Hours
•Current program
•6am-11pm (Winter)
•6am-11am and 6pm-11pm (Spring-Fall)
•Some areas may be off limits for off leash during practices, games and
various rentals (Duncan and Jason)
Task Force Poll: Should off-leash
hours be 6am-11pm?
YES: 5 NO: 4
Page 18 of 229
Off Leash Park-Cushing (new)
•Fenced area in a passive area of the park.
•Woodchips vs. grass
•lack of irrigation
•on-going challenges with a smaller sized dog
park.
POLCO Random Sample Survey: Cushing Park, 77% of
residents strongly or somewhat supported a fenced dog
park.
POLCO Open Survey: Cushing Park, 80% of respondents
strongly or somewhat supported a fenced dog park
Task Force Poll Results:
Should Cushing Park have a fenced off-leash area?
YES: 9 NO:0
Should Cushing Park be for:
a) small dogs only 1 b) Passive dogs only 0
c) All dogs 6 d) Small and passive 2
•Cushing dog park proposed in 2017 Parks
and Recreation Master Plan Page 19 of 229
Off Leash Park-Northwest Greenbelt
POLCO Random Sample Survey: Fewer than half of residents strongly or somewhat supported off leash dog
areas (no fence) at the Northwest Greenbelt (42%)
-At least 30% strongly or somewhat opposed an unfenced dog area at this location.
POLCO Open Survey: 67% supported an off leash dog area at the Northwest Greenbelt
Task Force Poll Results:
Do you agree NWGB remain an off-leash park?
YES: 8 NO: 1
Page 20 of 229
Off Leash Park –Jason
POLCO Random Sample Survey:
A majority of respondents also supported an off leash
fenced dog park at Jason Park (66%)
POLCO Open Survey:
-47% supported an off leash area
-53% strongly or somewhat opposed an off leash
fenced area at Jason.
Task Force Poll Results:
Do you agree with the proposal for a fence north of the
Jason Park playground?
YES: 7 NO: 2
Do you agree with the temporary fence between the
multi-use field and open off-leash space at Jason Park?
YES: 4 NO: 4Page 21 of 229
Off Leash Park-Duncan
•Recommended partial fence to separate off leash dogs from other park
uses.
•Open space could still be used for athletic programs and would not be
open for off leash use during those times.
•Leash required on the southside of the park
POLCO Random Sample Survey: (60%) supported a single fence dog
area at Duncan Park
POLCO Open Survey: (60%) supported a single fence dog area at
Duncan Park
Task Force Poll Results:
Should Duncan Park have an off-leash area north of the playground?
YES: 3 NO: 5
Should Duncan Park have a fence separating the off-leash and open
space from the playground and other park amenities?
YES: 5 NO: 3Page 22 of 229
Off Leash Park-Emerson (new) Page 23 of 229
Emerson Park -Continued
POLCO Random Sample Survey:
•Fewer than half of residents strongly or somewhat supported off leash dog areas (no fence) at Emerson (41%)
•At least 30% strongly or somewhat opposed an unfenced dog area at this locations.
POLCO Open Survey: 69% of respondents strongly or somewhat supported off leash areas (no fence) at Emerson
Park.
Task Force Poll Results:
Should Emerson Park be designated as an off-leash park?
YES: 4 NO: 4
Should Emerson Park be for Englewood residents only?
YES: 8 NO: 0
Should there be a designated boundary for licensing dogs to be able to use Emerson Park?
YES: 4 NO: 5
If Emerson Park is an off-leash park, should the off-leash hours be a)6am-11pm or b)should there be specific
morning (6-11am) hours and evening (6-11pm) hours?
6a-11p: 3
6a-11a &6p-11p: 5Page 24 of 229
Random Sample vs Open Survey-Support for
Fenced Areas: Page 25 of 229
Decorative Fencing-$105/linear foot
•Cushing --$73,500
•Emerson (full fence)--$96,075
•Emerson north and west fences only--$47,460
•Jason --$36,750
•Duncan --$25,515
Page 26 of 229
Black Coated Chain Link-$30/linear foot
•Cushing $21,000
•Emerson $27,450
Emerson north & west fence
•Jason $10,500
•Duncan $7,290
•only-$13,560
Task Force Poll Results:
Which fence option do you prefer?
a)Decorative:3 b)Chain Link:5
Page 27 of 229
Licensing Program
•$25-$50/ license (proposed)
•Annual renewal
•Educational program
•Dogs must wear license/ tag while in Englewood Off Leash Parks.
•Recommended to have license/tag all the time.
Boulder Voice and Sight Program: https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/voice-and-sight
•If you renew between November 1 and January 31,the following discounted renewal rate applies:
•City of Boulder residents: $5.
•Boulder County residents not in the City of Boulder: $20.
•Non-Boulder County residents: $30.
•Registration Fees
•Initial Registration Fees/Renewal After January 31:
•City of Boulder residents: $13.
•Boulder County residents not in the City of Boulder: $33.
•Non-Boulder County residents: $75.
TERM 2019/2020
Dogs Spayed or Neutered $15
Dogs Intact $30
Replacement Tag $2
Boulder licensing
fees (does not
include voice and
sight license)
Polco Random Sample Survey:
The majority of respondents (67%) strongly or somewhat
supported the City implementing a dog licensing program in
Englewood, 12% neither supported nor opposed the measure,
and 21% opposed it. Page 28 of 229
Implementation Timeline*
•Off-leash Program Vote: September 2021
•Education of new off-leash program: October 2021-February 2022
•New off-leash program takes effect: January 1, 2022
•Enforcement of off-leash begins March 1, 2022
*Subject to council decision
Page 29 of 229
Open Space Acreage-Off-Leash Program
•67.82 usable open space turf acres
•Current Off Leash Program: 23.31 Acres for off leash areas (34.3% of open space acreage)
•Proposed program: 18.01 Acres for off leash (26.5% of open space acreage)*
Off Leash Park Acreage Break Down:
Jason (7.1 total) off leash 1.7acres + 2.5acres multi use field = 4.2 acres
Duncan (2.9 total) off leash 1.25 acres
Cushing (6.5 total) off leash .6 acres
Centennial (6.8 total) off leash <4 acres*
Emerson (1.34) off leash 1 acre
Northwest Greenbelt off leash 9.46 acres
Canine Corral 1.5 acres
Park Acreage Total Turf Non-Turf Beds Native Water Current
Off Leash
Baker Park 0.93 0.53 0.3 0.1
Barde Park 3.67 3.38 0.29
Bates Logan 6.84 6.64 0.2
Belleview Park 36.14 11 5.7 19.44
Canine Corral 1.5
Centennial Park 37.3 6.8 8 0.5 22 4
Clarkson Park 0.77 0.77
Cushing Park 11.15 7.25 1.1 0.1 2.7 0.6
Duncan Park 3.81 2.9 0.65 0.26 1.25
Emerson Park 1.34 1.34
Jason Park 8.11 7.1 0.55 0.46 4.2
Northwest Greenbelt 10.75 9.46 1.29 9.46
Romans Park 4.61 3.1 0.8 0.71
Rotolo Park 3.25 3.05 0.17 0.03
Southwest Greenbelt 5.51 4.5 1.01
134.18 67.82 20.06 2.16 22.14 22 21.01Page 30 of 229
Open Space Acreage-Off Leash Proposed
•67.82 usable open space turf acres
•15.76 Acres proposed for off leash areas (23.2% of open space acreage vs. the current
program 34.3%)
Off Leash Park Acreage Break Down:
Jason (7.1 total) off leash 1.7acres + 2.5acres multi use field = 4.2 acres
Duncan (2.9 total) off leash 1.25 acres*
Centennial (6.8) off leash less than 4 acres*
Cushing (6.5 total) off leash .6 acres
Emerson (1.34) off leash 1 acre*
Northwest Greenbelt off leash 9.46 acres
Canine Corral 1.5 acres
Park Acreage Total Turf Non-Turf Beds Native Water Proposed
Off Leash
Baker Park 0.93 0.53 0.3 0.1
Barde Park 3.67 3.38 0.29
Bates Logan 6.84 6.64 0.2
Belleview Park 36.14 11 5.7 19.44
Canine Corral 1.5
Centennial Park 37.3 6.8 8 0.5 22
Clarkson Park 0.77 0.77
Cushing Park 11.15 7.25 1.1 0.1 2.7 0.6
Duncan Park 3.81 2.9 0.65 0.26
Emerson Park 1.34 1.34
Jason Park 8.11 7.1 0.55 0.46 4.2
Northwest Greenbelt 10.75 9.46 1.29 9.46
Romans Park 4.61 3.1 0.8 0.71
Rotolo Park 3.25 3.05 0.17 0.03
Southwest Greenbelt 5.51 4.5 1.01
134.18 67.82 20.06 2.16 22.14 22 15.76
*Proposed to eliminate Page 31 of 229
Questions/ Discussion
Page 32 of 229
Off-Leash Program in
Englewood Parks
City Council Study Session-August 23, 2021Page 33 of 229
History of Off-Leash in Englewood
•2001, City Council passed Council Bill No. 36, Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001 –An
Ordinance amending Title 7, Chapter 1A, of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000,
pertaining to dogs and cats. Whereas, the Englewood Code Enforcement Advisory
Committee has recommended the City require that all dogs be on a leash when
away from the premises of the owner or keeper.
•Council passed Resolution No. 4, Series of 2002, a resolution establishing a pilot
park program in the City of Englewood, Colorado for off leash dogs. This resolution
set forth the establishment of 5 parks (Northwest, Bates Logan, Jason, Centennial,
Duncan) in which dogs could remain off-leash. No park in Englewood was ever
designated as an off-leash park from the inception of the development of the park
system.
•Pilot program for five off-leash dog parks launched in January 2002;
Englewood adopted off-leash areas in parks, January 2003.
•In October 2003 Bates/Logan Park off-leash privileges were revoked due
to complaintsPage 34 of 229
Task Force Participants
Task Force Meetings
•September 22, 2020
•October 6, 2020
•October 22, 2020
•October 29, 2020
•December 1, 2020
•June 9, 2021
Task Force Members
1.Mark Husbands, Parks & Recreation Commission
2.Kate Truesdale, Parks & Recreation Commission
3.Monica Johnson, Parks and Recreation
Commission/Code Enforcement Advisory Committee
4.Stephen Young, Parks and Recreation Commission
5.Doug Abramowitz, Englewood Unleashed (non voting)
6.Jon Lieberman, Englewood Unleashed
7.Paul Rogalla, Englewood Unleashed
8.Steven Kelly, Englewood Unleashed
9.Poorvi Pfenning, Former Englewood Unleashed
President (Last meeting Dec. 1)
10.Jake Gilbert, Resident
11.Martha Griego, Resident
12.Jordan Storfa, Resident Emerson
13.Dean Kinblom, Resident Emerson
14.Allen McGirl, Pirate Youth Sports
Highlighted members attended
the June 9th meeting. Page 35 of 229
Off Leash Areas-Parks
•Jason
•Duncan
•Emerson-Propose to add
•Cushing –Propose to add
•Centennial-Propose to remove
•Northwest Greenbelt
•Canine Corral Page 36 of 229
POLCO Random Sample Survey Findings
520 responses out of 5000 survey mailed
Key Findings:
•About half of residents (72%) felt that dogs can be off leash, but in a fenced
in area, while 23% said that dogs can be off leash with no fence required.
•At least 60% of respondents strongly or somewhat supported a fenced, off
leash dog area or park in Emerson, Cushing, Duncan, and Jason parks
overall.
•Of those who had at least one dog in their home, 40% had used an existing
off leash dog park or area.
•Most Englewood residents use city parks and value their maintenance and
cleanliness. Page 37 of 229
Page 38 of 229
Random Sample vs Open Survey-Support for
Fenced Areas: Page 39 of 229
Dog Area-Hours
•Current program
•6am-11pm (Winter)
•6am-11am and 6pm-11pm (Spring-Fall)
•Some areas may be off limits for off leash during practices, games and
various rentals (Duncan and Jason)
Task Force Poll: Should off-leash
hours be 6am-11pm?
YES: 5 NO: 4
Page 40 of 229
Off Leash Park-Cushing (new)
•Fenced area in a passive area of the park.
•Woodchips vs. grass
•lack of irrigation
•on-going challenges with a smaller sized dog
park.
POLCO Random Sample Survey: Cushing Park, 77% of
residents strongly or somewhat supported a fenced dog
park.
POLCO Open Survey: Cushing Park, 80% of respondents
strongly or somewhat supported a fenced dog park
Task Force Poll Results:
Should Cushing Park have a fenced off-leash area?
YES: 9 NO:0
Should Cushing Park be for:
a) small dogs only 1 b) Passive dogs only 0
c) All dogs 6 d) Small and passive 2
•Cushing dog park proposed in 2017 Parks
and Recreation Master Plan Page 41 of 229
Off Leash Park-Northwest Greenbelt
POLCO Random Sample Survey: Fewer than half of residents strongly or somewhat supported off leash dog
areas (no fence) at the Northwest Greenbelt (42%)
-At least 30% strongly or somewhat opposed an unfenced dog area at this location.
POLCO Open Survey: 67% supported an off leash dog area at the Northwest Greenbelt
Task Force Poll Results:
Do you agree NWGB remain an off-leash park?
YES: 8 NO: 1
Page 42 of 229
Off Leash Park-Canine Corral
•No changes-ongoing
maintenance to
improve woodchips
and conditions. Page 43 of 229
Off Leash Park –Jason
POLCO Random Sample Survey:
A majority of respondents also supported an off leash
fenced dog park at Jason Park (66%)
POLCO Open Survey:
-47% supported an off leash area
-53% strongly or somewhat opposed an off leash
fenced area at Jason.
Task Force Poll Results:
Do you agree with the proposal for a fence north of the
Jason Park playground?
YES: 7 NO: 2
Do you agree with the temporary fence between the
multi-use field and open off-leash space at Jason Park?
YES: 4 NO: 4Page 44 of 229
Off Leash Park-Duncan
•Recommended partial fence to separate off leash dogs from other park
uses.
•Open space could still be used for athletic programs and would not be
open for off leash use during those times.
•Leash required on the southside of the park
POLCO Random Sample Survey: (60%) supported a single fence dog
area at Duncan Park
POLCO Open Survey: (60%) supported a single fence dog area at
Duncan Park
Task Force Poll Results:
Should Duncan Park have an off-leash area north of the playground?
YES: 3 NO: 5
Should Duncan Park have a fence separating the off-leash and open
space from the playground and other park amenities?
YES: 5 NO: 3Page 45 of 229
Off Leash Park-Emerson (new)
•Should this be an off leash park?
•Licensing Specific for Emerson
Neighborhood –Englewood Residents Only
•Specific residents xx blocks from the park
allowed to use off leash at Emerson?
•Should the park have specific off leash
hours vs. regular park hours? Page 46 of 229
Page 47 of 229
Emerson Park -Continued
POLCO Random Sample Survey:
•Fewer than half of residents strongly or somewhat supported off leash dog areas (no fence) at Emerson (41%)
•At least 30% strongly or somewhat opposed an unfenced dog area at this locations.
POLCO Open Survey: 69% of respondents strongly or somewhat supported off leash areas (no fence) at Emerson
Park.
Task Force Poll Results:
Should Emerson Park be designated as an off-leash park?
YES: 4 NO: 4
Should Emerson Park be for Englewood residents only?
YES: 8 NO: 0
Should there be a designated boundary for licensing dogs to be able to use Emerson Park?
YES: 4 NO: 5
If Emerson Park is an off-leash park, should the off-leash hours be a)6am-11pm or b)should there be specific
morning (6-11am) hours and evening (6-11pm) hours?
6a-11p: 3
6a-11a &6p-11p: 5Page 48 of 229
Decorative Fencing-$105/linear foot
•Cushing --$73,500
•Emerson (full fence)--$96,075
•Emerson north and west fences only--$47,460
•Jason --$36,750
•Duncan --$25,515
Page 49 of 229
Black Coated Chain Link-$30/linear foot
•Cushing $21,000
•Emerson $27,450
Emerson north & west fence
•Jason $10,500
•Duncan $7,290
•only-$13,560
Task Force Poll Results:
Which fence option do you prefer?
a)Decorative:3 b)Chain Link:5
Page 50 of 229
Break Down of Park Acreage
Park Acreage Total Turf Non-Turf Beds Native Water
Baker Park 0.93 0.53 0.3 0.1
Barde Park 3.67 3.38 0.29
Bates Logan 6.84 6.64 0.2
Belleview Park 36.14 11 5.7 19.44
Centennial Park 37.3 6.8 8 0.5 22
Clarkson Park 0.77 0.77
Cushing Park 11.15 7.25 1.1 0.1 2.7
Duncan Park 3.81 2.9 0.65 0.26
Emerson Park 1.34 1.34
Jason Park 8.11 7.1 0.55 0.46
Northwest Greenbelt 10.75 9.46 1.29
Romans Park 4.61 3.1 0.8 0.71
Rotolo Park 3.25 3.05 0.17 0.03
Southwest Greenbelt 5.51 4.5 1.01
134.18 67.82 20.06 2.16 22.14 22Page 51 of 229
Open Space Acreage-Off-Leash Program
•67.82 usable open space turf acres
•Current Off Leash Program: 23.31 Acres for off leash areas (34.3% of open space acreage)
•Proposed program: 18.01 Acres for off leash (26.5% of open space acreage)*
Off Leash Park Acreage Break Down:
Jason (7.1 total) off leash 1.7acres + 2.5acres multi use field = 4.2 acres
Duncan (2.9 total) off leash 1.25 acres
Cushing (6.5 total) off leash .6 acres
Centennial (6.8 total) off leash <4 acres*
Emerson (1.34) off leash 1 acre
Northwest Greenbelt off leash 9.46 acres
Canine Corral 1.5 acres
Park Acreage Total Turf Non-Turf Beds Native Water Current
Off Leash
Baker Park 0.93 0.53 0.3 0.1
Barde Park 3.67 3.38 0.29
Bates Logan 6.84 6.64 0.2
Belleview Park 36.14 11 5.7 19.44
Canine Corral 1.5
Centennial Park 37.3 6.8 8 0.5 22 4
Clarkson Park 0.77 0.77
Cushing Park 11.15 7.25 1.1 0.1 2.7 0.6
Duncan Park 3.81 2.9 0.65 0.26 1.25
Emerson Park 1.34 1.34
Jason Park 8.11 7.1 0.55 0.46 4.2
Northwest Greenbelt 10.75 9.46 1.29 9.46
Romans Park 4.61 3.1 0.8 0.71
Rotolo Park 3.25 3.05 0.17 0.03
Southwest Greenbelt 5.51 4.5 1.01
134.18 67.82 20.06 2.16 22.14 22 21.01Page 52 of 229
Licensing Program
•$25-$50/ license (proposed)
•Annual renewal
•Educational program
•Dogs must wear license/ tag while in Englewood Off Leash Parks.
•Recommended to have license/tag all the time.
Boulder Voice and Sight Program: https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/voice-and-sight
•If you renew between November 1 and January 31,the following discounted renewal rate applies:
•City of Boulder residents: $5.
•Boulder County residents not in the City of Boulder: $20.
•Non-Boulder County residents: $30.
•Registration Fees
•Initial Registration Fees/Renewal After January 31:
•City of Boulder residents: $13.
•Boulder County residents not in the City of Boulder: $33.
•Non-Boulder County residents: $75.
TERM 2019/2020
Dogs Spayed or Neutered $15
Dogs Intact $30
Replacement Tag $2
Boulder licensing
fees (does not
include voice and
sight license)
Polco Random Sample Survey:
The majority of respondents (67%) strongly or somewhat
supported the City implementing a dog licensing program in
Englewood, 12% neither supported nor opposed the measure,
and 21% opposed it. Page 53 of 229
Random Survey vs Open Survey-Dog Licensing Page 54 of 229
Maintenance For Off Leash Areas
•Weekly: Spring-Fall temporary
closures (1-2 hours)
•Mowing and Trimming
•Irrigation checks and repair
•General maintenance
•Bi-annual closures needed to rest
turf and restore (6-8weeks)
•Seeding
•Aeration
•Top soil
•Fertilization
•Rotation of closures
1
2
3
Page 55 of 229
Colorado Springs
Douglas County
Lakewood –Forsberg Park
Westminster
Denver
Examples of Off Leash Areas
Page 56 of 229
Rules
•Challenges:
•Confusion
•Too many rules listed
•Hours listed specific to off leash-confusing
•Not enough signs or too many signs
•Inconsistency in signs/ rules
•People not knowing the rules
•Options:
•Use of QR Codes
•Top 5 rules listed (subject to change)
1.Pick up after your dog
2.Carry a leash
3.Dogs must be under control at all times
4.Respect others in the park
5.Visitors use the facility at their own risk and assume all
liability
Denver Rules Sign
Page 57 of 229
Code Enforcement Calls For Service By Park
Park Address 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Baker 2200 W Wesley Ave 1 14 3 2 5 0 3 1 0 3 0 2 7 0 1 5 7 54
Barde 3150 S Downing St 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 14 26
Bates/Logan 2938 S Logan St 0 7 11 23 12 14 7 7 5 3 5 5 36 19 37 134 91 416
Belleview 5001 S Inca St 0 17 17 19 8 9 8 10 5 10 6 9 7 6 36 111 53 331
Centennial 4630 S Decatur St 5 13 11 12 11 13 11 16 6 10 5 12 15 14 48 143 77 422
Clarkson/Amherst 2795 S Clarkson St 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 7 13
Cushing 700 W Dartmouth
Ave 1 17 18 21 9 17 1 1 4 2 4 1 7 1 9 44 26 183
Duncan 4880 S Pennsylvania
St 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 4 21 54 90
Emerson 2929 S Emerson St 0 0 4 0 1 8 1 2 2 4 3 7 15 4 31 116 63 261
Jason 4299 S Jason St 1 2 50 20 17 36 18 7 2 5 4 3 8 7 9 107 133 429
Romans 1800 E Floyd Ave 0 3 11 5 3 7 3 5 5 6 3 1 4 3 9 43 34 145
Rotollo 4401 S Huron St 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 8 10 4 22 40 92
Miller Field 3600 S Elati St 9 5 9 4 1 20 13 2 4 3 2 22 10 20 35 65 64 288
Hosanna
Athletic 3750 S Logan St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5
Canine Corral 4848 S Windermere
St 0 0 17 14 5 3 11 12 1 5 4 2 7 11 7 23 13 135
TOTALS 17 80 152 121 76 130 78 66 35 54 39 68 128 95 230 844 677 2890Page 58 of 229
54264163314221318390261429145922885135Code Enforcement Calls For Service By Park 2005-2021
12 5634
1.Jason
2.Centennial
3.Bates/Logan
4.Belleview
5.Miller Field
6.Emerson
Page 59 of 229
Code Enforcement Calls For Service By Park 2019 -2021
Park Address 2019 2020 2021 Total
Baker 2200 W Wesley Ave 1 5 7 54
Barde 3150 S Downing St 0 5 14 26
Bates/Logan 2938 S Logan St 37 134 91 416
Belleview 5001 S Inca St 36 111 53 331
Centennial 4630 S Decatur St 48 143 77 422
Clarkson/Amherst 2795 S Clarkson St 0 1 7 13
Cushing 700 W Dartmouth Ave 9 44 26 183
Duncan 4880 S Pennsylvania St 4 21 54 90
Emerson 2929 S Emerson St 31 116 63 261
Jason 4299 S Jason St 9 107 133 429
Romans 1800 E Floyd Ave 9 43 34 145
Rotollo 4401 S Huron St 4 22 40 92
Miller Field 3600 S Elati St 35 65 64 288
Hosanna
Athletic 3750 S Logan St 0 4 1 5
Canine Corral 4848 S Windermere St 7 23 13 135
TOTALS 230 844 677 1751Page 60 of 229
5 Year Trend-Calls For Service
128952308446772017 2018 2019 2020 2021
(Jan 1-Aug 1)Page 61 of 229
Englewood Parks &
Recreation Commission
Off-Leash Subcommittee
Page 62 of 229
Our Findings
•Englewood is one of the very few municipalities with off-leash dog parks/hours in metro
areas across the country
•Neighboring municipalities are brining additional dogs into our parks
•Dog use is damaging parks/turf, costing the city money
•Dogs wandering off/getting lost costs the city money
•Rising complaints and recent incidents reported of aggressive dogs
•With the growing population in Englewood and surrounding communities, the off-leash
dog park program is not sustainable as it currently operates
Page 63 of 229
Our Recommendations
•The Parks and Recreation Department will develop a comprehensive plan and secure funding for
new enclosed off-leash dog parks at both Cushing and Jason Park.
•Off-leash dog privileges will be eliminated at Centennial and Duncan Parks.
•The Northwest Greenbelt will remain an off-leash dog park.
•The Parks & Recreation Department and Englewood Code Enforcement will develop a Dog
Licensing Program.
•City Council makes a final decision regarding the off-leash dogs and implement changes on
January 1, 2022. Page 64 of 229
Open Space Acreage-Off Leash Proposed
•67.82 usable open space turf acres
•15.76 Acres proposed for off leash areas (23.2% of open space acreage vs the current
program 34.3%)
Off Leash Park Acreage Break Down:
Jason (7.1 total) off leash 1.7acres + 2.5acres multi use field = 4.2 acres
Duncan (2.9 total) off leash 1.25 acres*
Centennial (6.8) off leash less than 4 acres*
Cushing (6.5 total) off leash .6 acres
Emerson (1.34) off leash 1 acre*
Northwest Greenbelt off leash 9.46 acres
Canine Corral 1.5 acres
Park Acreage Total Turf Non-Turf Beds Native Water Proposed
Off Leash
Baker Park 0.93 0.53 0.3 0.1
Barde Park 3.67 3.38 0.29
Bates Logan 6.84 6.64 0.2
Belleview Park 36.14 11 5.7 19.44
Canine Corral 1.5
Centennial Park 37.3 6.8 8 0.5 22
Clarkson Park 0.77 0.77
Cushing Park 11.15 7.25 1.1 0.1 2.7 0.6
Duncan Park 3.81 2.9 0.65 0.26
Emerson Park 1.34 1.34
Jason Park 8.11 7.1 0.55 0.46 4.2
Northwest Greenbelt 10.75 9.46 1.29 9.46
Romans Park 4.61 3.1 0.8 0.71
Rotolo Park 3.25 3.05 0.17 0.03
Southwest Greenbelt 5.51 4.5 1.01
134.18 67.82 20.06 2.16 22.14 22 15.76
*Proposed to eliminate Page 65 of 229
Implementation Timeline*
•Off-leash Program Vote: September 2021
•Education of new off-leash program: October 2021-February 2022
•New off-leash program takes effect: January 1, 2022
•Enforcement of off-leash begins March 1, 2022
*Subject to council decision
Page 66 of 229
Questions/ Discussion
Page 67 of 229
City of Englewood Parks & Recreation Commission Off-Leash Dog Recommendations
August 2021
The Off-Leash Dog Sub Committee was formed out of the Parks and Recreation Commission in October
2018 as a result of increased complaints from Englewood residents about the off-leash dog park program.
The Sub Committee met with three stakeholder groups from November 2018 to April 2019, including
Englewood Code Enforcement, Englewood Unleashed and Pirate Youth Sports.
In June 2020 the Off-Leash Dog Sub Committee presented its recommendations to Englewood City
Council. Following the presentation, community members were permitted to comment on the
recommendations. Over the course of nearly three hours, dozens of community members commented
both in support and in opposition of the Off-Leash Dog Sub Committee’s recommendations. As a result,
Englewood City Council tasked the Englewood Parks and Recreation Department with creating a new Off-
Leash Dog Task Force to find resolution among all parties. It was composed of the Parks and Recreation
Commissioners and representatives of the groups they met with. A mediator was hired to administer the
discussion and POLCO surveyed the community to help guide the Task Force in determining new
recommendations.
Over the course of a year the Off-Leash Dog Task Force met to discuss potential options. While the
representatives of some groups were consistently present at meetings, representatives of other groups
changed almost every meeting; in particular, representatives of Englewood Unleashed. The revolving
representatives from this group were aggressive toward other Task Force members and seemed unwilling
to compromise on a resolution, especially regarding Jason Park, which was notorious for off-leash dog
related issues.
POLCO conducted two identical surveys regarding off-leash dog parks in Englewood. The first was a
random sample survey, which was mailed to 5,000 residents living within a certain distance of an existing
off-leash dog park; 520 residents responded. The second was an open response survey, which all
Englewood residents had the opportunity to complete. When these POLCO surveys were proposed to the
Off-Leash Task Force a number of representatives expressed concerns about the open response survey as
Englewood Unleashed had an established a track record of encouraging their supporters to make their
views appear more prevalent than they actually were in the community as a whole (demonstrated by the
opposition at the June 2020 City Council meeting and the ever-changing representation on the Task
Force.)
Nonetheless, both surveys provided results that were essentially a 50/50 split view of proposed options
for resolving the off-leash dog park issue within Englewood. This was consistent with feedback the Parks
and Recreation Commission had heard from the community (at nearly every Commission meeting) since
the off-leash dog program’s inception.
On August 10, 2021 the Parks and Recreation Commission Task Force representatives met to review the
discussion that had taken place over the past year, along with the POLCO survey findings. While the Parks
and Recreation Commission Task Force representatives appreciate the Englewood Park and Recreation
Department’s work and dedication to finding mutual resolution among all parties, we still believe an off-
leash dog program is not sustainable as our city continues to grow and develop. We also believe the
changes being proposed by the larger Off-Leash Task Force will create more ambiguity regarding off-leash
dogs, unnecessary and costly work for the Parks and Recreation Department, and ultimately prolong the
off-leash dog park issue.
Page 68 of 229
The Parks and Recreation Commission Task Force representatives presented the following
recommendations to the Parks and Recreation Commission on August 12, 2021. These recommendations
were unanimously approved to move forward to Englewood City Council.
The Parks and Recreation Commision recommend the following:
• The Parks and Recreation Department will develop a comprehensive plan and secure funding
for new enclosed off-leash dog parks at both Cushing and Jason Park. The Parks and Recreation
Commission believes all off-leash dog parks should be enclosed. Along with Canine Corral, there
will now be three enclosed off-leash dog parks in Englewood. The concept for a dog park at
Cushing Park was first introduced in the 2017 Parks & Recreation Master Plan, and was the most
supported plan in both POLCO’s surveys. During Task Force meetings, the most controversial
discussions surrounded Jason Park and representatives and community members in-favor of off-
leash dog privileges were most vocal about this park. The location of this enclosed off-leash dog
park will be selected by the Parks and Recreation Department, and determined by cost and ease
of maintenance.
• Off-leash dog privileges will be eliminated at Centennial and Duncan Parks. Since the off-leash
dog park programs’ inception, the Englewood Parks and Recreation Department and Code
Enforcement have received multiple complaints about dangerous, at-large dogs at these parks
and there are genuine concerns for the health and safety of Englewood’s children and families.
These parks have athletic fields, rental shelters and playgrounds. Eliminating off-leash privileges
at these parks will ensure all Englewood’s citizens can safely enjoy the parks, and that the Parks
and Recreation Department maximize potential revenue.
• The Northwest Greenbelt will remain an off-leash dog park. During the Off-Leash Task Force
discussions, the Northwest Greenbelt was rarely mentioned, and does not have a history of at-
large dog issues. Therefore the Parks and Recreation Commission does not think changes to this
park need to be considered. However, the Commission supports this park becoming entirely on-
leash if City Council decides to make all parks on-leash, with the exception of the three enclosed
off-leash parks. We feel consistency across the parks will remove ambiguity.
• Emerson Park will remain an on-leash dog park. The Commission believes Emerson Park should
remain on-leash for consistency within the off-leash dog park program, despite the requests of
residents that live in the neighborhood surrounding the park.
• The Parks & Recreation Department and Englewood Code Enforcement will develop a Dog
Licensing Program. This concept was discussed in both the original Off-Leash Sub Committee and
the larger Off-Leash Task Force. The Parks and Recreation Commission is supportive of this idea,
and believes it will resolve at-large dog issues and generate revenue, as well as create a sense of
community among dog owners. The Commission does encourage a scholarship program to be
created for community members that may struggle with the annual fee.
• City Council makes a final decision regarding the off-leash dogs and implement changes on
January 1, 2022. At-large dogs are a health and safety concern and a financial burden for the city
of Englewood. The Parks and Recreation Department, Commission, Code Enforcement and City
Council have been hearing concerns regarding the program since its inception. It is crucial to
make a decision on this issue, implement changes, and finally end the discussions. It is time for
our city to move forward.
Page 69 of 229
Dog Park/Off-Leash Dog Areas
(within 30 mile radius of Englewood per BringFido.com)
• Arvada:
o First Creek Farm Dog Park
▪ Separated into Two Fenced Areas for small and larger dogs
o West Arvada Dog Park – Arvada
▪ 5 acres
▪ Fenced
▪ Funded 100% through donations
• Aurora
o Bicentennial Off-Leash Dog Area
▪ One Acre
▪ Fenced
o Cherry Creek State Park Off-Leash Area (DOLA)
▪ 107 acre fenced area
▪ Valid State Parks Pass required plus Daily or Annual DOLA (Dog Off-Leash
Area) fee of $3 daily or $25 Annual
o Grandview Dog Park
▪ 5+ acres
▪ Fenced with separate small area for dogs
• Boulder
o Foothills Community Dog Park
▪ 2 acres divided into two areas
▪ Fenced
o Howard Heuston Off-Leash Dog Area
▪ Non-fenced dog park with majority leash-required “well-marked” off-leash
area
▪ Only people who have registered with the city’s Voice and Sight Tag
Program may have a dog off-leash in the off-leash dog area. Voice and
Sight Tag must be visibly displayed on each dog that is off-leash.
o Valmont Dog Park
▪ 3 acres with separate areas for small and large dogs
▪ Fenced
• Brighton
o Happy Tails Off-Leash Dog Park
▪ “Large”
▪ Fenced
• Castle Rock
o Fairgrounds Regional Dog Park
▪ 2+ acres with both dog park and off-leash fenced area
▪ Fenced
o Glendale Farm Open Space Dog Park
▪ 17 acres
▪ Fenced
• Conifer
o Beaver Ranch Dog Park
▪ 2 acres
▪ Fenced
Page 70 of 229
• Denver
o Barnum Dog Park
▪ ¾ acre (33,000 sf) separated into two areas for active and less active
▪ Fenced
o Berkeley Lake Dog Park
▪ Two acres separated into two areas for active and less active
o Carla Madison Dog Park
▪ “small” sized dog park
▪ Fenced
o Fuller Dog Park
▪ Medium-sized dog park separated into two areas
▪ Fenced
o Green Valley Ranch East Off-Leash Area
▪ 1.5 acres
▪ Fenced
o Greenway Dog Park (Stapleton Dog Park)
▪ 4 acres
▪ Fenced
o Kennedy Dog Park
▪ -3 acres separated into two areas for active and less-active dogs
▪ Fenced
o Little Box Car Dog Park
▪ Small-sized dog park
▪ Fenced
o Lowry Dog Park
▪ Medium size
▪ 3 fenced in areas for high-energy dogs, low-energy dogs and an agility
course.
o Parkfield Dog Park
▪ Separate areas for active and less-active dogs
▪ Fenced
o Railyard Dog Park
▪ Less than one acre
▪ Fenced
o Sonny Lawson Park
▪ “small”
▪ Fenced
• Golden
o Dog Park at Tony Grampsas
▪ 2.5 acres
▪ Fenced
o Fenced Homer’s Run Dog Park
▪ For smaller-sized dogs
▪ Fenced
• Highlands Ranch
o Digger’s Dog Park at Dad Clark
▪ 2 acres
▪ Off-leash fenced area
o Hound Hill Dog Park at Heritage Regional Park
▪ 2 acres
▪ Off-leash fenced area
o Fido’s Field at Foothill Park
▪ 2 acres
Page 71 of 229
▪ Off-leash fenced area
• Highlands Ranch, cont.
o Rover’s Run Dog Park at Redstone
▪ 2 acres
▪ Off-leash fenced area
• Lafayette
o The Great Bark Dog
▪ 6.1 acres
▪ Off leash
▪ Located in a public park
▪ Split rail fence
• Lakewood
o Forseberg Iron Spring Dog Park
▪ 4 acres separated in two areas
▪ Fenced
• Littleton
o Chatfield State Park Off-Leash Dog Area
▪ 69 acres of fenced area
▪ Valid Colorado Parks State Parks Pass required plus DOLA (Dog Off-Leash
Area) fee of $3 daily or $25 annual
o David A. Lorenz Regional Dog Park
▪ 2 acres
▪ Fenced
o Wyneta Ponds Dog Park
▪ Small
▪ Fenced
• Louisville
o Davidson Mesa Open Space Off-Leash Dog Area
o Community Park Dog Park
• Northglenn
o Bill Goodspeed Happy Tails Dog Park
▪ 10+ acres
▪ Fenced
• Parker
o Bayou Gulch Dog Park
▪ 2+ acres
▪ Fenced
• Thornton
o Trail Winds Dog Park
▪ 2 acres with separate areas for small and large dogs
▪ Fenced
• Westminster
o Big Dry Creek Dog Park
▪ 2 acres
▪ Fenced
▪ Separate area for small and large dogs
▪ Includes agility course
Page 72 of 229
o Little Dry Creek Dog Park
▪ 1.75 acres
▪ Separate fenced area for small and large dogs
• Westminster, cont.
o Westminster Hills Dog Park
▪ 420 acres
▪ Partially fenced
Page 73 of 229
Prepared by:
2955 Valmont Road, Suite 300; Boulder, CO 80301 303-444-7863 n-r-c.com
Survey about Use of and
Preferences for Dog Parks
Executive Summary
April 2021
Page 74 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Executive Summary
Page 1
Survey Background
About the Survey
The City of Englewood, CO contracted with Polco’s National Research Center (NRC) to conduct
a survey of residents to gather feedback on their use of and preferences for dog parks in the
community. The survey was developed through an iterative process with City staff and the Task
Force created to deal with City issues around dog parks. Respondents answered questions about
their preferences for off-leash dog areas versus fenced-in dog parks, where the dogs should be
allowed in specific parks, if dogs should be licensed, and how many dogs households have,
among other topics.
Survey Administration
A total of 5,000 addresses were randomly selected from a list of all residential addresses in
Englewood. Each of these selected households was contacted two times with a postcard
invitation to complete the survey online (using the provided URL). The postcard invitations
were signed by the Mayor and instructed respondents in both English and Spanish to complete
the survey online in their preferred language. About 5% of the mailed invitation postcards (250)
were returned because they were received by vacant housing units. Of the estimated 4,750
remaining households, 520 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 11%. The margin
of error for this survey with 520 respondents is ±4.3%.
The survey data were statistically weighted to adjust for under-response among certain
demographic groups, a survey research best practice. Comparisons of results by respondent
characteristics and geographic area of residence are included, highlighted throughout the report
and reported in detail in the appendices. More information about the survey methods used can
be found in Appendix F: Survey Methodology (under separate cover).
Key Findings
Most Englewood residents use City parks and value their maintenance and cleanliness.
About 4 out of 5 respondents had used a City park in the 12 months prior to the survey. When
use of City parks was compared by respondent characteristics, households with children under
18 years old were more likely than households without children under 18 to have used a City
park in the last 12 months.
Of those who reported using a City park in the last 12 months, Bates-Logan Park and Belleview
Park were the most frequented by residents, with about 3 in 10 saying they had visited each of
the two parks at least 1-2 times a month in the last 12 months; another 3 in 10 respondents
had visited Bates-Logan and Belleview parks less than once a month over the last year. One-
quarter of respondents reported visiting Jason Park at least 1-2 times a month and 1 in 5 had
visited Cushing, Duncan, Romans, and Southwest Greenbelt with this frequency.
Residents evaluated their level of concern about 11 different aspects of City of Englewood
parks. Park maintenance and overall cleanliness were a major or moderate concern for about 6
in 10 respondents, with about 3 in 10 stating these were major concerns. About 4 in 10
respondents said that they had major or moderate concerns about dog-human conflicts and
dog-dog conflicts in City parks, and another 3 in 10 had minor concerns with these issues.
Distance of dog areas or parks from playgrounds (33%) and picnic shelters (32%), and
repurposed use of park space (31%) were at least a moderate concern for some respondents.
Page 75 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Executive Summary
Page 2
About half of households have dogs and 40% of those use existing off leash City dog
parks or areas.
One-third of respondent households had one dog, 14% had two dogs, and 3% had three or
more dogs. About half of households currently have no dogs.
Of those who had at least one dog in their home, 40% had used an existing off leash dog park
or area. Households with children under 18, those living within a half mile of Jason Park, and
those living outside a half mile of Emerson Park were more likely to use existing off leash dog
parks or areas compared to their counterparts.
About 48% of dog owners who had used an off leash City dog park or area reported using
Jason Park at least 1-2 times a month and 19% had used it less than once a month in the last
12 months. Canine Corral was used 1-2 times a month in the last year by about 4 in 10
respondents, and 2 in 10 used it less than once a month. Centennial Park (28%) and Duncan
Park (24%) were used at least 1-2 times a month by about one-quarter of respondents; 65%
reported never having used these two parks in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Overall, residents feel dogs can be off leash in City parks but in a fenced in area, and
dog park users prioritize park cleanliness and maintenance for a successful fenced in
dog park.
Survey respondents selected the one statement out of five that best reflected their opinion
about dogs in City of Englewood parks. About half of residents felt that dogs can be off leash,
but in a fenced in area. One-quarter felt that dogs can be off leash, but no fence should be
required, and about 1 in 5 said that dogs should only be on-leash. Three percent had no
preference and 2% preferred no dogs in parks.
Those who had lived in the City for more than 20 years and those who did not own a dog were
more likely to prefer dogs only be on-leash compared to those who had lived in the city for a
shorter period of time and dog owners. Also, those who lived outside a half mile of any of the
five specific parks being asked about on the survey (Duncan, Cushing, Emerson, Jason,
Northwest Greenbelt) were more likely to feel dogs should only be on-leash compared to those
living within a half mile of these five parks.
Survey respondents who owned at least one dog and had used an existing off leash City dog
park or area assessed the importance of 11 different factors that could create a successful
fenced in dog park. Cleanliness and maintenance of a fenced in dog park was essential to 50%
of respondents and very important to 44%. About 4 in 10 said that having a grass area and
acreage was essential and a slightly smaller proportion felt that shaded areas were essential.
Parking close to the site was essential or very important for 63% of respondents.
While a majority of respondents support a fenced off leash dog area or park in
Emerson, Cushing, Duncan, and Jason parks overall, support lessened for some when
presented with the design options.
At least 6 in 10 respondents strongly or somewhat supported a fenced, off leash dog area or
park in Emerson, Cushing, Duncan, and Jason parks overall. Between 20% and 30% of
respondents neither supported nor opposed having a fenced, off leash dog area or park in each
of the four mentioned parks. Fifteen percent or less of residents opposed having a fenced, off
leash dog area or park in each of the four parks, with the strongest opposition for Duncan
Park.
Page 76 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Executive Summary
Page 3
Survey respondents were presented with a series of questions that included a description and
an image of proposed off leash dog areas or parks in Cushing, Jason, Duncan, and Emerson
Park as well as the Northwest Greenbelt and assessed their level of support for each. The
highest support was voiced for an off leash fenced dog park at Cushing Park, with 77% of
residents strongly or somewhat supporting this measure; only 9% opposed a fenced dog park
at Cushing Park. A majority of respondents (66%) also supported an off leash fenced dog park
at Jason Park, and a similar proportion (60%) supported a single fence dog area at Duncan
Park. Less than half of residents strongly or somewhat supported off leash dog areas (no
fence) at the Northwest Greenbelt and Emerson Park, and about 3 in 10 opposed a dog area at
these two locations.
Residents who had lived in the city for less than 20 years were significantly more supportive of
having a fenced dog park at Cushing Park compared to those who had lived in the city for
more than 20 years. Dog owners voiced stronger support for off leash dog areas or parks at
Emerson, and Cushing parks as well as the Northwest Greenbelt compared to those without
dogs. Households with children under 18 were more likely to support off leash dog parks or
areas at the Northwest Greenbelt and Duncan Park compared to those without children.
In general, many respondents support a dog licensing program in Englewood but are
more hesitant of policy changes for non-residents.
Respondents indicated their level of support for two potential policies related to dogs in the
City of Englewood, as well as whether non-residents should be able to use City parks with their
dogs. Two-thirds of respondents strongly or somewhat supported the City implementing a dog
licensing program in Englewood, 12% neither supported nor opposed the measure, and 21%
opposed it.
About half of residents (53%) supported non-residents being able to use City of Englewood
parks with their dogs, one-third neither supported nor opposed it, and 16% opposed it. Half of
respondents supported non-Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing fee for a
City of Englewood dog license to help fund park maintenance and staffing; 22% felt
indifferently about this policy and 28% opposed it.
Households without dogs were more supportive of dog licensing compared to those with dogs.
Those who had lived in the city for less than 20 years were more likely to support non-
residents being able to use City parks with their dogs compared to longer-term residents.
Residents living within a half mile of Emerson and Jason parks were more supportive of non-
Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing fee for a City dog license compared to
those living outside a half mile of these two parks. However, those living outside a half mile of
Cushing Park were more supportive of this measure compared to those who lived within a half
mile of Cushing Park.
Page 77 of 229
Code Enforcenet Calls For Service By Park
Park Address 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTAL
Baker 2200 W Wesley Ave 1 14 3 2 5 0 3 1 0 3 0 2 7 0 1 5 7 54
Barde 3150 S Downing St 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 14 26
Bates/Logan 2938 S Logan St 0 7 11 23 12 14 7 7 5 3 5 5 36 19 37 134 91 416
Belleview 5001 S Inca St 0 17 17 19 8 9 8 10 5 10 6 9 7 6 36 111 53 331
Centennial 4630 S Decatur St 5 13 11 12 11 13 11 16 6 10 5 12 15 14 48 143 77 422
Clarkson/Amherst 2795 S Clarkson St 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 7 13
Cushing 700 W Dartmouth Ave 1 17 18 21 9 17 1 1 4 2 4 1 7 1 9 44 26 183
Duncan 4880 S Pennsylvania St 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 4 21 54 90
Emerson 2929 S Emerson St 0 0 4 0 1 8 1 2 2 4 3 7 15 4 31 116 63 261
Jason 4299 S Jason St 1 2 50 20 17 36 18 7 2 5 4 3 8 7 9 107 133 429
Romans 1800 E Floyd Ave 0 3 11 5 3 7 3 5 5 6 3 1 4 3 9 43 34 145
Rotollo 4401 S Huron St 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 8 10 4 22 40 92
Miller Field 3600 S Elati St 9 5 9 4 1 20 13 2 4 3 2 22 10 20 35 65 64 288
Hosanna Athletic 3750 S Logan St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5
Canine Corral 4848 S Windermere St 0 0 17 14 5 3 11 12 1 5 4 2 7 11 7 23 13 135
TOTALS 17 80 152 121 76 130 78 66 35 54 39 68 128 95 230 844 677 2890
*2021 data is
January 1st, 2021-
August 1st, 2021
Page 78 of 229
Links to Meetings with discussion related to the off-leash program:
Off-Leash Task Force:
September 22, 2020
October 6, 2020
October 20, 2020
October 29, 2020
December 1, 2020
June 9, 2021
Parks and Recreation Off Leash Sub Committee:
August 10, 2021
Parks and Recreation Commission:
June 11, 2020
(Off Leash Sub Committee presented its recommendations to the Parks and Recreation
Commission to modify the off-leash program)
August 12, 2021
(Off Leash Sub Committee presented its recommendations to the Parks and Recreation
Commission to modify the off-leash program)
City Council meetings:
March 30, 2020
(Staff from Code Enforcement, Parks and Communications present information regarding
current code enforcement practices with dogs and off leash dogs and citizens request for
Emerson to be included as an off-leash park)
July 20, 2020
(The Parks and Recreation Off Leash Sub Committee presented its recommendations for
modifying the off-leash program)
December 14, 2020
(Find Solutions Moderator, Steve Charbonneau provided an update to the off-leash task
force discussions and next steps in establishing a POLCO survey)
April 26, 2021
(POLCO presented dog park survey results)
Page 79 of 229
Prepared by:
2955 Valmont Road, Suite 300; Boulder, CO 80301 303-444-7863 n-r-c.com
Survey about Use of and
Preferences for Dog Parks
Report of Results
April 2021
Page 80 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Table of Contents
Survey Background .................................................................................................................. 1
Survey Results ......................................................................................................................... 4
Community Context ........................................................................................................................... 4
Off-Leash Park Use ............................................................................................................................. 9
Dog Leash Preferences .................................................................................................................... 12
Appendix A: Full Set of Responses to the Random Sample Survey ......................................... 21
Appendix B: Comparisons of Survey Responses by Respondent Characteristics
(Random Sample) ............................................................................................................... 39
Appendix C: Comparisons of Survey Responses by Proximity of Residence to City Parks
(Random Sample) ............................................................................................................... 55
Appendix D: Full Set of Responses to the Open Participation Survey ...................................... 64
Appendix E: Comparisons of Random Sample and Open Participation Survey Responses ...... 84
Appendix F: Survey Methodology ........................................................................................... 89
Appendix G: Survey Materials ................................................................................................ 93
Page 81 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 1
Survey Background
About the Survey
The City of Englewood, CO contracted with Polco’s National Research Center (NRC) to conduct
a survey of residents to gather feedback on their use of and preferences for dog parks in the
community. The survey was developed through an iterative process with City staff and the Task
Force created to deal with City issues around dog parks. Respondents answered questions about
their preferences for off-leash dog areas versus fenced-in dog parks, where the dogs should be
allowed in specific parks, if dogs should be licensed, and how many dogs households have,
among other topics.
Survey Administration
A total of 5,000 addresses were randomly selected from a list of all residential addresses in
Englewood. Each of these selected households was contacted two times with a postcard
invitation to complete the survey online (using the provided URL). The postcard invitations
were signed by the Mayor and instructed respondents in both English and Spanish to complete
the survey online in their preferred language. About 5% of the mailed invitation postcards (250)
were returned because they were received by vacant housing units. Of the estimated 4,750
remaining households, 520 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 11%. The margin
of error for this survey with 520 respondents is ±4.3%.
The survey data were statistically weighted to adjust for under-response among certain
demographic groups, a survey research best practice. Comparisons of results by respondent
characteristics and geographic area of residence are included, highlighted throughout the report
and reported in detail in the appendices. More information about the survey methods used can
be found in Appendix F: Survey Methodology.
Key Findings
Most Englewood residents use City parks and value their maintenance and cleanliness.
About 4 out of 5 respondents had used a City park in the 12 months prior to the survey. When
use of City parks was compared by respondent characteristics, households with children under
18 years old were more likely than households without children under 18 to have used a City
park in the last 12 months.
Of those who reported using a City park in the last 12 months, Bates-Logan Park and Belleview
Park were the most frequented by residents, with about 3 in 10 saying they had visited each of
the two parks at least 1-2 times a month in the last 12 months; another 3 in 10 respondents
had visited Bates-Logan and Belleview parks less than once a month over the last year. One-
quarter of respondents reported visiting Jason Park at least 1-2 times a month and 1 in 5 had
visited Cushing, Duncan, Romans, and Southwest Greenbelt with this frequency.
Residents evaluated their level of concern about 11 different aspects of City of Englewood
parks. Park maintenance and overall cleanliness were a major or moderate concern for about 6
in 10 respondents, with about 3 in 10 stating these were major concerns. About 4 in 10
respondents said that they had major or moderate concerns about dog-human conflicts and
dog-dog conflicts in City parks, and another 3 in 10 had minor concerns with these issues.
Distance of dog areas or parks from playgrounds (33%) and picnic shelters (32%), and
repurposed use of park space (31%) were at least a moderate concern for some respondents.
Page 82 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 2
About half of households have dogs and 40% of those use existing off leash City dog
parks or areas.
One-third of respondent households had one dog, 14% had two dogs, and 3% had three or
more dogs. About half of households currently have no dogs.
Of those who had at least one dog in their home, 40% had used an existing off leash dog park
or area. Households with children under 18, those living within a half mile of Jason Park, and
those living outside a half mile of Emerson Park were more likely to use existing off leash dog
parks or areas compared to their counterparts.
About 48% of dog owners who had used an off leash City dog park or area reported using
Jason Park at least 1-2 times a month and 19% had used it less than once a month in the last
12 months. Canine Corral was used 1-2 times a month in the last year by about 4 in 10
respondents, and 2 in 10 used it less than once a month. Centennial Park (28%) and Duncan
Park (24%) were used at least 1-2 times a month by about one-quarter of respondents; 65%
reported never having used these two parks in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Overall, residents feel dogs can be off leash in City parks but in a fenced in area, and
dog park users prioritize park cleanliness and maintenance for a successful fenced in
dog park.
Survey respondents selected the one statement out of five that best reflected their opinion
about dogs in City of Englewood parks. About half of residents felt that dogs can be off leash,
but in a fenced in area. One-quarter felt that dogs can be off leash, but no fence should be
required, and about 1 in 5 said that dogs should only be on-leash. Three percent had no
preference and 2% preferred no dogs in parks.
Those who had lived in the City for more than 20 years and those who did not own a dog were
more likely to prefer dogs only be on-leash compared to those who had lived in the city for a
shorter period of time and dog owners. Also, those who lived outside a half mile of any of the
five specific parks being asked about on the survey (Duncan, Cushing, Emerson, Jason,
Northwest Greenbelt) were more likely to feel dogs should only be on-leash compared to those
living within a half mile of these five parks.
Survey respondents who owned at least one dog and had used an existing off leash City dog
park or area assessed the importance of 11 different factors that could create a successful
fenced in dog park. Cleanliness and maintenance of a fenced in dog park was essential to 50%
of respondents and very important to 44%. About 4 in 10 said that having a grass area and
acreage was essential and a slightly smaller proportion felt that shaded areas were essential.
Parking close to the site was essential or very important for 63% of respondents.
While a majority of respondents support a fenced off leash dog area or park in
Emerson, Cushing, Duncan, and Jason parks overall, support lessened for some when
presented with the design options.
At least 6 in 10 respondents strongly or somewhat supported a fenced, off leash dog area or
park in Emerson, Cushing, Duncan, and Jason parks overall. Between 20% and 30% of
respondents neither supported nor opposed having a fenced, off leash dog area or park in each
of the four mentioned parks. Fifteen percent or less of residents opposed having a fenced, off
leash dog area or park in each of the four parks, with the strongest opposition for Duncan
Park.
Page 83 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 3
Survey respondents were presented with a series of questions that included a description and
an image of proposed off leash dog areas or parks in Cushing, Jason, Duncan, and Emerson
Park as well as the Northwest Greenbelt and assessed their level of support for each. The
highest support was voiced for an off leash fenced dog park at Cushing Park, with 77% of
residents strongly or somewhat supporting this measure; only 9% opposed a fenced dog park
at Cushing Park. A majority of respondents (66%) also supported an off leash fenced dog park
at Jason Park, and a similar proportion (60%) supported a single fence dog area at Duncan
Park. Less than half of residents strongly or somewhat supported off leash dog areas (no
fence) at the Northwest Greenbelt and Emerson Park, and about 3 in 10 opposed a dog area at
these two locations.
Residents who had lived in the city for less than 20 years were significantly more supportive of
having a fenced dog park at Cushing Park compared to those who had lived in the city for
more than 20 years. Dog owners voiced stronger support for off leash dog areas or parks at
Emerson, and Cushing parks as well as the Northwest Greenbelt compared to those without
dogs. Households with children under 18 were more likely to support off leash dog parks or
areas at the Northwest Greenbelt and Duncan Park compared to those without children.
In general, many respondents support a dog licensing program in Englewood but are
more hesitant of policy changes for non-residents.
Respondents indicated their level of support for two potential policies related to dogs in the
City of Englewood, as well as whether non-residents should be able to use City parks with their
dogs. Two-thirds of respondents strongly or somewhat supported the City implementing a dog
licensing program in Englewood, 12% neither supported nor opposed the measure, and 21%
opposed it.
About half of residents (53%) supported non-residents being able to use City of Englewood
parks with their dogs, one-third neither supported nor opposed it, and 16% opposed it. Half of
respondents supported non-Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing fee for a
City of Englewood dog license to help fund park maintenance and staffing; 22% felt
indifferently about this policy and 28% opposed it.
Households without dogs were more supportive of dog licensing compared to those with dogs.
Those who had lived in the city for less than 20 years were more likely to support non-
residents being able to use City parks with their dogs compared to longer-term residents.
Residents living within a half mile of Emerson and Jason parks were more supportive of non-
Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing fee for a City dog license compared to
those living outside a half mile of these two parks. However, those living outside a half mile of
Cushing Park were more supportive of this measure compared to those who lived within a half
mile of Cushing Park.
Page 84 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 4
Survey Results
Community Context
Quality of Life
About 9 in 10 Englewood residents gave positive marks to the city as a place to live and 8 in 10
gave excellent or good reviews to the overall quality of life in Englewood. Many viewed the city
as an excellent or good place to raise children and felt safe in Englewood overall (71% and 66%,
respectively).
Figure 1: Aspects of Quality of Life
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Englewood.
Overall Park Usage
About 4 out of 5 respondents had used a City park in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Figure 2: Use of City Parks Overall
In the last 12 months, have you used any City of Englewood parks?
17%
20%
21%
27%
49%
51%
63%
62%
28%
25%
15%
10%
6%
4%
1%
1%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Overall feeling of safety in Englewood
Englewood as a place to raise children
The overall quality of life in Englewood
Englewood as a place to live
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Yes
82%
No
18%
Page 85 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 5
Use of City parks overall was compared by respondent characteristics. Overall, most respondent
subgroups tended to be equally as likely to have used City parks in the 12 months prior to the
survey. Households with children under 18 years old were more likely than households without
children under 18 to have used a City park in the last 12 months. (Additional comparisons by
respondent characteristics and geography can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C.)
Figure 3: Use of City Parks Overall Compared by Respondent Characteristics
In the last 12 months, have you used any City of Englewood parks?
The five specific parks used for geographic breakdowns included Duncan, Jason, Cushing, Emerson, and Northwest Greenbelt.
83%
81%
79%
96%
78%
82%
84%
80%
85%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Live outside 1/2 mile of any of the 5 parks
Live within 1/2 mile of any of the 5 parks
No kids under 18
Has kids under 18
More than 20 years
6 to 20 years
Lived in City 5 years or less
No dogs
Has 1 or more dogs
Page 86 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 6
Survey respondents who reported using a City park in the last 12 months shared how often they
visited 16 specific City parks or open space areas. Bates-Logan Park and Belleview Park were
most commonly frequented by residents, with about 3 in 10 saying they had visited each of the
two parks at least 1-2 times a month in the last 12 months; another 3 in 10 respondents had
visited Bates-Logan and Belleview parks less than once a month over the last year. One-quarter
of respondents reported visiting Jason Park at least 1-2 times a month, and 1 in 5 had visited
Cushing, Duncan, Romans, and Southwest Greenbelt with this frequency.
Figure 4: Use of Specific City Parks
If you have visited a City of Englewood park in the last 12 months, how often, if at all, have you visited each
of the following parks or open space areas?
Asked only of those who had visited a City park in the last 12 months.
3%
6%
5%
9%
5%
4%
9%
7%
8%
13%
12%
8%
12%
14%
16%
21%
3%
6%
6%
7%
5%
6%
7%
7%
11%
7%
8%
9%
8%
11%
15%
15%
7%
8%
9%
8%
14%
15%
9%
15%
11%
12%
12%
17%
22%
21%
30%
27%
87%
81%
80%
77%
76%
76%
75%
71%
70%
69%
68%
66%
58%
53%
39%
37%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Colorado's Finest Athletic Field
Clarkson-Amherst
Baker
Emerson
Northwest Greenbelt
Denny Miller Fields
Rotolo
Barde/ Charles Hay Elementary
Southwest Greenbelt
Romans
Duncan
Centennial
Cushing
Jason
Belleview
Bates –Logan
3 times a month or more 1-2 times a month Less than once a month Never/0 times
Page 87 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 7
Overall Concerns about Parks
Residents evaluated their level of concern about 11 different aspects of City of Englewood parks.
Park maintenance and overall cleanliness were a major or moderate concern for about 6 in 10
respondents, with about 3 in 10 stating these were major concerns. About 4 in 10 respondents
said that they had major or moderate concerns about dog-human conflicts and dog-dog conflicts
in City parks, and another 3 in 10 had minor concerns with these issues. Distance of dog areas or
parks from playgrounds (33%) and picnic shelters (32%), and repurposed use of park space
(31%) were at least a moderate concern for some respondents.
Figure 5: Englewood Park Concerns
How concerned, if at all, are you with each of the following as they relate to City of Englewood parks?
5%
7%
6%
7%
12%
14%
13%
16%
20%
33%
29%
12%
16%
17%
19%
19%
18%
20%
26%
24%
24%
33%
26%
17%
24%
25%
22%
23%
24%
31%
30%
22%
16%
57%
60%
52%
49%
47%
45%
43%
27%
26%
21%
23%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Distance of dog areas or parks from sports
fields
Dog areas or parks located away from housing
Noise
Parking
Repurposed use of park space
Distance of dog areas or parks from picnic
shelters
Distance of dog areas or parks from
playgrounds
Dog-dog conflicts
Dog-human conflicts (or dogs coming in
contact with humans)
Cleanliness overall
Maintenance
Major concern Moderate concern Minor concern Not a concern
Page 88 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 8
Dogs in Household
About half of households currently have no dogs. One-third of respondent households had one
dog, 14% had two dogs, and 3% had three or more dogs.
Figure 6: Number of Dogs in Household
How many dogs currently live in your household?
None
52%
1 dog
31%
2 dogs
14%
3 dogs
2%
4 or more
dogs
1%
Page 89 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 9
Off-Leash Park Use
Respondents who reported having at least one dog in their household indicated if they currently
used existing off leash City dog parks or dog areas and how often they used five specific off leash
dog parks or areas.
Of those who had at least one dog in their home, 40% had used an existing off leash dog park or
area.
Figure 7: Use of Existing Off Leash City Dog Parks and Dog Areas
Do you currently take your dog(s) to any existing off leash DOG PARKS or DOG AREAS, including Canine
Corral, Centennial Park, Duncan Park, Jason Park, and Northwest Greenbelt?
This question was only asked of those who reported at least one dog living in their household.
Yes
40%No
60%
Page 90 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 10
When looking at use of off leash dog parks or areas by respondent characteristics, generally
there were no differences by length of residency and those who live within a half mile of Cushing
and Jason parks. However, households with children under 18, those living within a half mile of
Jason Park, and those living outside a half mile of Emerson Park were more likely to use existing
off leash dog parks or areas compared to their counterparts. (Additional comparisons by
respondent characteristics and geography can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C.)
Figure 8: Use of Any Existing Off Leash City Dog Parks and Dog Areas Compared by Respondent Characteristics
Do you currently take your dog(s) to any existing off leash DOG PARKS or DOG AREAS, including Canine
Corral, Centennial Park, Duncan Park, Jason Park, and Northwest Greenbelt?
The five specific parks used for geographic breakdowns included Duncan, Jason, Cushing, Emerson, and Northwest Greenbelt. Too
few respondents lived within a ½ mile of the Northwest Greenbelt so those comparisons are excluded.
38%
80%
39%
45%
40%
44%
45%
20%
42%
39%
46%
24%
47%
46%
34%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Live outside 1/2 mile of Duncan
Live within 1/2 mile of Duncan
Live outside 1/2 mile of Jason
Live within 1/2 mile of Jason
Live outside 1/2 mile of Cushing
Live within 1/2 mile of Cushing
Live outside 1/2 mile of Emerson
Live within 1/2 mile of Emerson
Live outside 1/2 mile of any of the 5 parks
Live within 1/2 mile of any of the 5 parks
No kids under 18
Has kids under 18
More than 20 years
6 to 20 years
Lived in City 5 years or less
Page 91 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 11
About 48% of dog owners who had used an off leash City dog park or area reported using Jason
Park at least 1-2 times a month and 19% had used it less than once a month in the last 12
months. Canine Corral also was one of the more frequently used existing off leash parks, with
about 4 in 10 having used it 1-2 times a month in the last year and 2 in 10 having used it less
than once a month. Centennial Park (28%) and Duncan Park (24%) were used at least 1-2 times
a month by about one-quarter of respondents; 65% reported never having used these two parks
in the 12 months prior to the survey. The Northwest Greenbelt was used 1-2 times a month or
more by only 7% of respondents.
Figure 9: Use of Specific Off Leash City Dog Parks or Dog Areas
In the last 12 months, how often, if at all, have you used each of the following off leash DOG PARKS or DOG
AREAS?
This question was only asked of those who reported at least one dog living in their household and currently use existing off leash dog
parks and dog areas.
6%
13%
16%
19%
37%
1%
15%
8%
21%
9%
10%
8%
11%
22%
19%
82%
65%
65%
38%
35%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Northwest Greenbelt
Centennial Park
Duncan Park
Canine Corral
Jason Park
3 times a month or more 1-2 times a month Less than once a month Never/0 times
Page 92 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 12
Dog Leash Preferences
Survey respondents shared their overall sentiments about dogs in City parks. About half of
residents felt that dogs can be off leash, but in a fenced in area. One-quarter felt that dogs can be
off leash, but no fence should be required, and about 1 in 5 said that dogs should only be on-
leash. Three percent had no preference and 2% preferred no dogs in parks.
Figure 10: Dog Leash Preferences
Generally, which statement comes closest to how you feel about dogs in City of Englewood parks?
2%
3%
19%
24%
52%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
I prefer no dogs in parks.
I don't have a preference.
Dogs should only be on-leash.
Dogs can be off leash, no fence should be
required.
Dogs can be off leash, but in a fenced in
area.
Page 93 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 13
Comparisons by respondent subgroups revealed a few differences in opinions. Those who had
lived in the City for more than 20 years and those who did not own a dog were more likely to
prefer dogs only be on-leash compared to those who had lived in the city for a shorter period of
time and dog owners. Also, those who lived outside a half mile of any of the five specific parks
being asked about on the survey were more likely to feel dogs should only be on-leash compared
to those living within a half mile of these five parks. (Additional comparisons by respondent
characteristics and geography can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C.)
Figure 11: Dog Leash Preferences Compared by Respondent Characteristics
Respondent
characteristics
Generally, which statement comes closest to how you feel about dogs in City of
Englewood parks?
Dogs can be off
leash, no fence
should be required.
Dogs can be off
leash, but in a
fenced in area.
Dogs should
only be on-
leash.
I prefer no
dogs in
parks.
I don't have a
preference.
Has 1 or more dogs 34% 52% 11% 1% 2%
No dogs 14% 52% 26% 3% 5%
Lived in City 5 years
or less 23% 60% 13% 3% 2%
6 to 20 years 22% 51% 19% 2% 6%
More than 20 years 26% 40% 30% 2% 2%
Has kids under 18 19% 53% 24% 1% 3%
No kids under 18 25% 54% 16% 2% 3%
Live within 1/2 mile
of any of the 5 parks 27% 52% 15% 1% 4%
Live outside 1/2 mile
of any of the 5 parks 20% 52% 23% 3% 2%
The five specific parks used for geographic breakdowns included Duncan, Jason, Cushing, Emerson, and Northwest Greenbelt.
Page 94 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 14
Survey respondents who owned at least one dog and had used an existing off leash City dog park
or area assessed the importance of 11 different factors that could create a successful fenced in
dog park. Cleanliness and maintenance of a fenced in dog park was essential to 50% of
respondents and very important to 44%. About 4 in 10 said that having a grass area and acreage
was essential and a slightly smaller proportion felt that shaded areas were essential. Parking
close to the site was essential or very important for 63% of respondents. Having dog amenities
and a separate small dog area was not at all important to at least 4 in 10 residents.
Figure 12: Importance of Factors for Fenced Dog Parks
How important to you, if at all, are each of the following items to a successful fenced in DOG PARK?
This question was only asked of those who reported at least one dog living in their household and current use of existing off leash
dog parks and dog areas.
3%
8%
8%
10%
14%
16%
23%
30%
37%
39%
50%
8%
22%
23%
22%
23%
25%
40%
44%
38%
32%
44%
36%
29%
41%
35%
44%
35%
30%
23%
23%
21%
6%
53%
42%
29%
33%
19%
24%
8%
3%
1%
8%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Dog amenities (dog toys, sandbox)
Separate small dog area
Restrooms
Non-grass area (e.g., woodchips, pea gravel,
dirt)
Within walking distance of home
Benches for people
Parking close to site
Shaded areas
Acreage
Grass area
Cleanliness/ maintenance
Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important
Page 95 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 15
At least 6 in 10 respondents strongly or somewhat supported a fenced, off leash dog area or park
in Emerson, Cushing, Duncan, and Jason parks. Between 20% and 30% of respondents neither
supported nor opposed having a fenced, off leash dog area or park in each of the four mentioned
parks. Fifteen percent or less of residents opposed having a fenced, off leash dog area or park in
each of the four parks, with the strongest opposition for Duncan Park.
Figure 13: Support for Fenced Off Leash Dog Park or Area
How much would you support or oppose a FENCED off leash dog area or park at each of the following
parks?
42%
42%
44%
44%
19%
21%
20%
21%
25%
29%
24%
20%
5%
4%
5%
6%
10%
5%
7%
9%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Duncan Park
Cushing Park
Emerson Park
Jason Park
Strongly support Somewhat support Neither support nor oppose Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose
Page 96 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 16
Residents who had lived in the city for five years or less tended to be more supportive of having a
fenced, off leash dog area or park in each of the four parks listed compared to those who had
lived in the community for more than 20 years. Households with children under 18 years old
were more supportive of a fenced, off leash dog area or park in Cushing Park compared to
households without children. (Additional comparisons by respondent characteristics and
geography can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C.)
Figure 14: Support for Fenced Off Leash Dog Park or Area Compared by Respondent Characteristics
Respondent
characteristics
How much would you support or oppose a FENCED off leash dog area or park at
each of the following parks? (Percent strongly or somewhat support)
Jason Park Emerson Park Duncan Park Cushing Park
Has 1 or more dogs 65% 64% 61% 66%
No dogs 66% 64% 60% 58%
Lived in City 5 years or
less 70% 72% 65% 68%
6 to 20 years 66% 59% 62% 66%
More than 20 years 57% 53% 50% 47%
Has kids under 18 68% 58% 54% 49%
No kids under 18 65% 66% 62% 65%
Live within 1/2 mile of
any of the 5 parks 64% 61% 61% 63%
Live outside 1/2 mile of
any of the 5 parks 68% 68% 60% 62%
Live within 1/2 mile of
Emerson 56% 63% 51% 58%
Live outside 1/2 mile of
Emerson 68% 64% 62% 63%
Live within 1/2 mile of
Cushing 75% 74% 77% 72%
Live outside 1/2 mile of
Cushing 64% 63% 58% 60%
Live within 1/2 mile of
Jason 65% 53% 61% 61%
Live outside 1/2 mile of
Jason 66% 66% 60% 62%
Live within 1/2 mile of
Duncan 61% 43% 57% 51%
Live outside 1/2 mile of
Duncan 66% 66% 61% 63%
The five specific parks used for geographic breakdowns included Duncan, Jason, Cushing, Emerson, and Northwest Greenbelt. Too
few respondents lived within a ½ mile of the Northwest Greenbelt so those comparisons are excluded.
Page 97 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 17
Survey respondents were presented with a series of questions that included a description and an
image of proposed off leash dog areas or parks in Cushing, Jason, Duncan, and Emerson Park as
well as the Northwest Greenbelt. Respondents assessed their level of support for each proposed
off leash park or area.
The highest level of support was voiced for an off leash fenced dog park at Cushing Park, with
54% of residents strongly supporting this measure and 23% somewhat supporting it; only 9%
opposed a fenced dog park at Cushing Park. A majority of respondents (66%) also supported an
off leash fenced dog park at Jason Park, with 40% strongly supporting and 26% somewhat
supporting it. A similar proportion (60%) supported a single fence dog area at Duncan Park.
Less than half of residents strongly or somewhat supported off leash dog areas (no fence) at the
Northwest Greenbelt and Emerson Park, and about 3 in 10 opposed a dog area at these two
locations.
Figure 15: Support for Proposed Off Leash Dog Areas or Parks in Select City Parks
How much would you support or oppose an off leash...
25%
26%
33%
40%
54%
16%
16%
27%
26%
23%
22%
28%
19%
17%
14%
17%
15%
10%
7%
5%
20%
16%
12%
10%
4%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
DOG AREA (NO fence) at Emerson Park?
DOG AREA (NO fence) at the Northwest
Greenbelt?
FENCED (one fence) DOG AREA at Duncan Park?
FENCED DOG PARK at Jason Park?
FENCED DOG PARK at Cushing Park?
Strongly support Somewhat support Neither support nor oppose Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose
Page 98 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 18
Residents who had lived in the city for less than 20 years were significantly more supportive of
having a fenced dog park at Cushing Park compared to those who had lived in the city for more
than 20 years. Dog owners voiced stronger support for off leash dog areas or parks at Emerson,
and Cushing parks as well as the Northwest Greenbelt compared to those without dogs.
Households with children under 18 were more likely to support off leash dog parks or areas at
the Northwest Greenbelt and Duncan Park compared to those without children. (Additional
comparisons by respondent characteristics and geography can be found Appendix B and
Appendix C.)
Figure 16: Support for Proposed Off Leash Dog Areas or Parks in Select City Parks by Respondent Characteristics
Respondent
characteristics
How much do you support or oppose an off leash….
(Percent strongly or somewhat support)
DOG AREA (NO
fence) at
Emerson Park?
DOG AREA (NO
fence) at the
Northwest
Greenbelt?
FENCED (one
fence) DOG
AREA at Duncan
Park?
FENCED DOG
PARK at
Cushing
Park?
FENCED DOG
PARK at
Jason Park?
Has 1 or more dogs 57% 54% 64% 84% 64%
No dogs 26% 29% 56% 71% 67%
Lived in City 5 years
or less 44% 44% 62% 80% 66%
6 to 20 years 42% 42% 59% 81% 68%
More than 20 years 34% 34% 55% 66% 62%
Has kids under 18 34% 29% 49% 77% 67%
No kids under 18 43% 45% 63% 78% 66%
Live within 1/2 mile
of any of the 5 parks 44% 44% 62% 79% 67%
Live outside 1/2
mile of any of the 5
parks 38% 38% 57% 76% 64%
Live within 1/2 mile
of Emerson 55% 48% 61% 78% 68%
Live outside 1/2
mile of Emerson 38% 40% 60% 77% 65%
Live within 1/2 mile
of Cushing 35% 35% 67% 73% 62%
Live outside 1/2
mile of Cushing 42% 42% 59% 78% 66%
Live within 1/2 mile
of Jason 43% 48% 64% 81% 63%
Live outside 1/2
mile of Jason 41% 40% 59% 77% 66%
Live within 1/2 mile
of Duncan 33% 42% 57% 85% 75%
Live outside 1/2
mile of Duncan 42% 41% 60% 77% 65%
The five specific parks used for geographic breakdowns included Duncan, Jason, Cushing, Emerson, and Northwest Greenbelt. Too
few respondents lived within a ½ mile of the Northwest Greenbelt so those comparisons are excluded.
Page 99 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 19
Respondents indicated their level of support for two potential policies related to dogs in the City
of Englewood, as well as whether non-residents should be able to use City parks with their dogs.
Two-thirds of respondents strongly or somewhat supported the City implementing a dog
licensing program in Englewood, 12% neither supported nor opposed the measure, and 21%
opposed it. About half of residents (53%) supported non-residents being able to use City of
Englewood parks with their dogs, one-third neither supported nor opposed it, and 16% opposed
it. Half of respondents supported non-Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing
fee for a City of Englewood dog license to help fund park maintenance and staffing; 22% felt
indifferently about this policy and 28% opposed it.
Figure 17: Support for Potential Dog-related Policies in Englewood
How much would you support or oppose...
22%
29%
46%
28%
24%
21%
22%
31%
12%
12%
10%
8%
16%
6%
13%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
non-Englewood residents paying an additional
dog licensing fee for a City of Englewood dog
license to help fund park maintenance and
staffing?
non-residents being able to use City of
Englewood parks with their dogs?
a dog licensing program?
Strongly support Somewhat support Neither support nor oppose Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose
Page 100 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 20
Households without dogs were more supportive of dog licensing compared to those with dogs.
Those who had lived in the city for less than 20 years were more likely to support non-residents
being able to use City parks with their dogs compared to longer-term residents. Residents living
within a half mile of Emerson and Jason parks were more supportive of non-Englewood
residents paying an additional dog licensing fee for a City dog license compared to those living
outside a half mile of these two parks. However, those living outside a half mile of Cushing Park
were more supportive of this measure compared to those who lived within a half mile of Cushing
Park. (Additional comparisons by respondent characteristics and geography can be found
Appendix B and Appendix C.)
Figure 18: Support for Potential Dog-related Policies in Englewood by Respondent Characteristics
Respondent characteristics
How much do you support or oppose…
(Percent strongly or somewhat support)
a dog
licensing
program?
non-residents being
able to use City of
Englewood parks
with their dogs?
non-Englewood residents paying an
additional dog licensing fee for a City
of Englewood dog license to help fund
park maintenance and staffing?
Has 1 or more dogs 52% 52% 45%
No dogs 82% 55% 54%
Lived in City 5 years or less 65% 62% 44%
6 to 20 years 66% 53% 47%
More than 20 years 75% 36% 64%
Has kids under 18 66% 52% 49%
No kids under 18 67% 56% 47%
Within 1/2 mile of any of
the 5 parks 65% 53% 53%
Outside 1/2 mile of any of
the 5 parks 70% 54% 46%
Within 1/2 mile of Emerson 73% 52% 60%
Outside 1/2 mile of
Emerson 66% 54% 47%
Within 1/2 mile of Cushing 55% 59% 37%
Outside 1/2 mile of
Cushing 70% 52% 52%
Within 1/2 mile of Jason 61% 54% 61%
Outside 1/2 mile of Jason 69% 53% 48%
Within 1/2 mile of Duncan 72% 43% 46%
Outside 1/2 mile of Duncan 67% 54% 50%
The five specific parks used for geographic breakdowns included Duncan, Jason, Cushing, Emerson, and Northwest Greenbelt. Too
few respondents lived within a ½ mile of the Northwest Greenbelt so those comparisons are excluded.
Page 101 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 21
Appendix A: Full Set of Responses to the Random Sample Survey
The full set of responses for each question on the random sample survey are displayed in the tables in this appendix. Some
questions included a “don’t know” response option. For these questions, two sets of tables are provided in this appendix: the first
with the “don’t know” responses excluded, to show the proportion of respondents with an opinion giving a response and the
second with the “don’t know” responses included, to allow examination of the magnitude of unfamiliarity with certain items.
Each table displays the proportion of respondents and number of respondents who gave each response. Verbatim responses to any
open ended questions are provided under separate cover.
Table 1: Question 1 without "don't know" responses
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in
Englewood. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Englewood as a place to live 27% N=139 62% N=316 10% N=52 1% N=4 100% N=511
Englewood as a place to raise children 20% N=70 51% N=178 25% N=88 4% N=15 100% N=350
Overall feeling of safety in Englewood 17% N=89 49% N=252 28% N=143 6% N=31 100% N=516
The overall quality of life in Englewood 21% N=106 63% N=325 15% N=77 1% N=4 100% N=512
Table 2: Question 1 with "don't know" responses
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of
life in Englewood. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Englewood as a place to live 27% N=139 62% N=316 10% N=52 1% N=4 0% N=0 100% N=511
Englewood as a place to raise children 14% N=70 35% N=178 17% N=88 3% N=15 32% N=161 100% N=511
Overall feeling of safety in Englewood 17% N=89 49% N=252 28% N=143 6% N=31 0% N=0 100% N=516
The overall quality of life in Englewood 21% N=106 63% N=325 15% N=77 1% N=4 0% N=2 100% N=514
Page 102 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 22
Table 3: Question 2
In the last 12 months, have you used any City of Englewood parks? Percent Number
Yes 82% N=396
No 18% N=87
Total 100% N=483
Table 4: Question 3
If you have visited a City of
Englewood park in the last 12
months, how often, if at all, have you
visited each of the following parks or
open space areas?
Never/0
times
Less than once
a month
1-2 times a
month
3-4 times a
month
Multiple
times a week Daily Total
Baker 80% N=227 9% N=24 6% N=17 4% N=11 1% N=3 0% N=1 100% N=282
Barde/ Charles Hay Elementary 71% N=214 15% N=45 7% N=22 3% N=9 3% N=9 1% N=2 100% N=302
Bates – Logan 37% N=127 27% N=95 15% N=51 8% N=29 10% N=34 3% N=11 100% N=346
Belleview 39% N=134 30% N=105 15% N=51 9% N=31 5% N=17 2% N=8 100% N=346
Centennial 66% N=204 17% N=53 9% N=28 3% N=9 2% N=6 3% N=9 100% N=309
Clarkson-Amherst 81% N=243 8% N=24 6% N=18 2% N=5 3% N=10 1% N=3 100% N=302
Colorado's Finest Athletic Field 87% N=258 7% N=22 3% N=8 1% N=3 1% N=3 1% N=2 100% N=296
Cushing 58% N=184 22% N=71 8% N=25 5% N=14 6% N=18 2% N=5 100% N=318
Denny Miller Fields 76% N=230 15% N=45 6% N=18 0% N=1 2% N=6 1% N=4 100% N=304
Duncan 68% N=216 12% N=37 8% N=26 6% N=20 4% N=14 2% N=6 100% N=318
Emerson 77% N=233 8% N=24 7% N=20 3% N=9 4% N=13 1% N=4 100% N=303
Jason 53% N=171 21% N=69 11% N=37 5% N=16 6% N=19 3% N=11 100% N=323
Northwest Greenbelt 76% N=234 14% N=43 5% N=16 2% N=6 2% N=7 0% N=1 100% N=307
Romans 69% N=220 12% N=37 7% N=22 4% N=14 7% N=23 1% N=5 100% N=320
Rotolo 75% N=230 9% N=29 7% N=21 5% N=16 2% N=7 2% N=5 100% N=308
Southwest Greenbelt 70% N=221 11% N=35 11% N=33 4% N=13 3% N=10 1% N=3 100% N=315
Asked only of those who had visited a City park in the last 12 months. Page 103 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 23
Table 5: Question 4
Generally, which statement comes closest to how you feel about dogs in City of Englewood parks? Percent Number
Dogs can be off leash, no fence should be required. 24% N=122
Dogs can be off leash, but in a fenced in area. 52% N=270
Dogs should only be on-leash. 19% N=97
I prefer no dogs in parks. 2% N=12
I don't have a preference. 3% N=17
Total 100% N=518
Table 6: Question 5
How many dogs currently live in your household? Percent Number
None 52% N=271
1 31% N=160
2 14% N=74
3 2% N=12
4 or more 1% N=3
Total 100% N=520
Table 7: Question 6
Do you currently take your dog(s) to any existing off leash DOG PARKS or DOG AREAS, including Canine Corral, Centennial Park,
Duncan Park, Jason Park, and Northwest Greenbelt? Percent Number
Yes 40% N=100
No 60% N=148
Total 100% N=249
Asked only of those who had one or more dogs.
Page 104 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 24
Table 8: Question 7
In the last 12 months, how often, if
at all, have you used each of the
following off leash DOG PARKS or
DOG AREAS?
Never/0
times
Less than
once a month
1-2 times a
month
3-4 times a
month
Multiple times
a week Daily Total
Canine Corral 38% N=35 22% N=20 21% N=20 11% N=10 7% N=7 1% N=1 100% N=93
Centennial Park 65% N=53 8% N=7 15% N=12 2% N=2 6% N=5 5% N=4 100% N=82
Duncan Park 65% N=51 11% N=8 8% N=7 1% N=0 9% N=7 7% N=5 100% N=78
Jason Park 35% N=30 19% N=17 9% N=8 6% N=5 15% N=13 15% N=13 100% N=87
Northwest Greenbelt 82% N=61 10% N=8 1% N=1 3% N=2 2% N=2 1% N=1 100% N=75
Asked only of those who had one or more dogs and currently uses existing off leash dog parks or areas.
Table 9: Question 8 without "don't know" responses
How important to you, if at all, are each of the following items
to a successful fenced in DOG PARK? Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important Total
Acreage 37% N=36 38% N=36 23% N=23 1% N=1 100% N=96
Benches for people 16% N=15 25% N=24 35% N=34 24% N=23 100% N=96
Cleanliness/ maintenance 50% N=49 44% N=44 6% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=99
Dog amenities (dog toys, sandbox) 3% N=2 8% N=8 36% N=35 53% N=51 100% N=96
Within walking distance of home 14% N=14 23% N=22 44% N=43 19% N=18 100% N=98
Parking close to site 23% N=22 40% N=39 30% N=29 8% N=8 100% N=98
Restrooms 8% N=8 23% N=22 41% N=40 29% N=28 100% N=98
Grass area 39% N=38 32% N=32 21% N=21 8% N=7 100% N=99
Non-grass area (e.g., woodchips, pea gravel, dirt) 10% N=10 22% N=22 35% N=34 33% N=32 100% N=98
Separate small dog area 8% N=7 22% N=20 29% N=26 42% N=38 100% N=91
Shaded areas 30% N=30 44% N=44 23% N=22 3% N=3 100% N=99
Asked only of those who had one or more dogs and currently uses existing off leash dog parks or areas.
Page 105 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 25
Table 10: Question 8 with "don't know" responses
How important to you, if at all, are each of the following
items to a successful fenced in DOG PARK? Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Don't
know Total
Acreage 37% N=36 37% N=36 23% N=23 1% N=1 2% N=2 100% N=98
Benches for people 16% N=15 24% N=24 35% N=34 23% N=23 2% N=2 100% N=99
Cleanliness/ maintenance 49% N=49 44% N=44 6% N=6 0% N=0 1% N=1 100% N=100
Dog amenities (dog toys, sandbox) 2% N=2 8% N=8 35% N=35 52% N=51 2% N=2 100% N=98
Within walking distance of home 14% N=14 22% N=22 44% N=43 18% N=18 2% N=2 100% N=99
Parking close to site 22% N=22 39% N=39 29% N=29 8% N=8 1% N=1 100% N=100
Restrooms 8% N=8 22% N=22 40% N=40 28% N=28 1% N=1 100% N=100
Grass area 39% N=38 32% N=32 21% N=21 7% N=7 1% N=1 100% N=99
Non-grass area (e.g., woodchips, pea gravel, dirt) 10% N=10 22% N=22 34% N=34 32% N=32 2% N=2 100% N=100
Separate small dog area 7% N=7 20% N=20 26% N=26 38% N=38 9% N=9 100% N=100
Shaded areas 30% N=30 44% N=44 22% N=22 3% N=3 1% N=1 100% N=100
Asked only of those who had one or more dogs.
Table 11: Question 9 without "don't know" responses
How concerned, if at all, are you with each of the following as
they relate to City of Englewood parks?
Not a
concern
Minor
concern
Moderate
concern
Major
concern Total
Cleanliness overall 21% N=102 22% N=108 24% N=118 33% N=163 100% N=490
Dog-dog conflicts 27% N=123 31% N=144 26% N=121 16% N=77 100% N=465
Dog-human conflicts (or dogs coming in contact with humans) 26% N=124 30% N=142 24% N=115 20% N=98 100% N=479
Distance of dog areas or parks from playgrounds 43% N=200 24% N=111 20% N=95 13% N=60 100% N=466
Dog areas or parks located away from housing 60% N=282 17% N=80 16% N=74 7% N=33 100% N=470
Maintenance 23% N=111 16% N=76 33% N=159 29% N=143 100% N=488
Noise 52% N=251 24% N=118 17% N=83 6% N=31 100% N=484
Distance of dog areas or parks from sports fields 57% N=266 26% N=119 12% N=56 5% N=23 100% N=465
Parking 49% N=234 25% N=123 19% N=91 7% N=34 100% N=481
Repurposed use of park space 47% N=196 22% N=91 19% N=81 12% N=51 100% N=419
Distance of dog areas or parks from picnic shelters 45% N=214 23% N=109 18% N=86 14% N=68 100% N=477 Page 106 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 26
Table 12: Question 9 with "don't know" responses
How concerned, if at all, are you with each of the
following as they relate to City of Englewood
parks?
Not a
concern
Minor
concern
Moderate
concern
Major
concern Don't know Total
Cleanliness overall 20% N=102 21% N=108 23% N=118 32% N=163 4% N=18 100% N=508
Dog-dog conflicts 24% N=123 28% N=144 24% N=121 15% N=77 9% N=47 100% N=512
Dog-human conflicts (or dogs coming in contact
with humans) 24% N=124 28% N=142 22% N=115 19% N=98 6% N=33 100% N=512
Distance of dog areas or parks from playgrounds 39% N=200 22% N=111 19% N=95 12% N=60 9% N=44 100% N=510
Dog areas or parks located away from housing 56% N=282 16% N=80 15% N=74 7% N=33 7% N=37 100% N=507
Maintenance 22% N=111 15% N=76 31% N=159 28% N=143 4% N=23 100% N=510
Noise 49% N=251 23% N=118 16% N=83 6% N=31 5% N=25 100% N=509
Distance of dog areas or parks from sports fields 52% N=266 23% N=119 11% N=56 5% N=23 9% N=44 100% N=509
Parking 46% N=234 24% N=123 18% N=91 7% N=34 6% N=30 100% N=511
Repurposed use of park space 39% N=196 18% N=91 16% N=81 10% N=51 17% N=84 100% N=504
Distance of dog areas or parks from picnic shelters 42% N=214 21% N=109 17% N=86 13% N=68 6% N=33 100% N=510
Page 107 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 27
Table 13: Question 11 without "don't know" responses
How much would you support or oppose a
FENCED off leash dog area or park at each of
the following parks?
Strongly
support
Somewhat
support
Neither support
nor oppose
Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose Total
Jason Park 44% N=166 21% N=79 20% N=75 6% N=21 9% N=33 100% N=373
Emerson Park 44% N=152 20% N=68 24% N=83 5% N=16 7% N=23 100% N=342
Duncan Park 42% N=146 19% N=66 25% N=87 5% N=18 10% N=34 100% N=351
Cushing Park 42% N=149 21% N=74 29% N=103 4% N=14 5% N=18 100% N=358
Table 14: Question 11 with "don't know" responses
How much would you support or
oppose a FENCED off leash dog
area or park at each of the
following parks?
Strongly
support
Somewhat
support
Neither support
nor oppose
Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose Don't know Total
Jason Park 34% N=166 16% N=79 16% N=75 4% N=21 7% N=33 23% N=109 100% N=482
Emerson Park 32% N=152 14% N=68 18% N=83 3% N=16 5% N=23 28% N=134 100% N=476
Duncan Park 30% N=146 14% N=66 18% N=87 4% N=18 7% N=34 28% N=134 100% N=485
Cushing Park 31% N=149 15% N=74 21% N=103 3% N=14 4% N=18 26% N=124 100% N=482
Page 108 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 28
Table 15: Question 12 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at Emerson Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 25% N=114
Somewhat support 16% N=74
Neither support nor oppose 22% N=102
Somewhat oppose 17% N=76
Strongly oppose 20% N=93
Total 100% N=460
Table 16: Question 12 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at Emerson Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 23% N=114
Somewhat support 15% N=74
Neither support nor oppose 20% N=102
Somewhat oppose 15% N=76
Strongly oppose 18% N=93
Don't know 9% N=45
Total 100% N=504
Page 109 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 29
Table 17: Question 13 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at the Northwest Greenbelt? Percent Number
Strongly support 26% N=114
Somewhat support 16% N=69
Neither support nor oppose 28% N=123
Somewhat oppose 15% N=67
Strongly oppose 16% N=70
Total 100% N=443
Table 18: Question 13 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at the Northwest Greenbelt? Percent Number
Strongly support 23% N=114
Somewhat support 14% N=69
Neither support nor oppose 25% N=123
Somewhat oppose 13% N=67
Strongly oppose 14% N=70
Don't know 11% N=58
Total 100% N=501
Page 110 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 30
Table 19: Question 14 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED (one fence) DOG AREA at Duncan Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 33% N=155
Somewhat support 27% N=124
Neither support nor oppose 19% N=87
Somewhat oppose 10% N=47
Strongly oppose 12% N=54
Total 100% N=466
Table 20: Question 14 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED (one fence) DOG AREA at Duncan Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 31% N=155
Somewhat support 25% N=124
Neither support nor oppose 17% N=87
Somewhat oppose 9% N=47
Strongly oppose 11% N=54
Don't know 7% N=37
Total 100% N=503
Page 111 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 31
Table 21: Question 15 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Cushing Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 54% N=251
Somewhat support 23% N=109
Neither support nor oppose 14% N=65
Somewhat oppose 5% N=22
Strongly oppose 4% N=18
Total 100% N=466
Table 22: Question 15 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Cushing Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 50% N=251
Somewhat support 22% N=109
Neither support nor oppose 13% N=65
Somewhat oppose 4% N=22
Strongly oppose 4% N=18
Don't know 7% N=37
Total 100% N=503
Page 112 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 32
Table 23: Question 16 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Jason Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 40% N=186
Somewhat support 26% N=122
Neither support nor oppose 17% N=81
Somewhat oppose 7% N=34
Strongly oppose 10% N=48
Total 100% N=471
Table 24: Question 16 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Jason Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 37% N=186
Somewhat support 24% N=122
Neither support nor oppose 16% N=81
Somewhat oppose 7% N=34
Strongly oppose 10% N=48
Don't know 6% N=31
Total 100% N=502
Page 113 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 33
Table 25: Question 17 without "don't know" responses
Most municipalities require dogs to be licensed to ensure proper vaccinations, cover a portion of the cost of having areas
specifically for a dog and their owner’s enjoyment, and more importantly, having the ability to return lost animals to their owners.
The City of Englewood is proposing to implement a dog licensing program. How much do you support or oppose a dog licensing
program? Percent Number
Strongly support 46% N=234
Somewhat support 21% N=106
Neither support nor oppose 12% N=60
Somewhat oppose 8% N=40
Strongly oppose 13% N=63
Total 100% N=504
Table 26: Question 17 with "don't know" responses
Most municipalities require dogs to be licensed to ensure proper vaccinations, cover a portion of the cost of having areas
specifically for a dog and their owner’s enjoyment, and more importantly, having the ability to return lost animals to their owners.
The City of Englewood is proposing to implement a dog licensing program. How much do you support or oppose a dog licensing
program? Percent Number
Strongly support 46% N=234
Somewhat support 21% N=106
Neither support nor oppose 12% N=60
Somewhat oppose 8% N=40
Strongly oppose 12% N=63
Don't know 2% N=10
Total 100% N=515
Page 114 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 34
Table 27: Question 18 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose non-residents being able to use City of Englewood parks with their dogs? Percent Number
Strongly support 29% N=146
Somewhat support 24% N=122
Neither support nor oppose 31% N=154
Somewhat oppose 10% N=52
Strongly oppose 6% N=29
Total 100% N=504
Table 28: Question 18 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose non-residents being able to use City of Englewood parks with their dogs? Percent Number
Strongly support 28% N=146
Somewhat support 24% N=122
Neither support nor oppose 30% N=154
Somewhat oppose 10% N=52
Strongly oppose 6% N=29
Don't know 2% N=11
Total 100% N=515
Page 115 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 35
Table 29: Question 19 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose non-Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing fee for a City of Englewood
dog license to help fund park maintenance and staffing? Percent Number
Strongly support 22% N=109
Somewhat support 28% N=140
Neither support nor oppose 22% N=110
Somewhat oppose 12% N=62
Strongly oppose 16% N=81
Total 100% N=502
Table 30: Question 19 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose non-Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing fee for a City of Englewood
dog license to help fund park maintenance and staffing? Percent Number
Strongly support 21% N=109
Somewhat support 27% N=140
Neither support nor oppose 21% N=110
Somewhat oppose 12% N=62
Strongly oppose 16% N=81
Don't know 2% N=12
Total 100% N=514
Table 31: Question 22
How many years have you lived in Englewood? Percent Number
Less than 2 years 20% N=101
2-5 years 28% N=145
6-10 years 17% N=85
11-20 years 12% N=62
More than 20 years 23% N=120
Total 100% N=513 Page 116 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 36
Table 32: Question 23
Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number
One family house detached from any other houses 60% N=307
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 39% N=200
Mobile home 1% N=4
Other 0% N=1
Total 100% N=513
Table 33: Question 24
Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number
Rented 45% N=230
Owned 55% N=279
Total 100% N=510
Table 34: Question 25
Including yourself, do you have any of the following types of people living in your household? Yes No Total
Children age 17 or younger 23% N=111 77% N=362 100% N=473
Adults age 65 or older 25% N=120 75% N=368 100% N=488
Page 117 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 37
Table 35: Question 26
About how much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in
your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number
Less than $25,000 10% N=47
$25,000 to $49,999 20% N=95
$50,000 to $74,999 21% N=100
$75,000 to $99,999 20% N=98
$100,000 to $149,999 17% N=82
$150,000 or more 13% N=62
Total 100% N=485
Table 36: Question 27
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 86% N=425
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 14% N=70
Total 100% N=495
Table 37: Question 28
What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number
American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% N=6
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 3% N=16
Black or African American 2% N=10
White 93% N=456
Other 6% N=29
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option.
Page 118 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 38
Table 38: Question 29
In which category is your age? Percent Number
18 to 24 years 4% N=19
25 to 34 years 31% N=155
35 to 44 years 19% N=95
45 to 54 years 12% N=63
55 to 64 years 15% N=75
65 to 74 years 14% N=72
75-84 years 4% N=21
85 years or older 1% N=6
Total 100% N=506
Table 39: Question 30
What is your gender? Percent Number
Female 51% N=255
Male 48% N=240
Identify in another way 2% N=8
Total 100% N=503
Table 40: Household Proximity to Specific City Parks
Within 1/2 mile Outside 1/2 mile Total
Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number
Lives within 1/2 mile of any of the 5 parks 52% 272 48% 248 100% 520
Lives within 1/2 mile of Emerson Park 18% 93 82% 427 100% 520
Lives within 1/2 mile of Cushing Park 14% 73 86% 446 100% 520
Lives within 1/2 mile of Jason Park 12% 65 88% 455 100% 520
Lives within 1/2 mile of Duncan Park 8% 41 92% 478 100% 520
Lives within 1/2 mile of the Northwest Greenbelt 1% 4 99% 516 100% 520
Page 119 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 39
Appendix B: Comparisons of Survey Responses by Respondent Characteristics (Random
Sample)
Understanding the Tables
The subgroup comparison tables contain the crosstabulations of the random sample survey questions by various respondent
demographic characteristics. Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of survey questions. A
“p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to
chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample
represent “real” differences among those populations. As subgroups vary in size and each group (and each comparison to another
group) has a unique margin of error, statistical testing is used to determine whether differences between subgroups are
statistically significant.
Each column in the following tables is labeled with a letter for each subgroup being compared. The letters start over with “A” for
each different characteristic. (For example, for housing tenure, renters and owners are marked “A” and “B”, and then for type of
housing unit, those in detached homes and attached homes are marked “A” and “B”.)
For each pair of subgroup ratings within a characteristic within a row that has a statistically significant difference, an uppercase
letter denoting significance is shown in the cell with the larger column proportion. The letter denotes the subgroup with the
smaller column proportion from which it is statistically different. Subgroups that have no uppercase letter denotation in their
column and that are also not referred to in any other column were not statistically different.
For example, in Table 41 on the next page, residents who lived in the city for 5 years or less (Column A) were statistically
significantly more likely to give excellent or good ratings to the city as a place to live compared to those who had lived in the
community for 6 to 20 years (Column B) and more than 20 years (Column C). This is denoted with a “B C” in the cell showing that
95% of residents who had lived in the community for 5 years or less gave excellent or good ratings to the city as a place to live.
In the same table, there is also a “A” in the cell that shows that 93% of those living in an attached housing unit gave excellent or
good ratings to the city as a place to live – indicating that those living in detached housing were statistically significantly less likely
to give positive reviews to the city as a place to live than were those who lived in attached housing (Column B).
Page 120 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 40
Table 41: Question 1 by Respondent Characteristics
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life
in Englewood. (Percent excellent or good)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years or
less
6 to 20
years
More than
20 years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Englewood as a place to live 94%
B C
85% 85% 86% 93%
A
88% 90% 89%
Englewood as a place to raise children 73% 67% 71% 71% 70% 66% 74% 71%
Overall feeling of safety in Englewood 70% 62% 63% 68% 63% 62% 70% 66%
The overall quality of life in Englewood 88% 82% 80% 83% 87% 84% 85% 84%
Table 42: Question 1 by Respondent Characteristics
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life
in Englewood. (Percent excellent or good)
Age Gender
Household has kids
17 or under Dog ownership Overall
18-
34
35-
54
55+ Female Male Yes No None One or
more
(A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Englewood as a place to live 88% 89% 92% 89% 90% 89% 90% 90% 88% 89%
Englewood as a place to raise children 59% 73%
A
81%
A
73% 69% 74% 70% 74% 68% 71%
Overall feeling of safety in Englewood 61% 63% 75%
A B
62% 72%
A
62% 67% 67% 65% 66%
The overall quality of life in Englewood 80% 87% 88%
A
84% 86% 78% 86%
A
85% 83% 84%
Page 121 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 41
Table 43: Question 2 by Respondent Characteristics
(Percent yes)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years or
less
6 to 20
years
More than 20
years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
In the last 12 months, have you used any City of
Englewood parks?
84% 82% 78% 84% 79% 80% 84% 82%
Table 44: Question 2 by Respondent Characteristics
(Percent yes)
Age Gender
Household has kids 17 or
under Dog ownership Overall
18-
34
35-
54
55+ Female Male Yes No None One or
more
(A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
In the last 12 months, have you used any City of
Englewood parks?
91%
C
84%
C
72% 83% 82% 96%
B
79% 80% 85% 82%
Page 122 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 42
Table 45: Question 3 by Respondent Characteristics
If you have visited a City of Englewood park in the last 12 months,
how often, if at all, have you visited each of the following parks or
open space areas? (Percent at least once)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years
or less
6 to 20
years
More
than 20
years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Baker 20% 14% 26% 15% 27%
A
22% 18% 20%
Barde/ Charles Hay Elementary 27% 30% 32% 32% 24% 29% 28% 29%
Bates – Logan 67% 56% 65% 68%
B
54% 60% 66% 63%
Belleview 51% 67%
A
76%
A
67%
B
52% 58% 64% 61%
Centennial 27% 34% 50%
A B
39%
B
26% 28% 40%
A
34%
Clarkson-Amherst 17% 18% 28% 24%
B
12% 12% 24%
A
19%
Colorado's Finest Athletic Field 16%
B
5% 16%
B
13% 12% 16% 10% 13%
Cushing 45%
B
30% 51%
B
35% 52%
A
51%
B
34% 42%
Denny Miller Fields 18% 30%
A
32%
A
25% 24% 29% 21% 24%
Duncan 21% 33% 55%
A B
44%
B
13% 18% 43%
A
32%
Emerson 26% 16% 26% 27%
B
16% 19% 25% 23%
Jason 33% 54%
A
69%
A B
56%
B
32% 36% 55%
A
47%
Northwest Greenbelt 23% 21% 30% 25% 21% 23% 24% 24% Page 123 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 43
If you have visited a City of Englewood park in the last 12 months,
how often, if at all, have you visited each of the following parks or
open space areas? (Percent at least once)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years
or less
6 to 20
years
More
than 20
years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Romans 32% 31% 30% 25% 40%
A
39%
B
25% 31%
Rotolo 16% 29%
A
40%
A
34%
B
9% 14% 34%
A
25%
Southwest Greenbelt 24% 31% 40%
A
34%
B
23% 27% 32% 30%
Table 46: Question 3 by Respondent Characteristics
If you have visited a City of Englewood park in the last 12
months, how often, if at all, have you visited each of the
following parks or open space areas? (Percent at least once)
Age Gender
Household has
kids 17 or under Dog ownership Overall
18-
34
35-
54
55+ Female Male Yes No None One or
more
(A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Baker 24% 14% 19% 15% 25%
A
12% 21% 23% 17% 20%
Barde/ Charles Hay Elementary 24% 38%
A
26% 29% 25% 32% 27% 31% 28% 29%
Bates – Logan 63% 69% 57% 66% 59% 65% 63% 65% 62% 63%
Belleview 54% 70%
A
61% 62% 60% 73%
B
58% 65% 58% 61%
Centennial 30% 40% 34% 36% 32% 42% 32% 39% 31% 34%
Clarkson-Amherst 16% 19% 23% 20% 18% 18% 19% 24% 16% 19%
Colorado's Finest Athletic Field 19%
B
8% 10% 12% 14% 17% 12% 18%
B
9% 13% Page 124 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 44
If you have visited a City of Englewood park in the last 12
months, how often, if at all, have you visited each of the
following parks or open space areas? (Percent at least once)
Age Gender
Household has
kids 17 or under Dog ownership Overall
18-
34
35-
54
55+ Female Male Yes No None One or
more
(A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Cushing 47% 40% 37% 38% 48% 40% 44% 52%
B
34% 42%
Denny Miller Fields 23% 26% 24% 20% 28% 37%
B
20% 32%
B
19% 24%
Duncan 23% 42%
A
34% 30% 34% 48%
B
24% 39%
B
26% 32%
Emerson 26% 22% 19% 24% 20% 23% 23% 24% 23% 23%
Jason 34% 56%
A
54%
A
46% 47% 63%
B
40% 45% 49% 47%
Northwest Greenbelt 23% 22% 28% 19% 29%
A
27% 22% 26% 22% 24%
Romans 27% 34% 35% 30% 32% 36% 29% 40%
B
24% 31%
Rotolo 17% 36%
A
26% 23% 27% 43%
B
19% 30% 21% 25%
Southwest Greenbelt 23% 35% 35% 25% 36%
A
35% 29% 33% 27% 30%
Page 125 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 45
Table 47: Question 4 by Respondent Characteristics
Generally, which statement comes closest to how you feel
about dogs in City of Englewood parks?
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years or
less
6 to 20
years
More than
20 years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Dogs can be off leash, no fence should be required. 23% 22% 26% 26% 21% 20% 27% 24%
Dogs can be off leash, but in a fenced in area. 60%
C
51% 40% 50% 55% 58%
B
48% 52%
Dogs should only be on-leash. 13% 19% 30%
A B
19% 17% 17% 20% 19%
I prefer no dogs in parks. 3% 2% 2% 1% 4% 3% 2% 2%
I don't have a preference. 2% 6%
A
2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3%
Table 48: Question 4 by Respondent Characteristics
Generally, which statement comes closest to how you
feel about dogs in City of Englewood parks?
Age Gender
Household has kids
17 or under Dog ownership Overall
18-
34
35-
54
55+ Female Male Yes No None One or
more
(A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Dogs can be off leash, no fence should be required. 26% 24% 19% 25% 22% 19% 25% 14% 34%
A
24%
Dogs can be off leash, but in a fenced in area. 60%
C
56%
C
43% 51% 55% 53% 54% 52% 52% 52%
Dogs should only be on-leash. 11% 15% 28%
A B
18% 18% 24% 16% 26%
B
11% 19%
I prefer no dogs in parks. 2% 1% 4% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% 1% 2%
I don't have a preference. 1% 4% 5%
A
3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 2% 3%
Page 126 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 46
Table 49: Question 5 by Respondent Characteristics
(Percent who has one or more dogs)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years or
less
6 to 20
years
More than 20
years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
How many dogs currently live in your
household?
48% 51% 43% 57%
B
33% 36% 57%
A
48%
Table 50: Question 5 by Respondent Characteristics
(Percent who has one or more dogs)
Age Gender Household has kids 17 or under Overall
18-34 35-54 55+ Female Male Yes No (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
How many dogs currently live in your household? 55%
C
52%
C
38% 53%
B
43% 48% 48% 48%
Table 51: Question 6 by Respondent Characteristics
(Percent yes)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years
or less
6 to 20
years
More
than 20
years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Do you currently take your dog(s) to any existing off leash DOG
PARKS or DOG AREAS, including Canine Corral, Centennial Park,
Duncan Park, Jason Park, and Northwest Greenbelt?
34% 46% 47% 44% 32% 35% 43% 40%
Page 127 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 47
Table 52: Question 6 by Respondent Characteristics
(Percent yes)
Age Gender
Household has
kids 17 or under Overall
18-
34
35-
54
55+ Female Male Yes No (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Do you currently take your dog(s) to any existing off leash DOG PARKS or DOG
AREAS, including Canine Corral, Centennial Park, Duncan Park, Jason Park, and
Northwest Greenbelt?
39% 38% 46% 45% 36% 24% 46%
A
40%
Table 53: Question 7 by Respondent Characteristics
In the last 12 months, how often, if at all, have you used each of
the following off leash DOG PARKS or DOG AREAS? (Percent at
least once)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years
or less
6 to 20
years
More than
20 years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Canine Corral 72%
C
65% 43% 65% 52% 73% 57% 62%
Centennial Park 25% 42% 44% 39% 24% 24% 41% 35%
Duncan Park 18% 38% 61%
A
43%
B
11% 16% 43%
A
35%
Jason Park 55% 65% 81%
A
72%
B
40% 52% 69% 65%
Northwest Greenbelt 14% 24% 17% 20% 13% 15% 20% 18%
Page 128 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 48
Table 54: Question 7 by Respondent Characteristics
In the last 12 months, how often, if at all, have you used each of the
following off leash DOG PARKS or DOG AREAS? (Percent at least once)
Age Gender
Household has kids
17 or under Overall
18-
34
35-
54
55+ Female Male Yes No (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Canine Corral 74%
C
66% 41% 62% 63% 63% 61% 62%
Centennial Park 40% 34% 34% 43% 27% 20% 39% 35%
Duncan Park 26% 40% 45% 34% 37% 39% 30% 35%
Jason Park 56% 74% 66% 66% 65% 75% 63% 65%
Northwest Greenbelt 16% 15% 25% 17% 21% 0% 19% 18%
Table 55: Question 8 by Respondent Characteristics
How important to you, if at all, are each of the following items
to a successful fenced in DOG PARK? (Percent essential of very
important)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years
or less
6 to 20
years
More than
20 years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Acreage 79% 64% 87% 73% 89% 67% 79% 75%
Benches for people 35% 36% 61%
A
38% 53% 53% 35% 41%
Cleanliness/ maintenance 97% 91% 94% 92% 100% 94% 94% 94%
Dog amenities (dog toys, sandbox) 14% 4% 16% 13% 6% 16% 8% 11%
Within walking distance of home 39% 36% 39% 35% 46% 34% 40% 37%
Parking close to site 71% 52% 58% 56% 82%
A
82%
B
53% 62%
Restrooms 26% 30% 39% 31% 28% 21% 35% 30%
Grass area 75% 61% 80% 70% 79% 66% 73% 71% Page 129 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 49
How important to you, if at all, are each of the following items
to a successful fenced in DOG PARK? (Percent essential of very
important)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years
or less
6 to 20
years
More than
20 years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Non-grass area (e.g., woodchips, pea gravel, dirt) 34% 41% 22% 34% 29% 37% 31% 33%
Separate small dog area 30% 22% 35% 24% 45% 37% 24% 29%
Shaded areas 71% 80% 77% 73% 82% 90%
B
69% 74%
Table 56: Question 8 by Respondent Characteristics
How important to you, if at all, are each of the following items to a
successful fenced in DOG PARK? (Percent essential of very important)
Age Gender
Household has kids
17 or under Overall
18-
34
35-
54
55+ Female Male Yes No (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Acreage 73% 86% 68% 75% 73% 72% 78% 75%
Benches for people 32% 48% 47% 45% 39% 46% 41% 41%
Cleanliness/ maintenance 94% 92% 96% 95% 92% 100% 93% 94%
Dog amenities (dog toys, sandbox) 14% 11% 8% 14% 7% 6% 11% 11%
Within walking distance of home 48% 28% 34% 44% 25% 25% 41% 37%
Parking close to site 69% 56% 57% 65% 57% 32% 65%
A
62%
Restrooms 15% 32% 50%
A
27% 38% 36% 30% 30%
Grass area 69% 67% 80% 64% 80% 57% 76% 71%
Non-grass area (e.g., woodchips, pea gravel, dirt) 38% 32% 30% 32% 38% 21% 37% 33%
Separate small dog area 31% 29% 25% 31% 28% 34% 26% 29%
Shaded areas 77% 71% 76% 74% 76% 56% 78% 74% Page 130 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 50
Table 57: Question 9 by Respondent Characteristics
How concerned, if at all, are you with each of the following as
they relate to City of Englewood parks? (Percent major or
moderate concern)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years
or less
6 to 20
years
More than
20 years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Cleanliness overall 56% 53% 65% 58% 57% 57% 57% 57%
Dog-dog conflicts 38% 43% 53%
A
48%
B
35% 38% 47% 43%
Dog-human conflicts (or dogs coming in contact with humans) 39% 44% 56%
A B
48% 39% 41% 47% 44%
Distance of dog areas or parks from playgrounds 25% 34% 50%
A B
33% 33% 31% 35% 33%
Dog areas or parks located away from housing 21% 23% 27% 17% 32%
A
27% 20% 23%
Maintenance 60% 59% 69% 61% 63% 64% 59% 62%
Noise 20% 24% 30%
A
22% 27% 23% 24% 24%
Distance of dog areas or parks from sports fields 10% 16% 34%
A B
19% 14% 12% 21%
A
17%
Parking 21% 22% 40%
A B
25% 28% 24% 27% 26%
Repurposed use of park space 23% 27% 52%
A B
29% 36% 28% 34% 31%
Distance of dog areas or parks from picnic shelters 25% 28% 54%
A B
31% 36% 34% 32% 32%
Page 131 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 51
Table 58: Question 9 by Respondent Characteristics
How concerned, if at all, are you with each of the following as
they relate to City of Englewood parks? (Percent major or
moderate concern)
Age Gender
Household has
kids 17 or under Dog ownership Overall
18-
34
35-
54
55+ Female Male Yes No None One or
more
(A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Cleanliness overall 51% 60% 60% 53% 59% 55% 58% 58% 56% 57%
Dog-dog conflicts 32% 42% 55%
A B
49%
B
36% 46% 41% 42% 43% 43%
Dog-human conflicts (or dogs coming in contact with
humans)
37% 45% 52%
A
43% 43% 51% 41% 57%
B
32% 44%
Distance of dog areas or parks from playgrounds 18% 34%
A
47%
A B
32% 32% 48%
B
28% 45%
B
22% 33%
Dog areas or parks located away from housing 17% 23% 29%
A
18% 28%
A
27% 23% 28%
B
18% 23%
Maintenance 57% 62% 64% 60% 63% 57% 62% 63% 60% 62%
Noise 15% 24% 32%
A
22% 24% 20% 25% 28%
B
19% 24%
Distance of dog areas or parks from sports fields 6% 21%
A
25%
A
17% 16% 28%
B
13% 23%
B
11% 17%
Parking 17% 20% 39%
A B
25% 25% 25% 25% 24% 27% 26%
Repurposed use of park space 17% 33%
A
43%
A
27% 35% 30% 31% 39%
B
24% 31%
Distance of dog areas or parks from picnic shelters 17% 33%
A
47%
A B
30% 35% 42%
B
29% 44%
B
21% 32%
Page 132 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 52
Table 59: Question 11 by Respondent Characteristics
How much would you support or oppose a FENCED off leash dog
area or park at each of the following parks? (Percent strongly or
somewhat support)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years
or less
6 to 20
years
More than
20 years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Jason Park 70%
C
66% 57% 62% 71% 70% 62% 66%
Emerson Park 72%
B C
59% 53% 58% 72%
A
70% 60% 64%
Duncan Park 65%
C
62% 50% 56% 66% 66% 57% 60%
Cushing Park 68%
C
66%
C
47% 58% 67% 64% 61% 62%
Table 60: Question 11 by Respondent Characteristics
How much would you support or oppose a FENCED off leash
dog area or park at each of the following parks? (Percent
strongly or somewhat support)
Age Gender
Household has
kids 17 or under Dog ownership Overall
18-
34
35-
54
55+ Female Male Yes No None One or
more
(A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Jason Park 71%
C
67% 59% 67% 64% 68% 65% 66% 65% 66%
Emerson Park 75%
C
63%
C
50% 65% 62% 58% 66% 64% 64% 64%
Duncan Park 67%
C
61% 51% 63% 58% 54% 62% 60% 61% 60%
Cushing Park 71%
C
59% 56% 66% 58% 49% 65%
A
58% 66% 62%
Page 133 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 53
Table 61: Questions 12 to 16 by Respondent Characteristics
How much do you support or oppose...
(Percent strongly or somewhat support)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years or
less
6 to 20
years
More than 20
years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at Emerson
Park?
44% 42% 34% 44% 36% 36% 44% 41%
an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at the
Northwest Greenbelt?
44% 42% 34% 43% 39% 36% 45% 41%
an off leash FENCED (one fence) DOG AREA at
Duncan Park?
62% 59% 55% 59% 61% 61% 58% 60%
an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Cushing Park? 80%
C
81%
C
66% 77% 78% 78% 77% 77%
an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Jason Park? 66% 68% 62% 65% 67% 69% 63% 65%
Table 62: Questions 12 to 16 by Respondent Characteristics
How much do you support or oppose...
(Percent strongly or somewhat support)
Age Gender
Household has kids 17 or
under Dog ownership Overall
18-
34
35-
54
55+ Female Male Yes No None One or
more
(A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at Emerson
Park?
49%
C
43%
C
29% 40% 42% 34% 43% 26% 57%
A
41%
an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at the
Northwest Greenbelt?
45%
C
48%
C
30% 37% 46% 29% 45%
A
29% 54%
A
41%
an off leash FENCED (one fence) DOG AREA at
Duncan Park?
60% 58% 60% 61% 59% 49% 63%
A
56% 64% 60%
an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Cushing Park? 83%
C
82%
C
66% 82%
B
73% 77% 78% 71% 84%
A
77%
an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Jason Park? 70% 65% 60% 64% 67% 67% 66% 67% 64% 65% Page 134 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 54
Table 63: Questions 17 to 19 by Respondent Characteristics
How much do you support or oppose...
(Percent strongly or somewhat support)
Length of residency Housing unit type
Housing
tenure Overall
5 years
or less
6 to 20
years
More than
20 years
Detached Attached Rent Own (A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B)
a dog licensing program? 65% 66% 75% 65% 71% 67% 68% 68%
non-residents being able to use City of Englewood parks with
their dogs?
62%
C
53%
C
36% 49% 60%
A
62%
B
46% 53%
non-Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing fee
for a City of Englewood dog license to help fund park
maintenance and staffing?
44% 47% 64%
A B
52% 45% 45% 53% 50%
Table 64: Questions 17 to 19 by Respondent Characteristics
How much do you support or oppose...
(Percent strongly or somewhat support)
Age Gender
Household has
kids 17 or under Dog ownership Overall
18-
34
35-
54
55+ Female Male Yes No None One or
more
(A)
(A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
a dog licensing program? 58% 64% 80%
A B
65% 70% 66% 67% 82%
B
52% 68%
non-residents being able to use City of Englewood parks with
their dogs?
63%
C
60%
C
39% 48% 60%
A
52% 56% 55% 52% 53%
non-Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing
fee for a City of Englewood dog license to help fund park
maintenance and staffing?
39% 50% 61%
A B
44% 56%
A
49% 47% 54% 45% 50%
Page 135 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 55
Appendix C: Comparisons of Survey Responses by Proximity of Residence to City Parks
(Random Sample)
Table 65: Question 1 by Household Location Relative to Parks
Please rate each of the
following aspects of quality
of life in Englewood.
(Percent excellent or good)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Englewood as a place to
live
89% 89% 91% 89% 80% 90%
A
94% 89% 88% 91% 89%
Englewood as a place to
raise children
76% 70% 64% 71% 66% 71% 67% 71% 68% 73% 71%
Overall feeling of safety in
Englewood
70% 65% 60% 67% 67% 66% 76% 65% 68% 64% 66%
The overall quality of life in
Englewood
88% 83% 85% 84% 80% 85% 85% 84% 84% 84% 84%
Table 66: Question 2 by Household Location Relative to Parks
(Percent yes)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
In the last 12 months,
have you used any City
of Englewood parks?
91%
B
80% 70% 84%
A
80% 82% 81% 82% 81% 83% 82%
Page 136 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 56
Table 67: Question 3 by Household Location Relative to Parks
If you have visited a City of
Englewood park in the last 12
months, how often, if at all, have you
visited each of the following parks or
open space areas? (Percent at least
once)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Baker 16% 21% 26% 19% 25% 19% 6% 21% 22% 18% 20%
Barde/ Charles Hay Elementary 58%
B
20% 4% 33%
A
9% 32%
A
7% 31%
A
28% 31% 29%
Bates – Logan 94%
B
54% 64% 63% 34% 67%
A
48% 64% 67% 59% 63%
Belleview 53% 63% 41% 64%
A
78%
B
59% 82%
B
60% 61% 62% 61%
Centennial 36% 34% 25% 36% 44% 33% 38% 34% 36% 32% 34%
Clarkson-Amherst 53%
B
9% 7% 21%
A
11% 21% 9% 20% 27%
B
10% 19%
Colorado's Finest Athletic Field 17% 12% 5% 14% 14% 13% 21% 12% 14% 12% 13%
Cushing 38% 43% 95%
B
32% 23% 45%
A
38% 42% 49%
B
33% 42%
Denny Miller Fields 23% 25% 27% 24% 23% 25% 20% 25% 23% 25% 24%
Duncan 27% 34% 7% 36%
A
27% 33% 87%
B
26% 34% 31% 32%
Emerson 60%
B
13% 16% 24% 13% 25% 6% 25%
A
31%
B
13% 23%
Jason 41% 49% 13% 52%
A
91%
B
39% 52% 47% 50% 44% 47%
Northwest Greenbelt 25% 23% 27% 23% 30% 23% 26% 24% 27% 19% 24%
Romans 48%
B
27% 10% 34%
A
7% 35%
A
14% 33% 25% 38%
A
31%
Rotolo 25% 25% 5% 28%
A
69%
B
18% 25% 25% 32%
B
17% 25% Page 137 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 57
If you have visited a City of
Englewood park in the last 12
months, how often, if at all, have you
visited each of the following parks or
open space areas? (Percent at least
once)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Southwest Greenbelt 20% 33%
A
13% 32%
A
67%
B
24% 35% 30% 33% 26% 30%
Table 68: Question 4 by Household Location Relative to Parks
Generally, which statement
comes closest to how you
feel about dogs in City of
Englewood parks?
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Dogs can be off leash, no
fence should be required.
27% 23% 15% 25% 33% 22% 34% 23% 27% 20% 24%
Dogs can be off leash, but
in a fenced in area.
46% 53% 69%
B
49% 46% 53% 52% 52% 52% 52% 52%
Dogs should only be on-
leash.
19% 19% 9% 20%
A
17% 19% 10% 20% 15% 23%
A
19%
I prefer no dogs in parks. 1% 3% 4% 2% 1% 2% 0% 2% 1% 3% 2%
I don't have a preference. 7%
B
2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3%
Page 138 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 58
Table 69: Question 5 by Household Location Relative to Parks
(Percent who has
one or more dogs)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
How many dogs
currently live in your
household?
54% 47% 44% 48% 67%
B
45% 40% 49% 53%
B
42% 48%
Table 70: Question 6 by Household Location Relative to Parks
(Percent yes)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Do you currently take your
dog(s) to any existing off leash
DOG PARKS or DOG AREAS,
including Canine Corral,
Centennial Park, Duncan Park,
Jason Park, and Northwest
Greenbelt?
20% 45%
A
44% 40% 45% 39% 80%
B
38% 39% 42% 40%
Page 139 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 59
Table 71: Question 7 by Household Location Relative to Parks
In the last 12 months, how
often, if at all, have you used
each of the following off leash
DOG PARKS or DOG AREAS?
(Percent at least once)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Canine Corral 62% 62% 77% 60% 50% 65% 60% 63% 63% 62% 62%
Centennial Park 48% 34% 37% 35% 40% 34% 14% 38% 36% 34% 35%
Duncan Park 44% 34% 7% 39% 14% 41%
A
89%
B
26% 39% 31% 35%
Jason Park 70% 65% 39% 70%
A
95%
B
57% 47% 68% 68% 61% 65%
Northwest Greenbelt 24% 17% 7% 19% 8% 20% 22% 17% 16% 21% 18%
Table 72: Question 8 by Household Location Relative to Parks
How important to you, if at all,
are each of the following items
to a successful fenced in DOG
PARK? (Percent essential of
very important)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Acreage 88% 74% 55% 78% 88% 72% 65% 77% 73% 78% 75%
Benches for people 36% 42% 68%
B
36% 22% 46% 38% 41% 39% 43% 41%
Cleanliness/ maintenance 100% 93% 100% 93% 93% 94% 74% 97%
A
92% 97% 94%
Dog amenities (dog toys,
sandbox)
0% 12% 8% 11% 9% 11% 5% 12% 6% 17% 11%
Within walking distance of
home
18% 39% 18% 40% 41% 36% 48% 35% 32% 43% 37% Page 140 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 60
How important to you, if at all,
are each of the following items
to a successful fenced in DOG
PARK? (Percent essential of
very important)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Parking close to site 70% 61% 92%
B
57% 50% 65% 38% 66% 61% 63% 62%
Restrooms 37% 29% 18% 32% 23% 32% 40% 29% 27% 34% 30%
Grass area 64% 72% 45% 75%
A
86% 68% 50% 74% 63% 81% 71%
Non-grass area (e.g.,
woodchips, pea gravel, dirt)
29% 33% 69%
B
27% 21% 36% 11% 36% 33% 32% 33%
Separate small dog area 11% 31% 29% 29% 48% 25% 36% 28% 34% 22% 29%
Shaded areas 72% 75% 91% 72% 48% 81%
A
83% 73% 71% 79% 74%
Table 73: Question 9 by Household Location Relative to Parks
How concerned, if at all, are
you with each of the following
as they relate to City of
Englewood parks? (Percent
major or moderate concern)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Cleanliness overall 55% 58% 58% 57% 53% 58% 42% 59%
A
55% 60% 57%
Dog-dog conflicts 49% 41% 22% 46%
A
40% 43% 49% 42% 39% 46% 43%
Dog-human conflicts (or dogs
coming in contact with
humans)
46% 44% 34% 46% 43% 45% 60% 43% 44% 44% 44% Page 141 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 61
How concerned, if at all, are
you with each of the following
as they relate to City of
Englewood parks? (Percent
major or moderate concern)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Distance of dog areas or parks
from playgrounds
31% 34% 24% 35% 36% 33% 34% 33% 30% 37% 33%
Dog areas or parks located
away from housing
21% 23% 13% 24%
A
21% 23% 17% 23% 18% 28%
A
23%
Maintenance 57% 63% 71% 60% 54% 63% 61% 62% 61% 62% 62%
Noise 22% 24% 11% 25%
A
17% 24% 24% 24% 18% 29%
A
24%
Distance of dog areas or parks
from sports fields
15% 18% 8% 19%
A
18% 17% 25% 16% 15% 19% 17%
Parking 23% 27% 19% 27% 33% 25% 28% 26% 26% 26% 26%
Repurposed use of park space 26% 33% 24% 33% 36% 31% 28% 32% 30% 33% 31%
Distance of dog areas or parks
from picnic shelters
36% 32% 21% 34%
A
36% 32% 39% 32% 33% 32% 32%
Page 142 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 62
Table 74: Question 11 by Household Location Relative to Parks
How much would you support
or oppose a FENCED off leash
dog area or park at each of the
following parks? (Percent
strongly or somewhat support)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
Jason Park 56% 68% 75% 64% 65% 66% 61% 66% 64% 68% 66%
Emerson Park 63% 64% 74% 63% 53% 66% 43% 66%
A
61% 68% 64%
Duncan Park 51% 62% 77%
B
58% 61% 60% 57% 61% 61% 60% 60%
Cushing Park 58% 63% 72% 60% 61% 62% 51% 63% 63% 62% 62%
Table 75: Questions 12 to 16 by Household Location Relative to Parks
How much do you
support or oppose...
(Percent strongly or
somewhat support)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
an off leash DOG AREA
(NO fence) at Emerson
Park?
55%
B
38% 35% 42% 43% 41% 33% 42% 44% 38% 41%
an off leash DOG AREA
(NO fence) at the
Northwest Greenbelt?
48% 40% 35% 42% 48% 40% 42% 41% 44% 38% 41%
an off leash FENCED
(one fence) DOG AREA
at Duncan Park?
61% 60% 67% 59% 64% 59% 57% 60% 62% 57% 60%
an off leash FENCED
DOG PARK at Cushing
Park?
78% 77% 73% 78% 81% 77% 85% 77% 79% 76% 77% Page 143 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 63
How much do you
support or oppose...
(Percent strongly or
somewhat support)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2 mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
an off leash FENCED
DOG PARK at Jason
Park?
68% 65% 62% 66% 63% 66% 75% 65% 67% 64% 65%
Table 76: Questions 17 to 19 by Household Location Relative to Parks
How much do you support or
oppose...
(Percent strongly or somewhat
support)
Emerson Park Cushing Park Jason Park Duncan Park Any of the 5 parks Overall
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
Within
1/2
mile
Outside
1/2 mile
(A)
(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B)
a dog licensing program? 73% 66% 55% 70%
A
61% 69% 72% 67% 65% 70% 68%
non-residents being able to use
City of Englewood parks with
their dogs?
52% 54% 59% 52% 54% 53% 43% 54% 53% 54% 53%
non-Englewood residents
paying an additional dog
licensing fee for a City of
Englewood dog license to help
fund park maintenance and
staffing?
60%
B
47% 37% 52%
A
61%
B
48% 46% 50% 53% 46% 50%
Page 144 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 64
Appendix D: Full Set of Responses to the Open Participation Survey
The full set of responses for each question on the open participation survey are displayed in the tables in this appendix. Some
questions included a “don’t know” response option. For these questions, two sets of tables are provided in this appendix: the first
with the “don’t know” responses excluded, to show the proportion of respondents with an opinion giving a response and the
second with the “don’t know” responses included, to allow examination of the magnitude of unfamiliarity with certain items.
Each table displays the proportion of respondents and number of respondents who gave each response. Verbatim responses to any
open ended questions are provided under separate cover.
Table 77: Question 1 without "don't know" responses
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Englewood. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Englewood as a place to live 19% N=78 71% N=285 9% N=37 1% N=3 100% N=404
Englewood as a place to raise children 18% N=60 56% N=184 22% N=73 3% N=11 100% N=327
Overall feeling of safety in Englewood 13% N=53 53% N=223 28% N=119 6% N=23 100% N=418
The overall quality of life in Englewood 13% N=54 69% N=280 16% N=65 1% N=5 100% N=404
Table 78: Question 1 with "don't know" responses
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life
in Englewood. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total
Englewood as a place to live 19% N=78 69% N=285 9% N=37 1% N=3 3% N=11 100% N=415
Englewood as a place to raise children 14% N=60 44% N=184 17% N=73 3% N=11 22% N=90 100% N=417
Overall feeling of safety in Englewood 13% N=53 53% N=223 28% N=119 6% N=23 0% N=2 100% N=420
The overall quality of life in Englewood 13% N=54 67% N=280 16% N=65 1% N=5 3% N=13 100% N=417
Page 145 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 65
Table 79: Question 2
In the last 12 months, have you used any City of Englewood parks? Percent Number
Yes 93% N=389
No 7% N=30
Total 100% N=419
Table 80: Question 3
If you have visited a City of
Englewood park in the last 12
months, how often, if at all, have you
visited each of the following parks or
open space areas?
Never/0
times
Less than
once a month
1-2 times a
month
3-4 times a
month
Multiple
times a week Daily Total
Baker 84% N=171 9% N=18 2% N=4 1% N=2 3% N=5 1% N=3 100% N=203
Barde/ Charles Hay Elementary 77% N=155 12% N=25 3% N=6 3% N=6 5% N=9 0% N=0 100% N=200
Bates – Logan 40% N=98 20% N=49 19% N=46 6% N=15 10% N=24 4% N=11 100% N=243
Belleview 31% N=72 34% N=78 17% N=39 8% N=19 8% N=18 2% N=4 100% N=231
Centennial 47% N=116 20% N=51 9% N=22 8% N=21 8% N=20 8% N=20 100% N=250
Clarkson-Amherst 78% N=161 7% N=14 4% N=8 4% N=8 4% N=9 3% N=5 100% N=206
Colorado's Finest Athletic Field 89% N=173 8% N=16 1% N=3 1% N=1 1% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=195
Cushing 63% N=134 15% N=31 13% N=27 6% N=12 3% N=6 0% N=1 100% N=211
Denny Miller Fields 82% N=162 12% N=23 1% N=2 1% N=1 4% N=7 1% N=1 100% N=198
Duncan 44% N=103 19% N=45 15% N=37 7% N=17 6% N=14 9% N=22 100% N=237
Emerson 66% N=139 8% N=16 8% N=16 5% N=11 8% N=16 6% N=12 100% N=210
Jason 19% N=58 16% N=50 10% N=32 11% N=35 16% N=51 27% N=83 100% N=309
Northwest Greenbelt 81% N=162 13% N=26 2% N=4 2% N=5 2% N=3 0% N=1 100% N=201
Romans 71% N=143 14% N=27 6% N=11 3% N=6 6% N=12 0% N=1 100% N=200
Rotolo 54% N=116 14% N=30 13% N=28 5% N=12 12% N=27 2% N=5 100% N=217
Southwest Greenbelt 66% N=139 10% N=20 6% N=13 6% N=12 10% N=22 2% N=4 100% N=210
Asked only of those who had visited a City park in the last 12 months. Page 146 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 66
Table 81: Question 4
Generally, which statement comes closest to how you feel about dogs in City of Englewood parks? Percent Number
Dogs can be off leash, no fence should be required. 57% N=240
Dogs can be off leash, but in a fenced in area. 32% N=135
Dogs should only be on-leash. 8% N=35
I prefer no dogs in parks. 2% N=9
I don't have a preference. 1% N=4
Total 100% N=424
Table 82: Question 5
How many dogs currently live in your household? Percent Number
None 13% N=56
1 54% N=230
2 26% N=110
3 6% N=26
4 or more 0% N=2
Total 100% N=424
Table 83: Question 6
Do you currently take your dog(s) to any existing off leash DOG PARKS or DOG AREAS, including Canine Corral, Centennial Park,
Duncan Park, Jason Park, and Northwest Greenbelt? Percent Number
Yes 75% N=277
No 25% N=92
Total 100% N=368
Asked only of those who had one or more dogs.
Page 147 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 67
Table 84: Question 7
In the last 12 months, how often, if
at all, have you used each of the
following off leash DOG PARKS or
DOG AREAS?
Never/0
times
Less than
once a month
1-2 times a
month
3-4 times a
month
Multiple
times a week Daily Total
Canine Corral 51% N=102 20% N=41 8% N=16 4% N=9 12% N=23 5% N=10 100% N=201
Centennial Park 49% N=97 14% N=28 6% N=12 10% N=20 10% N=20 10% N=19 100% N=195
Duncan Park 51% N=87 11% N=18 10% N=17 8% N=13 7% N=12 13% N=22 100% N=170
Jason Park 15% N=34 9% N=19 7% N=17 8% N=17 24% N=55 37% N=83 100% N=226
Northwest Greenbelt 83% N=117 8% N=12 3% N=4 2% N=3 4% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=141
Asked only of those who had one or more dogs and currently uses existing off leash dog parks or areas.
Table 85: Question 8 without "don't know" responses
How important to you, if at all, are each of the following
items to a successful fenced in DOG PARK? Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important Total
Acreage 50% N=133 36% N=96 14% N=38 0% N=1 100% N=268
Benches for people 7% N=20 21% N=55 48% N=127 24% N=62 100% N=264
Cleanliness/ maintenance 46% N=124 44% N=119 10% N=28 1% N=2 100% N=272
Dog amenities (dog toys, sandbox) 1% N=2 4% N=11 22% N=57 73% N=188 100% N=259
Within walking distance of home 16% N=44 26% N=70 37% N=99 20% N=54 100% N=267
Parking close to site 20% N=52 37% N=98 36% N=96 7% N=19 100% N=265
Restrooms 7% N=17 19% N=50 37% N=96 38% N=98 100% N=260
Grass area 44% N=117 33% N=88 18% N=49 5% N=14 100% N=267
Non-grass area (e.g., woodchips, pea gravel, dirt) 3% N=9 15% N=40 30% N=79 51% N=136 100% N=264
Separate small dog area 3% N=6 12% N=31 37% N=95 48% N=124 100% N=256
Shaded areas 23% N=62 30% N=82 41% N=110 6% N=16 100% N=271
Asked only of those who had one or more dogs and currently uses existing off leash dog parks or areas.
Page 148 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 68
Table 86: Question 8 with "don't know" responses
How important to you, if at all, are each of the
following items to a successful fenced in DOG
PARK? Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Don't
know Total
Acreage 49% N=133 36% N=96 14% N=38 0% N=1 0% N=1 100% N=269
Benches for people 7% N=20 21% N=55 48% N=127 23% N=62 0% N=1 100% N=265
Cleanliness/ maintenance 46% N=124 44% N=119 10% N=28 1% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=272
Dog amenities (dog toys, sandbox) 1% N=2 4% N=11 22% N=57 71% N=188 3% N=7 100% N=266
Within walking distance of home 16% N=44 26% N=70 37% N=99 20% N=54 1% N=2 100% N=269
Parking close to site 19% N=52 37% N=98 36% N=96 7% N=19 0% N=1 100% N=266
Restrooms 7% N=17 19% N=50 36% N=96 37% N=98 1% N=2 100% N=262
Grass area 43% N=117 32% N=88 18% N=49 5% N=14 3% N=7 100% N=274
Non-grass area (e.g., woodchips, pea gravel, dirt) 3% N=9 15% N=40 29% N=79 50% N=136 3% N=8 100% N=271
Separate small dog area 2% N=6 12% N=31 36% N=95 47% N=124 4% N=10 100% N=267
Shaded areas 23% N=62 30% N=82 40% N=110 6% N=16 1% N=2 100% N=273
Asked only of those who had one or more dogs.
Page 149 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 69
Table 87: Question 9 without "don't know" responses
How concerned, if at all, are you with each of the following as
they relate to City of Englewood parks?
Not a
concern
Minor
concern
Moderate
concern
Major
concern Total
Cleanliness overall 25% N=100 19% N=78 22% N=90 34% N=140 100% N=408
Dog-dog conflicts 30% N=121 28% N=113 19% N=77 23% N=94 100% N=404
Dog-human conflicts (or dogs coming in contact with humans) 41% N=168 20% N=82 15% N=64 24% N=99 100% N=412
Distance of dog areas or parks from playgrounds 44% N=178 19% N=78 18% N=73 20% N=80 100% N=408
Dog areas or parks located away from housing 57% N=233 22% N=90 12% N=49 8% N=34 100% N=406
Maintenance 20% N=83 23% N=94 26% N=106 31% N=128 100% N=412
Noise 54% N=221 29% N=118 12% N=51 5% N=22 100% N=412
Distance of dog areas or parks from sports fields 54% N=222 16% N=65 15% N=62 15% N=63 100% N=412
Parking 39% N=160 27% N=109 21% N=87 13% N=55 100% N=411
Repurposed use of park space 41% N=143 24% N=84 17% N=60 18% N=63 100% N=350
Distance of dog areas or parks from picnic shelters 43% N=176 22% N=88 23% N=94 12% N=47 100% N=405
Table 88: Question 9 with "don't know" responses
How concerned, if at all, are you with each of the
following as they relate to City of Englewood
parks?
Not a
concern
Minor
concern
Moderate
concern
Major
concern Don't know Total
Cleanliness overall 24% N=100 19% N=78 22% N=90 34% N=140 2% N=7 100% N=416
Dog-dog conflicts 30% N=121 28% N=113 19% N=77 23% N=94 1% N=4 100% N=408
Dog-human conflicts (or dogs coming in contact
with humans) 41% N=168 20% N=82 15% N=64 24% N=99 0% N=2 100% N=414
Distance of dog areas or parks from playgrounds 43% N=178 19% N=78 18% N=73 19% N=80 1% N=4 100% N=412
Dog areas or parks located away from housing 56% N=233 22% N=90 12% N=49 8% N=34 2% N=7 100% N=413
Maintenance 20% N=83 23% N=94 26% N=106 31% N=128 1% N=3 100% N=415
Noise 53% N=221 29% N=118 12% N=51 5% N=22 0% N=2 100% N=413
Distance of dog areas or parks from sports fields 54% N=222 16% N=65 15% N=62 15% N=63 1% N=3 100% N=414
Parking 39% N=160 26% N=109 21% N=87 13% N=55 1% N=2 100% N=413
Repurposed use of park space 35% N=143 20% N=84 15% N=60 15% N=63 15% N=62 100% N=412
Distance of dog areas or parks from picnic shelters 43% N=176 21% N=88 23% N=94 11% N=47 2% N=8 100% N=413 Page 150 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 70
Table 89: Question 11 without "don't know" responses
How much would you support or oppose a
FENCED off leash dog area or park at each of
the following parks?
Strongly
support
Somewhat
support
Neither support
nor oppose
Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose Total
Jason Park 33% N=124 11% N=42 10% N=39 5% N=20 41% N=156 100% N=380
Emerson Park 30% N=85 12% N=34 19% N=54 7% N=21 31% N=88 100% N=282
Duncan Park 32% N=98 13% N=40 18% N=54 6% N=19 31% N=96 100% N=308
Cushing Park 39% N=113 13% N=38 19% N=55 7% N=21 21% N=61 100% N=288
Table 90: Question 11 with "don't know" responses
How much would you support or
oppose a FENCED off leash dog
area or park at each of the
following parks?
Strongly
support
Somewhat
support
Neither support
nor oppose
Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose Don't know Total
Jason Park 31% N=124 10% N=42 10% N=39 5% N=20 39% N=156 6% N=23 100% N=403
Emerson Park 23% N=85 9% N=34 15% N=54 6% N=21 24% N=88 24% N=88 100% N=370
Duncan Park 26% N=98 11% N=40 14% N=54 5% N=19 26% N=96 18% N=66 100% N=374
Cushing Park 30% N=113 10% N=38 15% N=55 6% N=21 16% N=61 22% N=82 100% N=370
Page 151 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 71
Table 91: Question 12 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at Emerson Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 54% N=212
Somewhat support 15% N=58
Neither support nor oppose 8% N=32
Somewhat oppose 6% N=22
Strongly oppose 18% N=70
Total 100% N=394
Table 92: Question 12 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at Emerson Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 51% N=212
Somewhat support 14% N=58
Neither support nor oppose 8% N=32
Somewhat oppose 5% N=22
Strongly oppose 17% N=70
Don't know 6% N=24
Total 100% N=418
Page 152 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 72
Table 93: Question 13 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at the Northwest Greenbelt? Percent Number
Strongly support 57% N=209
Somewhat support 10% N=37
Neither support nor oppose 15% N=56
Somewhat oppose 5% N=18
Strongly oppose 13% N=46
Total 100% N=366
Table 94: Question 13 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at the Northwest Greenbelt? Percent Number
Strongly support 50% N=209
Somewhat support 9% N=37
Neither support nor oppose 13% N=56
Somewhat oppose 4% N=18
Strongly oppose 11% N=46
Don't know 12% N=49
Total 100% N=415
Page 153 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 73
Table 95: Question 14 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED (one fence) DOG AREA at Duncan Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 38% N=146
Somewhat support 22% N=86
Neither support nor oppose 12% N=47
Somewhat oppose 11% N=41
Strongly oppose 17% N=67
Total 100% N=386
Table 96: Question 14 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED (one fence) DOG AREA at Duncan Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 35% N=146
Somewhat support 21% N=86
Neither support nor oppose 11% N=47
Somewhat oppose 10% N=41
Strongly oppose 16% N=67
Don't know 7% N=30
Total 100% N=417
Page 154 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 74
Table 97: Question 15 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Cushing Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 62% N=233
Somewhat support 18% N=69
Neither support nor oppose 9% N=33
Somewhat oppose 4% N=17
Strongly oppose 7% N=25
Total 100% N=376
Table 98: Question 15 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Cushing Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 57% N=233
Somewhat support 17% N=69
Neither support nor oppose 8% N=33
Somewhat oppose 4% N=17
Strongly oppose 6% N=25
Don't know 8% N=35
Total 100% N=411
Page 155 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 75
Table 99: Question 16 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Jason Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 35% N=144
Somewhat support 12% N=47
Neither support nor oppose 7% N=29
Somewhat oppose 9% N=36
Strongly oppose 37% N=149
Total 100% N=405
Table 100: Question 16 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Jason Park? Percent Number
Strongly support 35% N=144
Somewhat support 11% N=47
Neither support nor oppose 7% N=29
Somewhat oppose 9% N=36
Strongly oppose 36% N=149
Don't know 3% N=11
Total 100% N=416
Page 156 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 76
Table 101: Question 17 without "don't know" responses
Most municipalities require dogs to be licensed to ensure proper vaccinations, cover a portion of the cost of having areas
specifically for a dog and their owner’s enjoyment, and more importantly, having the ability to return lost animals to their owners.
The City of Englewood is proposing to implement a dog licensing program. How much do you support or oppose a dog licensing
program? Percent Number
Strongly support 36% N=146
Somewhat support 19% N=77
Neither support nor oppose 17% N=71
Somewhat oppose 10% N=43
Strongly oppose 18% N=72
Total 100% N=409
Table 102: Question 17 with "don't know" responses
Most municipalities require dogs to be licensed to ensure proper vaccinations, cover a portion of the cost of having areas
specifically for a dog and their owner’s enjoyment, and more importantly, having the ability to return lost animals to their owners.
The City of Englewood is proposing to implement a dog licensing program. How much do you support or oppose a dog licensing
program? Percent Number
Strongly support 35% N=146
Somewhat support 18% N=77
Neither support nor oppose 17% N=71
Somewhat oppose 10% N=43
Strongly oppose 17% N=72
Don't know 3% N=11
Total 100% N=420
Page 157 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 77
Table 103: Question 18 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose non-residents being able to use City of Englewood parks with their dogs? Percent Number
Strongly support 42% N=178
Somewhat support 14% N=57
Neither support nor oppose 21% N=89
Somewhat oppose 11% N=47
Strongly oppose 11% N=47
Total 100% N=419
Table 104: Question 18 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose non-residents being able to use City of Englewood parks with their dogs? Percent Number
Strongly support 42% N=178
Somewhat support 14% N=57
Neither support nor oppose 21% N=89
Somewhat oppose 11% N=47
Strongly oppose 11% N=47
Don't know 0% N=2
Total 100% N=420
Page 158 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 78
Table 105: Question 19 without "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose non-Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing fee for a City of Englewood
dog license to help fund park maintenance and staffing? Percent Number
Strongly support 25% N=101
Somewhat support 21% N=85
Neither support nor oppose 21% N=85
Somewhat oppose 12% N=51
Strongly oppose 21% N=87
Total 100% N=409
Table 106: Question 19 with "don't know" responses
How much do you support or oppose non-Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing fee for a City of Englewood
dog license to help fund park maintenance and staffing? Percent Number
Strongly support 24% N=101
Somewhat support 20% N=85
Neither support nor oppose 20% N=85
Somewhat oppose 12% N=51
Strongly oppose 21% N=87
Don't know 2% N=10
Total 100% N=420
Page 159 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 79
Table 107: Question 22
How many years have you lived in Englewood? Percent Number
Less than 2 years 21% N=84
2-5 years 23% N=94
6-10 years 13% N=54
11-20 years 17% N=68
More than 20 years 27% N=109
Total 100% N=408
Table 108: Question 23
Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number
One family house detached from any other houses 63% N=261
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 32% N=134
Mobile home 0% N=0
Other 5% N=20
Total 100% N=414
Table 109: Question 24
Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number
Rented 44% N=180
Owned 56% N=233
Total 100% N=413
Page 160 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 80
Table 110: Question 25
Including yourself, do you have any of the following types of people living in your household? Yes No Total
Children age 17 or younger 29% N=102 71% N=255 100% N=357
Adults age 65 or older 25% N=95 75% N=278 100% N=374
Table 111: Question 26
About how much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in
your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number
Less than $25,000 3% N=11
$25,000 to $49,999 16% N=61
$50,000 to $74,999 25% N=95
$75,000 to $99,999 16% N=62
$100,000 to $149,999 21% N=79
$150,000 or more 19% N=74
Total 100% N=383
Table 112: Question 27
Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 87% N=348
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 13% N=54
Total 100% N=402
Page 161 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 81
Table 113: Question 28
What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number
American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% N=4
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 1% N=3
Black or African American 1% N=2
White 93% N=373
Other 11% N=43
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option.
Table 114: Question 29
In which category is your age? Percent Number
18 to 24 years 3% N=12
25 to 34 years 32% N=131
35 to 44 years 19% N=80
45 to 54 years 13% N=52
55 to 64 years 18% N=72
65 to 74 years 12% N=49
75-84 years 4% N=15
85 years or older 0% N=0
Total 100% N=411
Table 115: Question 30
What is your gender? Percent Number
Female 52% N=215
Male 47% N=195
Identify in another way 0% N=1
Total 100% N=411
Page 162 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 82
Table 116: Question 31
How did you hear about this survey? (Select all that apply.) Percent Number
The City's website 11% N=48
The City's social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) 13% N=55
Received an email from the City 16% N=69
In a City newsletter or utility bill 0% N=2
Received a postcard or letter from the City 2% N=9
Nextdoor 8% N=33
In my Facebook feed 5% N=21
Saw it on a video of a public meeting or at a meeting I attended 1% N=4
Saw it on the City's cable channel 0% N=0
Saw it in a newspaper article or ad (hard copy or online) 1% N=3
Saw a flyer or poster about it 18% N=75
Heard about it from a family member, friend or neighborhood 26% N=109
Heard about it from a business or social organization in my community 6% N=25
Polco's weekly email 4% N=18
Polco social media post 0% N=0
On my Polco feed 1% N=4
Other 11% N=44
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option.
Page 163 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 83
Table 117: City Park Closest to Home
Which City of Englewood park is closest to your home? Percent Number
Baker 0% N=1
Barde/ Charles Hay Elementary 2% N=6
Bates – Logan 0% N=0
Belleview 5% N=19
Centennial 15% N=55
Clarkson-Amherst 2% N=7
Colorado's Finest Athletic Field 0% N=2
Cushing 7% N=25
Denny Miller Fields 4% N=16
Duncan 14% N=52
Emerson 5% N=19
Jason 31% N=116
Northwest Greenbelt 0% N=0
Romans 5% N=17
Rotolo 6% N=21
Southwest Greenbelt 2% N=9
I'm not sure 3% N=12
Total 100% N=376
Page 164 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 84
Appendix E: Comparisons of Random Sample and Open Participation
Survey Responses
Understanding the Tables
The subgroup comparison tables contain the crosstabulations of responses to the random
survey by responses to the open participation survey. Chi-square or ANOVA tests of
significance were applied to these breakdowns of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less
indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are
due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed
in the selected categories of the sample represent “real” differences among those populations.
As subgroups vary in size and each group has a unique margin of error, statistical testing is
used to determine whether differences between subgroups are statistically significant.
Each column in the following tables is labeled with a letter for each subgroup being
compared. The letters start over with “A” for each different characteristic. (For example, for
housing tenure, renters and owners are marked “A” and “B”, and then for type of housing
unit, those in detached homes and attached homes are marked “A” and “B”.)
For each pair of subgroup ratings within a characteristic within a row that has a statistically
significant difference, an uppercase letter denoting significance is shown in the cell with the
larger column proportion. The letter denotes the subgroup with the smaller column
proportion from which it is statistically different. Subgroups that have no uppercase letter
denotation in their column and that are also not referred to in any other column were not
statistically different.
Table 118: Question 1 by Survey Administration Type
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in
Englewood. (Percent excellent or good)
Random
sample
Open
participation Overall
(A) (B)
Englewood as a place to live 89% 90% 89%
Englewood as a place to raise children 71% 74% 72%
Overall feeling of safety in Englewood 66% 66% 66%
The overall quality of life in Englewood 84% 83% 84%
Table 119: Question 2 by Survey Administration Type
(Percent yes)
Random
sample
Open
participation Overall
(A) (B)
In the last 12 months, have you used any City of Englewood
parks?
82% 93%
A
87%
Page 165 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 85
Table 120: Question 3 by Survey Administration Type
If you have visited a City of Englewood park in the last 12 months,
how often, if at all, have you visited each of the following parks or
open space areas? (Percent at least once)
Random
sample
Open
participation Overall
(A) (B)
Baker 20% 16% 18%
Barde/ Charles Hay Elementary 29% 23% 26%
Bates – Logan 63% 60% 62%
Belleview 61% 69% 64%
Centennial 34% 53%
A
43%
Clarkson-Amherst 19% 22% 20%
Colorado's Finest Athletic Field 13% 11% 12%
Cushing 42% 37% 40%
Denny Miller Fields 24% 18% 22%
Duncan 32% 56%
A
43%
Emerson 23% 34%
A
28%
Jason 47% 81%
A
64%
Northwest Greenbelt 24% 19% 22%
Romans 31% 29% 30%
Rotolo 25% 46%
A
34%
Southwest Greenbelt 30% 34% 32%
Table 121: Question 4 by Survey Administration Type
Generally, which statement comes closest to how you feel about
dogs in City of Englewood parks?
Random
sample
Open
participation Overall
(A) (B)
Dogs can be off leash, no fence should be required. 24% 57%
A
38%
Dogs can be off leash, but in a fenced in area. 52%
B
32% 43%
Dogs should only be on-leash. 19%
B
8% 14%
I prefer no dogs in parks. 2% 2% 2%
I don't have a preference. 3%
B
1% 2%
Page 166 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 86
Table 122: Question 5 by Survey Administration Type
(Percent who has one or more dogs)
Random sample Open participation Overall
(A) (B)
How many dogs currently live in your household? 48% 87%
A
65%
Table 123: Question 6 by Survey Administration Type
(Percent yes)
Random
sample
Open
participation Overall
(A) (B)
Do you currently take your dog(s) to any existing off leash DOG
PARKS or DOG AREAS, including Canine Corral, Centennial Park,
Duncan Park, Jason Park, and Northwest Greenbelt?
40% 75%
A
61%
Table 124: Question 7 by Survey Administration Type
In the last 12 months, how often, if at all, have you used each of the
following off leash DOG PARKS or DOG AREAS? (Percent at least
once)
Random
sample
Open
participation Overall
(A) (B)
Canine Corral 62%
B
49% 53%
Centennial Park 35% 51%
A
46%
Duncan Park 35% 49%
A
44%
Jason Park 65% 85%
A
80%
Northwest Greenbelt 18% 17% 17%
Page 167 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 87
Table 125: Question 8 by Survey Administration Type
How important to you, if at all, are each of the following items to a
successful fenced in DOG PARK? (Percent essential of very
important)
Random
sample
Open
participation Overall
(A) (B)
Acreage 75% 85%
A
83%
Benches for people 41%
B
28% 32%
Cleanliness/ maintenance 94% 89% 90%
Dog amenities (dog toys, sandbox) 11% 5% 7%
Within walking distance of home 37% 43% 41%
Parking close to site 62% 56% 58%
Restrooms 30% 26% 27%
Grass area 71% 77% 75%
Non-grass area (e.g., woodchips, pea gravel, dirt) 33%
B
18% 22%
Separate small dog area 29%
B
15% 18%
Shaded areas 74%
B
53% 59%
Table 126: Question 9 by Survey Administration Type
How concerned, if at all, are you with each of the following as they
relate to City of Englewood parks? (Percent major or moderate
concern)
Random
sample
Open
participation Overall
(A) (B)
Cleanliness overall 57% 56% 57%
Dog-dog conflicts 43% 42% 42%
Dog-human conflicts (or dogs coming in contact with humans) 44% 39% 42%
Distance of dog areas or parks from playgrounds 33% 37% 35%
Dog areas or parks located away from housing 23% 20% 22%
Maintenance 62% 57% 60%
Noise 24%
B
18% 21%
Distance of dog areas or parks from sports fields 17% 30%
A
23%
Parking 26% 35%
A
30%
Repurposed use of park space 31% 35% 33%
Distance of dog areas or parks from picnic shelters 32% 35% 33%
Page 168 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 88
Table 127: Question 11 by Survey Administration Type
How much would you support or oppose a FENCED off leash dog
area or park at each of the following parks? (Percent strongly or
somewhat support)
Random
sample
Open
participation Overall
(A) (B)
Jason Park 66%
B
44% 55%
Emerson Park 64%
B
42% 54%
Duncan Park 60%
B
45% 53%
Cushing Park 62%
B
52% 58%
Table 128: Questions 12 to 16 by Survey Administration Type
How much do you support or oppose...
(Percent strongly or somewhat support)
Random
sample
Open
participation Overall
(A) (B)
an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at Emerson Park? 41% 69%
A
54%
an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at the Northwest
Greenbelt?
41% 67%
A
53%
an off leash FENCED (one fence) DOG AREA at Duncan Park? 60% 60% 60%
an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Cushing Park? 77% 80% 79%
an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Jason Park? 65%
B
47% 57%
Table 129: Questions 17 to 19 by Survey Administration Type
How much do you support or oppose...
(Percent strongly or somewhat support)
Random
sample
Open
participation Overall
(A) (B)
a dog licensing program? 68%
B
55% 62%
non-residents being able to use City of Englewood parks with their
dogs?
53% 56% 55%
non-Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing fee for
a City of Englewood dog license to help fund park maintenance and
staffing?
50% 46% 48%
Page 169 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 89
Appendix F: Survey Methodology
About the Survey
The City of Englewood, CO contracted with Polco’s National Research Center (NRC) to conduct
a survey of residents to gather feedback on their use of and preferences for dog parks in the
community. The survey was developed in collaboration with City staff and the Task Force
created to deal with City issues around dog parks. Through an iterative process, a roughly 10
minute survey was created and included questions about preferences for off-leash dog areas
versus fenced-in dog parks, which parks should allow dogs off-leash areas or have fenced-in dog
parks, where the dogs should be allowed in specific parks, how many dogs households have,
among other topics. This research was sponsored by the City of Englewood and questions about
this survey can be directed to Christina Underhill at CUnderhill@englewoodco.gov.
Selecting Survey Recipients
One of the first steps taken to ensure survey results are representative of the target population is
to use a source from which survey recipients are selected that provides adequate to good
"coverage" of the target population. This source is referred to as the "sampling frame" in the
survey research industry. For a survey of residents, a list of addresses based on the United States
Postal Service delivery sequence file is the most comprehensive list of households. For this
survey, the list was purchased from Go-Dog Direct.
Since it is cost prohibitive to survey every household in Englewood, a random selection of
records from the sampling frame was made. An example that may be
familiar from a math or statistics class is the jar or bowl of marbles of
various colors. If the jar has two-thirds red marbles and one-third blue
marbles, a random selection of marbles from that jars should result in a
similar proportion of red and blue marbles as in the original jar.
The addresses were geocoded (mapped to a specific latitude and
longitude) and compared to the boundaries of Englewood. Addresses
identified as being outside of the city limits of Englewood were excluded. Additionally, each
household’s location was identified as within a half mile of each of five City parks: Jason Park,
Duncan Park, Emerson Park, Cushing Park and the Northwest Greenbelt. A total of 5,000
households were selected to receive the survey. Multi-family housing units were oversampled to
compensate for single-family housing unit residents’ tendency to return surveys at a higher rate.
Administering the Resident Survey
Households randomly selected to receive the statistically valid survey were contacted two times
by mail beginning January 6, 2021. These households were invited to complete the survey online
at the provided URL. The postcard invitations came from NRC and were signed by the Mayor.
Both postcards included English and Spanish instructions about how residents could go online
to complete the survey in their preferred language. The invitations also included an access code
that respondents were asked to enter into the online survey form to ensure only one response
per randomly selected household was submitted. The access codes were compared for duplicate
responses and approximately 30 responses were removed.
About 5% of the mailed invitation postcards (250) were returned because they either had
incorrect addresses or were received by vacant housing units. Of the estimated 4,750 remaining
households, 520 unique households completed the survey, providing a response rate of 11%.
Page 170 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 90
This method of calculating the response rate is in accordance with the AAPOR’s response rate #2
for mailed surveys of unnamed persons.1
After the data collection for the random sample survey ended, the City opened the survey to
anyone who wanted to share their opinions. The open participation survey was available to
respondents from February 10, 2021 to March 3, 2021 and 424 responses were received. The
main report of results and the comparisons by respondent characteristics and proximity to parks
are based only on the random sample survey responses. The open participation survey responses
can be found in Appendix D: Full Set of Responses to the Open Participation Survey.
Copies of the postcard invitations and the survey itself can be found in Appendix G: Survey
Materials.
Confidence Intervals
The 95% confidence interval (or “margin of error”) quantifies the “sampling error” or precision
of the estimates made from the survey results. A 95% confidence interval can be calculated for
any number of respondents, and indicates that in 95 of 100 surveys conducted like this one, for a
particular item, a result would be found that is within a certain number of percentage points of
the result that would be found if everyone in the population of interest was surveyed. The
practical difficulties of conducting any resident survey may introduce other sources of error in
addition to sampling error. Despite the best efforts to boost participation and ensure potential
inclusion of all households, some selected households will decline participation in the survey
(referred to as non-response error) and some eligible households may be unintentionally
excluded from the listed sources for the sample (referred to as coverage error).
The margin of error for this survey, with 520 respondents, is ±4.3%. In essence, this means that,
95% of the time, any statistic given in this report will be within 4.3 percentage points of what the
entire adult population would have given had they all been surveyed.
Analyzing the Results
Weighting the Data
The results from the random sample (as well as, separately, the open participation effort) were
adjusted through a process known as weighting to be as reflective of Englewood’s overall adult
(18+) population, as possible, using information available from the 2010 Census and 2017
American Community Survey. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the
survey respondents reflective of the larger population of the community. Statistical weights were
applied to adjust the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents (tenure [rent vs own],
housing unit type [attached vs detached], ethnicity, race, sex, and age) to match the
sociodemographic/geographic characteristics of the City. No adjustments were made for design
effects. The results of the weighting for the random sample are presented in the table on the next
page, followed by the weighting table for the open participation survey. All the variables in that
table were used in the weighting scheme.
1 See AAPOR’s Standard Definitions here: http://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Standard-Definitions-(1).aspx for
more information
Page 171 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 91
Table 130: Englewood, CO Weighting Table 2021(Random Sample)
Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing Tenure1
Rent home 48% 24% 45%
Own home 52% 76% 55%
Housing Unity Type1
Detached (Single Family) 58% 75% 61%
Attached (Multi-Family) 42% 25% 39%
Race2
White 88% 92% 88%
Other race 12% 8% 12%
Ethnicity2
Not Hispanic 86% 93% 86%
Hispanic 14% 7% 14%
Sex and Age2
Females 18-34 18% 16% 18%
Females 35-54 15% 20% 15%
Females 55+ 18% 25% 19%
Males 18-34 18% 9% 17%
Males 35-54 16% 15% 16%
Males 55+ 15% 15% 15%
1Source of Population Norm: 5-year estimates from the 2017 American Community Survey
2Source of Population Norm: 2010 U.S. Census, adult population in households
Page 172 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 92
Table 131: Englewood, CO Weighting Table 2021(Open Participation)
Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data
Housing Tenure1
Rent home 48% 14% 44%
Own home 52% 86% 56%
Housing Unity Type1
Detached (Single Family) 58% 86% 63%
Attached (Multi-Family) 42% 14% 37%
Race2
White 88% 79% 87%
Other race 12% 21% 13%
Ethnicity2
Not Hispanic 86% 93% 87%
Hispanic 14% 7% 13%
Sex and Age2
Females 18-34 18% 16% 18%
Females 35-54 15% 26% 16%
Females 55+ 18% 20% 18%
Males 18-34 18% 9% 17%
Males 35-54 16% 17% 16%
Males 55+ 15% 13% 15%
1Source of Population Norm: 5-year estimates from the 2017 American Community Survey
2Source of Population Norm: 2010 U.S. Census, adult population in households
Statistical Analysis
The electronic dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
For the most part, frequency distributions are presented in the body of the report. The complete
sets of frequencies for each survey question are presented in Appendix A: Full Set of Responses
to the Random Sample Survey. Comparisons of responses to questions by respondent
characteristics and geographic location can be found in Appendix B: Comparisons of Survey
Responses by Respondent Characteristics (Random Sample) and Appendix C: Comparisons of
Survey Responses by Proximity of Residence to City Parks (Random Sample). Chi-square or
ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of selected survey questions. A
“p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences
observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability
that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent “real” differences
among those populations. Where differences between subgroups are statistically significant,
they have been marked in the appendices.
Page 173 of 229
Englewood, CO Dog Park Survey
Report of Results
Page 93
Appendix G: Survey Materials
The following pages contain a copy of the postcard invitations that were sent to the randomly
selected households, followed by a copy of the survey. The survey was administered online, and
had a somewhat different formatting than what is shown in this appendix, but the questions
were identical.
Page 174 of 229
Dear Englewood Resident,
The City of Englewood is gathering resident opinions
about our parks. We want to hear from all residents
— those who use City parks and those who don’t. We
value and need feedback from a wide variety of residents.
Your household has been randomly selected to participate
in this survey. Please complete the survey online using the
following URL and access code on any internet ready
device:
https://polco.us/sk93qu
Access code:
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is
for randomly selected households only. The City will
conduct a separate survey that is open to all residents
just a few weeks from now.
If you have any questions, please call 303-762-2300.
Thank you for helping to create a better community for all
residents!
Sincerely,
Estimado Residente de Englewood,
El Municipio de Englewood está recogiendo opiniones de
los residentes acerca de nuestros parques. Queremos
que todos los residentes nos den su opinión —
quienes usan los parques municipales y quienes no.
Valoramos y necesitamos los comentarios de una amplia
variedad de residentes.
Su hogar ha sido elegido al azar para participar en esta
encuesta. Conteste la encuesta en línea usando la
dirección URL y el código de acceso siguientes desde
cualquier dispositivo listo para Internet:
https://polco.us/syt566
Código de acceso:
Por favor no comparta el enlace de su encuesta. Esta
encuesta es solamente para hogares seleccionados al azar.
La Ciudad conducirá una encuesta separada que está abierta
a todos los residentes dentro de unas semanas.
Si tiene alguna pregunta, llámenos al 303-762-2300.
¡Gracias por ayudar a crear una major comunidad para
todos los residentes!
Atentamente,
Linda Olson
Mayor/Alcalde Page 175 of 229
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94 Page 176 of 229
Dear Englewood Resident,
Just a reminder—if you have not yet completed the
survey about City of Englewood parks, please do so. We
want to hear from all residents — those who use City
parks and those who don’t. If you have completed it,
thank you. Please do not respond twice.
Your participation in this survey is very important—your
answers will help Englewood make decisions that affect our
community. Please complete the survey online using the
following URL and access code on any internet ready
device:
https://polco.us/sk93qu
Access code:
Please do not share your survey link. This survey is
for randomly selected households only. The City will
conduct a separate survey that is open to all residents
just a few weeks from now.
If you have any questions, please call 303-762-2300.
Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Estimado Residente de Englewood,
Si no ha contestado aún la encuesta acerca de los parques
municipales de Englewood, le recordamos que por favor la
conteste. Queremos que todos los residentes nos den
su opinión — quienes usan los parques municipales y
quienes no. Si ya lo ha completado, gracias. Por favor
no responda dos veces.
Su participación en esta encuesta es muy importante – sus
respuestas le ayudarán al Englewood para tomar decisiones
que afectan nuestra comunidad. Conteste la encuesta en línea
usando la dirección URL y el código de acceso siguientes
desde cualquier dispositivo listo para Internet:
https://polco.us/syt566
Código de acceso:
Por favor no comparta el enlace de su encuesta. Esta
encuesta es solamente para hogares seleccionados al azar. La
Ciudad conducirá una encuesta separada que está abierta a
todos los residentes dentro de unas semanas.
Si tiene alguna pregunta, llámenos al 303-762-2300. ¡Muchas
gracias!
Atentamente,
Linda Olson
Mayor/Alcalde Page 177 of 229
Presorted
First Class Mail
US Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit NO. 94
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, Colorado 80110 Page 178 of 229
1
Englewood Parks Survey 2021
The City of Englewood is committed to providing opportunity for off leash dog use in some of their parks. To achieve
this in an equitable way, while addressing the needs of all residents and visitors, the City is working with elected
officials, the Parks Commission and a taskforce made up of resident park users to identify five specific City parks
where a revised off leash dog plan will be implemented.
We want to hear from all residents about your use of parks and thoughts about dogs in parks . Even if you do not visit
our parks or own a dog, we value and need your feedback. Your responses are completely confidential and will be
reported in group form only.
ID. First, please enter the 5-digit access code provided on the mailing you received. For this survey, we will accept only
one response per selected household.
___________________________
[ASKED OF ALL RESPONDENTS]
1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Englewood.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don’t know
Englewood as a place to live
Englewood as a place to raise children
Overall feeling of safety in Englewood
The overall quality of life in Englewood
2. In the last 12 months, have you used any City of Englewood parks (please see the list of City of Englewood
parks in question 4 below)?
Yes (go to question 3)
No (skip to question 4)
3. If you have visited a City of Englewood park in the last 12 months, how often, if at all, have you visited each of
the following parks or open space areas?
Never/0 times
Less than once a month
1-2 times a month
3-4 times a month
Multiple times a week
Daily
Baker
Barde/ Charles Hay Elementary
Bates – Logan
Belleview
Centennial
Clarkson-Amherst
Colorado’s Finest Athletic Field
Cushing
Page 179 of 229
2
Denny Miller Fields
Duncan
Emerson
Jason
Northwest Greenbelt
Romans
Rotolo
Southwest Greenbelt
[ASKED OF ALL RESPONDENTS]
4. Generally, which statement comes closest to how you feel about dogs in City of Englewood parks?
Dogs can be off leash, no fence should be required.
Dogs can be off leash, but in a fenced in area.
Dogs should only be on-leash.
I prefer no dogs in parks.
I don’t have a preference.
[ASKED OF ALL RESPONDENTS]
5. How many dogs currently live in your household?
None [skip to question 9]
1
2
3
4 or more
For the purposes of this survey, when we refer to a “DOG PARK” it is part of an existing park with a fenced in area
specifically where dogs can be off leash (e.g., Canine Corral). When we refer to an off leash “DOG AREA” it is an
existing park that does NOT have a fenced in dog area but is a specific open area of a park where dogs are allowed to
be off leash (e.g., Northwest Greenbelt).
[ONLY ASKED OF THOSE WHO SAID THEY OWNED ONE OR MORE DOGS IN Q5]
6. Do you currently take your dog(s) to any existing off leash DOG PARKS or DOG AREAS, including Canine Corral,
Centennial Park, Duncan Park, Jason Park, and Northwest Greenbelt?
Yes (go to question 7)
No (go to question 9)
Page 180 of 229
3
[ONLY ASKED OF THOSE WHO SAID “YES” TO Q6]
7. In the last 12 months, how often, if at all, have you used each of the following off leash DOG PARKS or DOG
AREAS?
Never/0 times
Less than once a month
1-2 times a month
3-4 times a month
Multiple times a week
Daily
Canine Corral
Centennial Park
Duncan Park
Jason Park
Northwest Greenbelt
[ONLY ASKED OF THOSE WHO SAID “YES” TO Q6]
8. How important to you, if at all, are each of the following items to a successful fenced in DOG PARK?
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Don’t know
Acreage
Benches for people
Cleanliness/ maintenance
Dog amenities (dog toys, sandbox)
Within walking distance of home
Parking close to site
Restrooms
Grass area
Non-grass area (e.g., woodchips, pea gravel, dirt)
Separate small dog area
Shaded areas
[Q9-Q30 ASKED OF ALL RESPONDENTS]
9. How concerned, if at all, are you with each of the following as they relate to City of Englewood parks?
Not a concern
Minor concern
Moderate concern
Major concern
Don’t know
Page 181 of 229
4
Cleanliness overall
Dog-dog conflicts
Dog-human conflicts (or dogs coming in contact with humans)
Distance of dog areas or parks from playgrounds
Dog areas or parks located away from housing
Maintenance
Noise
Distance of dog areas or parks from sports fields
Parking
Repurposed use of park space
Distance of dog areas or parks from picnic shelters
10. Do you have any other concerns not listed above?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
11. How much would you support or oppose a FENCED off leash dog area or park at each of the following parks?
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neither support nor oppose
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know
Jason Park
Emerson Park
Duncan Park
Cushing Park
Page 182 of 229
5
Currently, the City of Englewood allows dogs off leash in 5 City parks.
The next set of questions will first show an image of 5 different City of Englewood parks with proposed spaces for off
leash “DOG AREAS” (no fence) or off leash “DOG PARKS” (fenced in), followed by a question asking for your opinions
about dogs at each of the 5 specific City parks.
Emerson Park: Currently, off leash dogs are prohibited from using Emerson Park. The future proposal for this park is to
allow dogs off leash without a fenced in area.
12. How much do you support or oppose an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at Emerson Park?
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neither support nor oppose
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know
Page 183 of 229
6
Northwest Greenbelt: Northwest Greenbelt is an off leash DOG AREA with no fencing. The future proposal is to keep the
park as is.
13. How much do you support or oppose an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence) at the Northwest Greenbelt?
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neither support nor oppose
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know
Page 184 of 229
7
Duncan Park: Duncan Park is currently an off leash DOG AREA (NO fence). The future proposal is to add one fence in the
middle of the park (east to west, yellow dotted line in image below) to separate the off leash dog area from the other
park amenities.
Page 185 of 229
8
14. How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED (one fence) DOG AREA at Duncan Park?
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neither support nor oppose
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know
Cushing Park: Currently, off leash dogs are prohibited from using Cushing Park. The future proposal is to add a fenced
off leash DOG PARK on the northwest corner of Inca and Dartmouth (yellow dotted lines in the image below).
15. How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Cushing Park?
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neither support nor oppose
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know
Page 186 of 229
9
Jason Park: Jason Park is currently an off leash DOG AREA (no fence). The future proposal would be to allow off leash
dogs in a three sided fenced in DOG PARK, open on the parking lot side (yellow dotted lines in the image below). The
remaining areas of the park would require a dog to be on leash.
16. How much do you support or oppose an off leash FENCED DOG PARK at Jason Park?
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neither support nor oppose
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know
Page 187 of 229
10
17. Most municipalities require dogs to be licensed to ensure proper vaccinations, cover a portion of the cost of
having areas specifically for a dog and their owner’s enjoyment, and more importantly, having the ability to
return lost animals to their owners. The City of Englewood is proposing to implement a dog licensing program.
How much do you support or oppose a dog licensing program?
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neither support nor oppose
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know
18. How much do you support or oppose non-residents being able to use City of Englewood parks with their
dogs?
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neither support nor oppose
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know
19. How much do you support or oppose non-Englewood residents paying an additional dog licensing fee for a
City of Englewood dog license to help fund park maintenance and staffing?
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neither support nor oppose
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know
20. What is the one thing you like best about City of Englewood parks ?
21. What is your single biggest concern about City of Englewood parks?
Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely
confidential and will be reported in group form only.
22. How many years have you lived in Englewood?
Less than 2 years
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
More than 20 years
Page 188 of 229
11
23. Which best describes the building you live in?
One family house detached from any other houses
Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium)
Mobile home
Other
24. Is this house, apartment or mobile home...
Rented
Owned
25. Including yourself, do you have any of the following types of people living in your household?
Yes
No
Children age 17 or younger
Adults age 65 or older
26. About how much do you anticipate your household’s total income before taxes will be for the current year?
(Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.)
Less than $25,000
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 or more
27. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino?
No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino
Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino
28. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.)
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander
Black or African American
White
Other
29. In which category is your age?
18-24 years
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
65-74 years
75-84 years
85 years or older
30. What is your gender?
Female
Male
Identify in another way
Page 189 of 229
ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
ENGLEWOOD,ARAPAHOE COUNTY,COLORADO
Regular Session
October 5,2009
1.Call to Order
The regular meeting of the Englewood City Council was called to order by Mayor Woodward at 7:36 p.m.
2.Invocation
The invocation was given by Council Member McCaslin.
3.Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member McCaslin.
4.Roll Call
Present:Council Members Jefferson,lvloore,Penn,Oakley,McCaslin,Woodward
Absent:Council Member Wilson
A quorum was present.
Mayor Woodward said Council MemberWilson is out of town this week and will be returning next week.
Also present:City Manager Sears
City Attorney Brotzman
Deputy City Manager Flaherty
City Clerk Ellis
Deputy City Clerk Bush
Director Gryglewioz,Finance and Administrative Services
Director Fonda,Utilities
Operations Division Manager Tallent,Wastewater
Engineering Capital Projects Administrator Henderson,Public Works
DirectorWhite,Community Development
Community Planning and Housing Coordinator Stitt,Community Development
Director Eaton,Human Resources
Recreation Services Manager/Golf Spade,Parks and Recreation
Police Commander Condreay
5.Consideration of Minutes of Previous Session
(a)COUNCIL MEMBER PENN MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON
SECONDED,TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 21,2009.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any changes or modifications.There were none.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
Page 190 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 2
6.Recognition of Scheduled Public Comment
There were no scheduled visitors.
7.Recognition of Unscheduled Public Comment
(a)Daryl Estes,a Denver resident,said I am here this evening to discuss with Council and staff...May
25,2007,the City of Englewood nearly bankrupt,the citizens.And the concern I have,you know,at that time and
as well as before,is we don’t have enough money to not be frugal with it.I don't wish to as far to get too involved
with some of my concerns but I think,you know,with the mural that was on the front page of Denver and the West,
and the City of Englewood with the issue there.I think everybody is feeling somewhat familiar with that.And then
as far as...l admit putting in Council Request in regards to the amount of money that had been spent and the
amount of time...in regards to dogs.I hadn't received any call back from the Council Request...it was multiple
Council Requests that I put in and just this evening I talked with Frank a little bit and he got kind of a chuckle out of
it,well you know,it is serious.It truly is.We can't be spending time and money when obviously I haven't seen
anything different than the City of Englewood nearly bankrupt.I printed this up earlier this evening down at the
library downstairs and I would like to share this information.It is just a concern that I have that this Council and
staff...that I think there is a problem that is brewing and we need to address it.It is going to be some hard
decisions that the Council has to make,but I think you guys know where I'm at.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
(b)Miguel Drake,an Englewood resident,said I would just like to thank the Council members for
making themselves available and Joe Jefferson for doing a public meeting...that was very helpful for me.I would
like to thank the City for the efforts it is going through right now balancing its budget and dealing with the hard times
that we are dealing with.It is hard and I would really like to applaud you guys for working on the effort to make our
City livable without a cut in services through,you know,cutting back through attrition,through unnecessary
items...but without seriously cutting into the ability of the City to provide the amenities for which it has become
known,you know,within the State.This is an excellent,excellent City we live in and we live in it,because of the
response of responsible and really caring efforts of our government.I find it a little bit disconcerting that there are
many people who seem to attack it simply because it is a government.And I find the tone of the rhetoric I've been
hearing recently to be,you know,offensive at the most and at the very least,distracting from the fundamental
issues of governance.I’m really just here to say thanks guys.You are doing a greatjob and I really appreciate it
and your staff's are doing a good job.And I live here for a reason.I am going to keep living here for a reason.I
live here because we have a good Council,because we have a good government,because people we entrust with
that do a goodjob.So,thank you and have a good evening.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
(c)Doug Cohn,an Englewood resident,said good evening.I have a couple of things on my mind
tonight.I mentioned two weeks ago that the Parade of Lights guys might be interested in having the Cherrelyn
trolley.I sent the application to Randy and Leigh Ann...those were the only emails that I had,so I guess,I'm not
sure what happens with it at this point.The deadline forsubmitting the application is next Monday.If you all think
you would like to have the trolley in the Parade of Lights,that would be a real good time to put it together.The
second thing,out in front of the post office on Floyd and Broadway,I met with a fellow who was riding in a
wheelchair and there is a problem with the...where the asphalt meets the concrete right on the curb cut,the asphalt
is about an inch taller and himself and some other people have gotten stuck as they have run their wheelchairs
down in the curb out there.And they are feeling very exposed...being right beside the cars.I guess I am
wondering if someone has a roller or however you kind of flatten out asphalt if we could do something with that.
Then just one other point,the sign code thing.I think it is a good start.I haven't seen the notes of what all is going
to be going on tonight.It doesn't seem to be published anywhere.I guess I am a little discouraged.Since our last
meeting,the public meeting and the Study Sessions,I have gotten feedback from some businesses who are
leaving town.They are saying that the last minute enforcement that is going on right now is going to...they are
discouraged enough that they are going to pull up stakes.They are going to move somewhere where they are
invited.I talked with one fellow who is a commercial leasing agent and he is talking folks out of...if they want to be
on Broadway,he is talking them out of coming to Englewood,because of the problem that we have with this.We
Page 191 of 229
Eriglewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 3
need to make some big changes with it.The sign code moratorium is a bit of a step.I think we need to do a whole
lot more.There needs to be,I think,in a City a...l guess you would call it a critical mass...where you have enough
businesses that will attract customers.And I am worried that we are losing more of our base people.I want to
throw that out there as a problem.Anyway,thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
8.Communications,Proclamations and Appointments
(a)A Proclamation declaring October 18-24,2009 as National Save for Retirement Week was
considered.
COUNCIL MEMBER PENN MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER MCCASLIN SECONDED,TO APPROVE THE
PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 18-24,2009 AS NATIONAL SAVE FOR RETIREMENTWEEK.
Mayor Woodward said the cost of retirement continues to rise in the United States and the need for greater savings
grows.Many employees may not be aware of their retirement savings options or may not be taking full advantage
of their workplace defined contribution plans to the full extent allowed by law.Whereas,all workers,including
public and private sector employees,employees of tax—exemptorganizations and self-employed individuals can
benefit from an increased awareness of the need to save for retirement.So,we are proclaiming,if this passes,
October 18-24 as National Save for Retirement Week.
Mayor Woodward said unless there are any other points,please vote.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
Mayor Woodward said is there anyone here to receive this proclamation tonight?Not seeing anyone,we will hold
this and get it to the proper people.
(b)A Proclamation proclaiming October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the City of
Englewood was considered.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCASLIN MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON SECONDED,TO APPROVE
THE PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH IN THE
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD.
Mayor Woodward said again,just to mention what this is about.Obviously domestic violence is a serious crime
that affects all people of all races,gender and income levels.One in four women will become victims of a violent
relationship in their lifetime,while 16%of all physical assaults in the United States committed against men are by
their partners.The crime of domestic violence violates an individual’s privacy,dignity,security and humanity due to
systematic use of physical,emotional,sexual,psychological and economic controls or abuse.And whereas,as
citizens of a law—abidingand just society,we must make a commitment to eliminate domestic violence,to raise
awareness of this crime in our communities,to help victims break free from the cycle of violence,and to hold
offenders accountable for their crimes.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any other comments.There were none.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council MemberWilson
Motion carried.
Page 192 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 4
9.Consent Agenda
COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER MCCASLIN SECONDED,TO APPROVE
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9 (a)(i),9 (b)(i),(ii),and 9 (c)(i).
(a)Approval of Ordinances on First Reading
(i)COUNCIL BILL NO.44,INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE
A BILLFOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A “GRANT OF EASEMENT"TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
COLORADO/XCELENERGY TO INSTALL UNDERGROUND CONDUIT FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE AT 1074
WEST DARTMOUTH AVENUE.
(b)Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading
(i)ORDINANCE NO.39,SERIES OF 2009 (COUNCIL BILL NO.37,INTRODUCED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE)
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A "LICENSE —CITY DITCH CROSSING AGREEMENT"AND A "TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT"TO JILL HUTTER FOR THE INSTALLATIONOF A GARDEN BRIDGE
CROSSING THE CITY DITCH.
(ii)ORDINANCE NO.40,SERIES OF 2009 (COUNCIL BILL NO.39,INTRODUCED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE)
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A "LICENSE —CABIN MEADOW TRANSMOUNTAIN DIVERSION PIPE
CROSSING AGREEMENT"TO DAVID AND JUDITH HUETER FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A DRIVEWAY
OVER THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD’S RIGHT-OF-WAY.
(c)Resolutions and Motions
(I)MOTION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF ONE NEW MANURE SPREADER FROM
KUHN NORTH AMERICA,INC.IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,598.07.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
10.Public Hearing Items
(a)Mayor Woodward said this is a Public Hearing to gather input on a proposal to recommend to the
City Manager the setting of specific off—leashhours for dogs for Jason,Centennial,Duncan,and the Northwest
Greenbelt parks to be effective January 1,2010.Specifically:March 1 through October 31 —off—leashhours from
6:00 am to 9:00 am and 7:30 pm to 11:00 pm;and November 1 through February 28 or 29 —off—leashhours from
6:00 am to 11:00 am and 4:00 pm to 11:00 pm.
MayorWoodward said ljust wanted to mention that there is Proof of Publication of the Public Hearing in the
Englewood Herald on September 25,2009 and on the City website from September 23,2009 through October 5,
2009.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCASLIN MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER PENN SECONDED,TO OPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING TO GATHER INPUT ON A PROPOSAL TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY MANAGER THE
SETTING OF SPECIFIC OFF—LEASH HOURS FOR DOGS FOR JASON,CENTENNIAL,DUNCAN,AND THE
Page 193 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 5
NORTHWEST GREENBELT PARKS TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,2010.SPECIFICALLY:MARCH 1
THROUGH OCTOBER 31 —OFF-LEASH HOURS FROM 6:00 A.M.TO 9:00 A.M.AND 7:30 P.M.TO 11:00 P.M.;
AND NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28 OR 29 —OFF-LEASH HOURS FROM 6:00 A.M.TO 11:00 A.M.
AND 4:00 P.M.TO11:00 P.M.
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried and the public hearing opened.
All witnesses were duly sworn.
Mayor Woodward said there are quite a few people signed up to address City Council during the Public Hearing
regarding times for off-leash dog privileges in our parks.We want to make sure everyone who wants to be heard
gets the opportunity.I will ask if anyone that didn’t have the opportunity to sign up,wishes to speak,after the last
signed up speaker does speak,we do welcome your input about issues of concern in Englewood.With that said,
we have found that it is helpful if one or two people give us a clear and concise presentation of the issue,rather
than having several people repeat the exact same message.With that as the basis,we can move on to the
additional presentations by the other speakers adding new information.Something like,I agree with other
presentations and...or simply,I agree with the presentation made by so and so,is encouraged.We expect that you
came to share your input this evening and we ask that you display the same respect for each other.We ask that
you do not applaud individual speakers.We want to hear your input.While we understand that the issues,and
even the fact that you are presenting in the public forum,can be an emotional experience,we need to address the
facts and want to come to a clear and just conclusion.A respectful presentation will help us do that.Please limit
your presentation to 5 minutes and times will not be permitted to be transferred to another speaker.Mayor Pro
Tern Moore will be the timekeeper.At the conclusion of the Public Hearing,Council may have some comments;
however,no decisions will be made tonight.A discussion and vote will come forward at our next scheduled
meeting on Monday,October 19"‘.
Alice Hanna,an Englewood resident,said I'm not a stranger to the off-leash issue as I've been deeply involved for
the past seven years.I know a lot of you,well,all of you for your term have been involved in this,but I know Mr.
Moore and Mr.Woodward have been on Council for quite a longtime.I've been dealing with this issue through
either Council or Parks and Rec Commission,etc.and I just want to thank all of you for your patience over the
years in going through this year after year.I think that last summer was the one summer that we didn’t have to talk
about this,so unfortunately we are back here again.But I did just want to kind of add a different viewpoint this time
than what I said over the years.This year is a little bit different for me because I do have a 2 year old son.I just
wanted to kind of express some points on having both dogs and a family.Overall,by limiting off-leash hours to
6:00 am to 9:00 am and 7:30 pm to 11:00 pm during the March to October timeframes,you will be eliminating
another group of park users from the park.Those of us who have both dogs and young children.My son is 2 years
old and starts getting ready for bed at 7:30 pm and is asleep by 8:30 pm,which is typical for young children.With
these summer hours,we will not be able to go to Jason Park as a family except for the times where we might
actually be up and ready to race out the door on a weekend to make the 9 am cutoff,which is very unlikely in my
household.From March until May and in October,it is too cold to go to the park with young children at 9 am,so
realistically are limited to June through mid September to be able to spend an hour or so with our dog and our son
together on the weekend.Limiting hours will essentially have our family split between going at different times to
one park with our son to play and another park with our dogs to exercise,where now as we often go to Jason as a
family with one parent on the playground for the son and the other parent watching the dogs play on the other side
away from the playground.With the limited amount of free time we already have as working parents,this will
restrict our lifestyles greatly.Those parents who have children,but not like going to a playground with off-leash
dogs could go one or two blocks south to Rotolo Park and I don't feel that it would impact them as greatly as it
would for the people who try to use the park for both their dogs and their children at the same time.During the
winter,very few people use Jason Park except for the people exercising their dogs.it is usually too cold for the
kids to play and picnics are generally not seen during the winter months.With the limited activities at Jason in the
winter,there really is no need to have any limited hours in the winter.If hours are limited,you may also see an
increase in goose poop,since the dogs have kept them out during the winter months.Regardless of what the
hours are,if any,Council is still not resolving the issue of enforcement.By limiting hours the City will now have to
actively patrol the park during non off-leash hours to enforce the off-leash hours,which are also for the most part at
Page 194 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 6
the times when Code Enforcement is off duty.For years,Englewood Unleashed has been asking for increased
patrolling of the parks orjust having Code Enforcement show up now and then to be seen and to talk to all park
users about all the rules including non-dog people.We have also asked for additional larger signage so that all
park users will know the rules of the park.I truly think these measures will be more successful than limiting hours
at the park.Thank you for your time.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Jean Alspector,a Littleton resident,said good evening Mayor and City Council.Today I would like to speak to you
as Jean Alspector and not a member of Englewood Unleashed.I would like my thoughts to be expressed as my
thoughts and not,as again,as a member of Englewood Unleashed.I would like to remind City Council this issue
started as a mother requesting help to protect her children.If you could remember back when this started,I could
understand her fears and wanted to see how I could help.I would like to know how we got so far away from the
original problem.How did keeping the dogs out of people areas at Jason Park turn into unilaterally closing four
parks to off-leash privileges?I can't see what I missed in this.I go to these parks regularly.I go to some of these
parks sometimes.There is no one there.I don't know why we have hours.I don’t let my 10 pound dog off the
leash.I don’t usually frequent all these parks.I live in Littleton but I do go to Englewood forthe beauty shop,the
doctors,volunteer work,physical therapy,Safeway and their gas,post offices,parks clean-up meetings,Malley
Center activities,massages,Council meetings and restaurants like the South,Denny’s,IHOP,Jasmines,Le Peeps
and yes,Starbucks.I wonder if Tracy and her children,also non-Englewood residents,spend as much time in
Englewood as I do.Will Tracy step up to the plate and frequent the places I did in Englewood...when I stay in
Littleton and boycott the Englewood businesses and encourage all my dog friendly neighbors to do the same.I
hope when I check Jason Park from 10 to 4 on weekdays I will find Tracy and her children there or Martha and her
friends in the shelter.My favorable impression of how far Englewood has gone...hasjust gone down the tubes.I
think the line has to be drawn right here.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Jodi Litchfield,an Englewood resident,said good evening Council members,Mayor,City Manager,thanks for
hearing everybody tonight.I know this has been a hard issue for everyone.I am here,lcould speak on either side
of this issue,but I just want to say I have lived backed up to Jason Park for 25 plus years.And I think a
compromise is not a bad idea.I don't know what the hours should be,but I think a compromise is not a bad idea.I
can identify,as I said,with both sides of the issue.I currently have a dog that loves to go to Jason Park,that needs
the exercise and loves to run around and so it is great to have the off—|eash area to do that with her.I would also
like to say that my experience of seeing people at Jason Park in 25 years is that people do use the park year round.
Young families use the park whenever the weather is mild enough and we typically have mild enough winters here
that people can go there every day,or pretty close to every day.I think that young families with small kids that are
not school age do like to go during the day,during the school hours when the school age kids are at school,so that
they are not being bothered by the older kids or run over by the older kids.So,you know,I guess ljust want to say
that I can see both sides of the issue.I have lived there for a long time.I've not really experienced many problems
with the off-leash,other than when my kids were in soccer and T-ball,there often were loose dogs running around.
So,I would like to see them not be running around during those hours,I guess,but beyond that,ljust think having
some kind of compromise is a good idea.I would hate to see it go away completely.I guess that's it.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Dan Lair,an Englewood resident,said I too believe that compromise on this issue is important and I would like to
applaud your efforts,from my understanding,dealing with this for quite a long time and your willingness to listen to
both sides.And I understand your frustration in having to deal with this issue when,as one of the speakers said
earlier on an unrelated issue,it is sort of unfortunate that the issue of dogs has to come up over and over again,
particularly in troubling economic times.But I would like to begin by reframing this issue of compromise forjust a
second,to suggest to you that a compromise already exists within the status quo.Alice Hanna alluded to this
earlier,but I want to build on her pointjust a little bit.Let me read to you from the Englewood’s Parks and Rec
chart that tells you all the different parks in Englewood and which have areas that would be sort of family friendly or
people gathering friendly:Barker Park-picnic area,pavilion,playground;Bates—Logan —picnic area,pavilion,
playground;Barde Park —picnic area,playground;Belleview Park —picnic area,pavilion,playground;Cushing Park
Page 195 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 7
-picnic area,pavilion,playground;Romans Park —picnic area,playground;Rotolo Park —picnic area,playground.
What do these 7 parks have in common?They are all parks where people who do not want to be around off—leash
clogs,people who have families who would prefer their children not to be exposed to off—leashdogs,have the
option to go and not be exposed to off-leash dogs.There are three parks that are multi-use parks with off—leash
privileges:Jason,Centennial and Duncan.No single dog owner that I have seen...and I bet that in the history of
your dealing with this controversy...has ever suggested to you expanding off—leashprivileges to these other parks.
I believe in compromise.I believe that there should be more parks in the City of Englewood that are available for
families with children,who don't want to expose their children to dogs or people who don't want to be around dogs
off—leash,compromise already exists.Who is in the spirit of compromise when one side is asking to restrict options
and the other side is asking to simply to preserve their options.The compromise exists now.But I understand that
there may be a need for compromise further and I think dog owners are willing to do that,but they are only going to
be willing to do that and let this issue go away,if the compromise is reasonable.So let's look at this issue of the
hours compromised as is proposed.These hours completely do not bear out with the patterns of park usage.
Myself,I typically use the park between 5 and 7 o'clock depending on when I get home from work and before I cook
dinner.Over the past couple of weeks,ljust started thinking about who is using the park when I was there.And
for example,on September 24”"I was there from between 5 and 6 pm and at one point when I counted,there were
‘I4 people with ‘I6 dogs and precisely nobody without dogs in the park.Three days later at about 6130,there were
12 people with 15 dogs and 6 people with 5 kids.A couple of days after that,at 6 o'clock there were 10 people with
11 dogs and three teenagers playing on the playground.I drive by Jason Park almost every day on my way home
from work and when I drive by,typically,there is a dog owner present.Very often there are more dog owners than
there are people using the park for other reasons and often,there would be nobody in the park if it wasn't forthe
dogs.So,in the spirit of compromise,I would suggest to you that you make a compromise that is reasonable.The
compromise as proposed is not reasonable.It does not bear out the pattern of usage in the park and please let the
people use the park.The people who overwhelmingly use these parks,which are a fraction of the total parks
available for the City of Englewood,are people that are dog owners.Others use the park as well,but there is no
doubt about that.But there is a compromise that exists already.If not,figure out hours that work.One suggestion
that I might have to you is to spend some more time to study to the issue.Talk to local universities,I bet you would
find some professor who teaches parks and recreation who would love for their students,as a class project,to
come and actually do a scientific study that documents park usage ,so that you could make a compromise that is
based upon how people actually use our parks.You have got to get this compromise right.If you don't,the issue
is not going to go away.The compromise as is proposed now,will not silence the issue.I can speak for myself
and I'm betting for many other dog owners,that we will be here bothering you time and time again,humbly and
apologetically,but saying,please let me use just a couple of the parks at a time that works for me,at a time when it
works for other people,at a time that is borne out by the patterns of usage that people in the park actually use.
Don't shut down the park and empty them out at 5 o'clock on most of our business days.It won't work.It doesn't
represent a compromise and we have already got a compromise in the system as it is now.Thank you very much
for your time.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Danielle DeLaMare,an Englewood resident,said I am a grad student.I'm working on my PHD and I'm working on
my dissertation all the time,writing,writing,writing,reading,writing,writing,reading and my little dog patiently sits
there and waits for me every day to take her to Jason Park.And so every day,I take her to the park and I honestly
don't know what I would do without the park.I need the park for my own social outlet.I need the park to visit with
other dog owners and she needs the park so she can get the exercise and so that she can,you know,hang out
with the other dogs.It is really,really important for us to keep Jason Park an off—leashpark.And I have to say,I
hate the hours.I go during the day.I go when I need a break from all the work that I'm doing.And I'll walk around,
I'll run around with the dog.You know,we will run around in circles.And very rarely when I go during the day,are
there non-dog owners...vewrarely.There are times when I will go in there and there isn't anybody else.That
doesn't happen a lot,but most of the time,you know,there are few other people there and those people that are
there,are other dog owners,at least during the times I go.Like I said,it is during the day,it is weekdays...l don't
see other people who are not dog owners.And I have to say,there is just one little story I have.I once met a man,
and I don't know if he is here,he told me he would be here,an 88 year old man who comes to Jason Park very
frequently and he will sit in his truck often.If somebody moves the picnic table overfor him,he will sit on the picnic
table so he doesn't have to walk very far from his car.And one day I was talking to him and he said that he goes
there to watch the dogs play.He has such a good time watching them play.His wife just died and he really just
Page 196 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 8
wants a place to connect with other people.Those are things that I want you to know.And again,honestly,I don't
know what us dog owners would do without Jason Park.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Jill LaPier,an Englewood resident,said I am here to talk about the park of course,but one thing I want to bring up
is I seem to be the star of YouTube and although I am not the least bit happy of it,it was done very deceptive.The
video was edited.It is not accurate.Martha was the speaker so Martha has to be behind this video.And so
therefore,I can no longer trust Martha's words.I don't know where she got all her backup from the hearings that
she has gotten,but knowing what she has done to me and how deceptive that video is,I know I cannot and will not
ever trust Martha.As far as the hours go,I need to tell you that the hours are going to be very hard on some of us.
Like last night,I was asleep at 8 o'clock,so these hours are going to be really hard for me,as well as many others.
And also the lighting at the park is so bad.They only have pretty much one light,that if I'm there and I'm single,so
I'm alone.If we only have one light,it is going to be realhard to walk around the park after dark with no light
because we have heard of females being chased or,you know,stalked at the park,so that really does bother me.
Also,if we are walking our dogs in the park like that at night in the dark,we are not going to be able really see
where to pick things up and that is going to be bigger problem for Martha and her friends.So,I would like to just
keep the park clean and be able to see what we are doing.So,if we do have to have late hours such as that,we
are going to need to talk about lighting next.And that is all I have to say.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Matthew Crabtree,an Englewood resident,said good evening.Well we are in the middle of an economic recession
and I know Daryl talked about this so I'lljust be quick.We are looking at a shortfall in the budget this year that
exceeds 3 million dollars.We have a projected shortfall that exceeds 1 million dollars for next year.We got an
economic development disaster going on at Broadway.We've got businesses moving out left and right and here
we are again talking about dogs.It gives us a common thread though that is being discussed here and I am going
to take a little bit different approach on it.This time thing and I'll call this a do nothing approach to the solution.I
don't see any possible way that this can be enforced.It is going to be a problem again.It is going to be before
Council.We are going to be spending more time on this.This Council has spent more time talking about dogs the
last few years than they have talked about the budget or talked about encouraging businesses in this community.
This is a problem.And one thing that hasn't been discussed tonight is there is a dog park.The Canine Corral is a
dog park.This park was designed for dogs at a considerable expense to the City of Englewood...weII over
$200,000.00.There is a problem with that park apparently because people aren't using it.People are using the
parks,Jason Park,Centennial Park...these parks.If there wasn't a problem,then this wouldn't be a problem.But I
guess if there is a problem with that park,let's fix it so that these parks,Jason Park,Centennial Park,can be
equally used by everybody.I envision these parks,well hopefully the way that they were originally provided for the
people of Englewood,as a promise and a replacement for the main City Park when Cinderella City as built.These
parks are for everybody in this community and should be equally used.We shouldn't be segregating one side to
another side,you can use this park,you can't use this park,because there are people who live near Jason Park
that I've talked to specifically that can't use this park,that don't feel comfortable around the dogs.And I feel their
rights are being violated.Now there are rights for the dog owners,sure,I totally agree with that,but they can still
take their dogs there on leash.There is Canine Corral which is designed for an off—|eash park.If there is a problem
with that,let's find out what the problem is and raise the money.We don't have the money in the budget right now,
but let's raise the money through some way.I mean,Englewood Unleashed is great at raising funds.Let's raise
some money,fix the problem at the dog park,then they've got somewhere to go.They can do their socializing
there.If there is a need for another dog park after that,raise more money.There is obviously an interest here,
otherwise these people wouldn't be here.But let's stop talking about this during City Council meetings.Let's start
talking about the three businesses that we just lost on Broadway and start talking about fixing the budget.Thank
you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Cassy Allen said I am kind of a rebel rouser so stick with me.Let's remember some history together.After
September 11"‘a group of militant military,civilian and political pundits went to our president and insisted that there
were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.We must start a war.We must stop these weapons of mass
Page 197 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 9
destruction,so they don't rear their ugly heads again,so we did.And we know now there were no weapons of
mass destruction,but we had bad,self-serving intelligence.Where is she going?There are no weapons of mass
destruction in Englewood's parks.How did we get here into this conflict?First a small self-serving number of
people succeeded in convincing you,City Council,that these weapons of mass destruction exist...dogs are running
rampant,they are pooping everywhere,children are being threatened...by using manipulated video,conjured
statistics and false threats.They succeeded in convincing City Council that these weapons of mass destruction
must be stopped.Next,the City Council simply abdicated its job by deferring to Parks and Rec in order to avoid
having to take a stand.Some of you...in opposition to the very platforms that you ran on.Why?So you can,when
questioned in a political climate,say that this compromise was supported by all the parties invo|ved...by ignoring
your own data from law enforcement,Code Enforcement,and the Parks Department,you still choose to believe
that the weapons of mass destruction exist.So we have false intelligence and an unwillingness to take a hot
political stand.Next,the very group with whom the City Council,and all other departments in the City have been
cooperating,was presented with a choice...a compromise.Why a compromise?We don‘t have a problem.Being
forced as a group,Englewood Unleashed,to come before this Council with our pitiful hats in our hands,begging for
your crumbs,is indefensible.Either we stand for these off-leash parks or we cave to bad intelligence and if City
Council wants to wash their hands of a political issue and we become Englewood Unleashed between 7 and 9 am.
We are not convinced these weapons of mass destruction exist and we don't understand why you never questioned
the original complaints.There are no weapons of mass destruction.We have nothing to compromise or apologize
for and we want the parks to remain leash free.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Justin Farber,a Denver resident,said I am a frequent user of the dog park.I go there three or four times a week.I
really look forward to bringing my dog there.There is a whole dog culture there that will be destroyed with these
proposed hours.Pretty much,they are just going to be defacto...and the dogs...I mean,who is going to go there
that late.I agree with the one who also spoke before me...with there really is no problem.I drive by parks all over
the timing and the dog people go there the most.That the other side is so upset with this issue,only suggests how
much dog owners are actually using these parks.I agree also that it is just a compromise.I feel like that
there...we are ingrained in our society to make compromises and be fair.That is not how to decide this issue.The
best way to decide this issue is the best use of public resources and I think everyone speaking before me speaks
for itself.Almost everyone here is for dogs.We want these for dogs.If you guys propose these hours or really
make any changes,you are going to be destroying public good just to say that there was a compromise.It wont be
doing anything better for society or for the area.There are all the other dog parks.I drive ‘I5 to 20 minutes in traffic
to go to Jason Park.Canine Corral is too far for me.The fact that I am willing to drive this far to go to a dog park
there and back after work suggests how much I enjoy going there and how much it means to me.If the other
people wanted a park so bad,they would spend the 5 to 10 minutes to go to the ten other parks that were listed.
80,ljust don't see there is a problem and I think theyjust...the other side ...wants a cause.Theyjust want to
make something up.I don’t really know what their deal is.But often times I go there and there are people playing
soccer in the background and the dogs don't even botherthem.It is a multi-use park.We can’t appease
everybody just because they are afraid of dogs.I mean,people are going to be afraid of things and that is part of
life.They should learn to get over it and socialize in these dog parks to help people learn to get along with dogs
and you kids can come there and not have these fears.So,that is all I have to say.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Ryan Kramer,an Englewood resident,said I use the park probably like three times a week.I want to talk about
things that I see,things that are good about the park.I have never seen an aggressive dog at the park,not once.
I've seen many of you at the park,utilizing the park,enjoying the park,exercising the dogs and it is a great social
outlet for all of us.We educate each other’s dogs.We educate each other.And it is really a sharing place for
community.One thing that I don't see at the park,We never seen more than four parties with children in the
playground,but I've seen up to 16 parties with dogs.So,the use is definitely more for the dogs and for the people
who are utilizing it.The ability for us to exercise our dogs decreases anxiety within our dogs.It socializes our dogs
and it creates a calmer situation for our dogs.It is going to reduce aggression in our dogs.And I think a lot of us
use the parks to avoid that aggression and we have the opportunity with Jason Park at any time of the day to use
that park.I am not able to use the park after 7:30.By 7:30 tonight,it was too dark to find the ball,to throw the ball,
to play with the dog.So,then by 8:30,it is going to be too dark to find the dog.(There was laughter)And I do
Page 198 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 10
agree that by 7:30 or 8 o'clock,we are not going to find the pooples either.So,we do need the park.We do utilize
the park,our dogs need to utilize the park.It does offer us community within our community and I think that is
really important.Something that someone else addressed was the fear.And when we make considerations for
small groups of people who are in fear,we end up limiting the people who are utilizing,enjoying and taking the
opportunity to grow in our communities.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Colleen McManus,an Englewood resident,said Honorable Mayor,City Council thank you for listening.I have two
letters that came from Englewood residents:Keely Sugden and Jennifer Enger who could not be here today and
asked me to present them to you.They are both against the suggested hours that the City Council has proposed.
She submitted the letters to Council.Ms.McManus said first I want to touch on a point that Matthew Crabtree
stated about having Canine Corral as a dog park.One of the reasons that Canine Corral was created was to help
move dogs from Jason and other multi—useparks,with the understanding that it would mitigate park usage which it
totally has,but we don’t feel,or I don’t feel,that Canine Corral could handle all of the dog park users if we werejust
limited to just Canine Corral.It is just a point to make.I also wanted to say on the record that I agree with Alice,
Jean,Jodi,Dan,Danielle,Jill,Cassy,Justin and Ryan...aIl of what they said.They brought great information to
you all and I hope you really take it into consideration.I also wanted tojust note a couple potential ramifications to
think about,that we included a list of in the packet that Englewood Unleashed presented to you last week and just
of things that we have done today,but some of them are:setting hours will become a bigger issue,complaints will
arise from the dog owners,which are the majority now,rather than the minimal opposition complaints that you are
currently are receiving.It is not safe,especially for the handicapped and the elderly and families with small children
and dogs to be limited to suggested hours,due to the dark and cold temperatures.Limited hours will add park
maintenance to the City,including garbage cleanup because we will be...I just don't foresee brunches and park
cleanups coming from Englewood Unleashed any more if we do have the limited suggested hours.And then with
more rules,Code Enforcement will need to be increased,however,they are already over extended and find it hard
to even find time to monitor the parks today.So,that is my two cents,I guess.Thank you for all your time and
effort through this issue.I am so extended and taxed because of it and as I am sure you all are too.And I am
really looking forward to a decision being made.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Dana Foulks,an Englewood resident,said good evening Council.What I have tonight is kind of a philosophy type
of speech.At a high level,I believe this comes down to the difference between exclusive and inclusive.The
United States has always had internal battles about one part of our society excluding other parts.Though these
struggles continue,America is getting better at inclusiveness every day.I don't understand why we want to go from
parks that are used by all,to parks that exclude a certain type of people.It is not understandable why some people
want to sit at home and be happy with the knowledge that a public park designed to be inclusive is free from people
who want to enjoy the park with their dog.Do they not realize this means there will be many hours every day when
the park will not be occupied?In other words,certain hours set aside by dog owners means there will be times
when the park is just a large vacant lot,because no one will be there.So I ask the City Council and the people in
attendance,do we want to be considered exclusive or inclusive?Should a park labeled public be open to the
public at certain times or worse yet,closed to them?I would like to close with this quote:“what takes real skill,
intelligence and determination and results in a better place for everyone to live is the ability to lead by inclusion,to
involve everyone and to harness the benefits of diversity.”That is from a member of the parliament of New
Zealand.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Barb Sllverman,an Englewood resident,said thank you City Council and Honorable Mayor.I have used Jason
Park quite a bit over the past few years and I have some major health problems that limit some places that I can go.
I really appreciate the comments by most of the people who have come before me...AlIison and Danielle especially.
I think that...and also the gentleman who just spoke before me...Dana...that we shouldn't be excluded from an
area and given time provisions that are next to impossible.I work nights.My hours are limited and really weird
from when I can go to the parks.I have never run into a viscous dog at these parks,but I understand how that
could happen and where these complaints could possibly come from.One day I was at Jason Park and a bunch of
Page 199 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 11
kids ran out of the playground,over and up to my dogs without any idea how to approach the animals.Luckilythe
dogs I had were very kid savvy and went right to them.If they would have run up to a different dog than the dog I
have now,that I have just gotten who is a rescue dog and I am working very hard with to socialize properly,that
would have scared that dog.He would have backed up,barked and probably scared the kids.He wouldn't have
attacked them,he would run,but he would have been in a posture that would not have been nice.It could have
been a dog that didn't know dogs either,but because he had barked and gotten a little bit forward and then he
would not have run off.But somebody would have assumed that that dog could possibly have bitten someone.At
this point,I am working with this animal because he is not socialized.Jason Park is a wonderful place where we
can go and socialize our animals and have social activity with people who are in to what we are into.And I do not
feel we should be excluded from that by time limitations.I feel that there...if it has to become compromised,then
yes,put better signs up.I believe Englewood Unleashed and people involved with that,the people that go and use
it all the time,are doing everything they can to police other dog people that maybejust come by and say,oh,I'm
just going to let my dogs out for the big run.And you know...they don't pick up after themselves.I go and pick up
for them afterthem.I carry extra bags,I hand out extra bags.Ifl get in there and I don't have one,I say to
someone else,could I please have an extra bag,I forgot my baggies today.But usually I have way more than
expected and I fill boxes and things like that with baggies.I believe that,you know,we stand up and want to...we
have to police our own.I have a couple of Dachshunds.One dog may poop and I may not see the other one.I
would hope that if someone did,they would tell me and I would be happy to pick it up or ifl missed it,someone
would be like I do,I pick up piles when I see them.And I think we do a very good job of that.Again it is a way
higher percentage of parks that don't have an area where we can have them unleashed.And the Corral is a nice
place.There is not room there.It is not as nice ground to run your dogs on.I have one that is very crippled up
and it is harder for him on the rocks and hard areas at the Canine Corral.So Ijust really feel that you are limitinga
lot and that is something that I have enjoyed about living in the City of Englewood that we do have off—Ieashparks
and a place that we can go and work with our animals.And in training my own animals,the socialization is huge
there.And I really don't want to see our hours limited.Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.I
think that it needs to be taken care of so they do not have to pay attention to this matter,because it would cost a lot
more to patrol these new hours.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Kim Carlile,an Englewood resident,said good evening gentlemen.I must say that this is my first City Council
meeting that I have ever been to and I hope this is my Iast...no offense.Something has got to be better than
dogs...but I am forthe dog parks.I get up at 4:30 in the morning,I get ready,and I'm at work by 6.I work 11
hours.I come home and as soon as I get home I take my dog to the park.Then I go home,take care of business
and go to bed.So these hours do not work.I mean,I've gone down to the Canine Corral.I have been in there
when there has been 100 dogs in there and I have counted 100 dogs in there.There are too many dogs in there
some times so that I don't want to go in there with my dog,it is too much.So,I go over to Jason Park and those
are the two that I do use,but Jason Park,again,everybody is doing a greatjob of explaining why we should have it.
The one question that I do have,I know certainly you guys do go on a picnic on occasion with your family,have you
ever gone and sit down,taken a picnic lunch down to Jason Park on an afternoon and watched?Would you
consider it before the 19"‘?I mean,it is something to do.No,really,go have a picnic lunch on a Saturday or
Sunday and see what is going on.Check it out.And the lighting at night at Jason is bad...there is one.And I have
black dogs and I actually have orange collars with reflective because at night I have been there,I have to look with
a flashlight so that I can see their collar where they are at.So the lighting is bad after hours.So,I wish you would
consider that.But I really wish you would go and check it out for an hour on a Saturday or Sunday...take a lunch,
take your family,take your grandkids,check it out.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Rachel Shields,an Englewood resident,said my house is connected to the park on the west side.My husband and
I were born and raised in Englewood and we moved back to Englewood and specifically to the house we did
because we knew that Jason Park was an off—Ieashpark and we had a dog.We could have moved to Littletonor
wherever we wanted,but we wanted to live back in our home town where we were raised because of the dog park.
I definitely understand the concerns of the people who want the park to be on-leash only,because I am a mother
myself but as a mother,myself,I go to Jason Park and Centennial Park once or twice a day,because I am a stay-
at—homemom and have no problem taking my baby there and my dog and it is just a great time with me and my
Page 200 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 12
son and my girl.I ask the hours in the winter be increased,if that is our only option.i understand that the hours
are what you guys are considering.If that is the only way we can go,I would ask for winter hours to be increased.
On days when there are blizzards,dog people are still there.It's trampled all down right after a snow storm.We
are all already there.And I think I am the first one and there are 20 dogs already out exercising.So,you know,I
think definitely in the winter time,we are pretty much the only ones there all winter,and we are dedicated.We
clean up the dog poop.We still have our brunches and if we are all forced to go to Canine Corral,it would just be a
total disaster area.It would be so much worse than it is and I know that,you know,there are certain people who
just want Canine Corral to be the only dog park in Englewood and that would fix everything.It would be horrible.
So,I just would definitely say please let us keep our parks.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Rhonda Kalies,a Littleton resident,said thank you for this time.I first started attending Englewood events because
Canine Corral opened.Prior to that I didn't go to Englewood very much,but since Canine Corral opened,we have
been drawn into the community because of the activities of Englewood Unleashed.I've attended many events and
we do shop there more now than we did in the past,because we feel a part of Englewood.It has been very,very
nice.I served on the Board for two years.I have done a lot of work to help promote the dog parks and help also
promote responsible ownership there.I am one of the responsible owners...most of us are that I witness.I go to
Canine Corral in Englewood,attend,as the others have said,after working the hours would be a little bit difficultfor
a normal family to get out and exercise and socialize their dogs.So,I want to reinforce that point.The other thing
is,I read an article recently and I apologize for not doing my home work and thinking about this previously,but it
seems to me that I read this article that communities are looking for things to attract residents to their communities
and dog parks...having dog parks is one of the crown jewels that communities are looking for.Other communities
in our area are actively seeking to open up dog parks and have more off-leash privileges to attract the residents.
Sol think that is a valid point to bring up.The only other thing I would like to state is this enforcement of hours is
going to be very,very difficult.I agree with the other people that have been up here speaking in that we have
encouraged Code Enforcement to come along and to help us and support us and make surprise visits.I know that
we have called to have Code Enforcement and the police help to enforce our rules,because we value our parks
very,very much.I feel that it would be much easier to enforce as a society the signage and the rules that we have,
as opposed to imposing more rules that we are not going to be able enforce.ljust think that it is trouble in the
future.But anyway,you will rule wisely.We willfollow what you recommend and make that work as well,just like
we have made Canine Corral work.And good luck and if you have any other questions,I know that you will call on
us.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Geri Hughes,an Englewood resident,said I have lived in Englewood for 65 years.We have been in our home for
40 years and it is right next to Jason Park.We no longer have a dog which we had always had,but 8 years ago my
dog died and never got another one.We have never,ever had a problem with any dogs at that park.In fact,in the
evenings I work at the South Restaurant and have worked there for 25 years,but when I am home at night,
because I work nights,when I'm home we enjoy sitting out there in the yard and watching the dogs.People bring
their dogs.They play ball.They train them.You know,it is interesting,we have ten grandchildren,two great
grandchildren and they have all played at that park.We have never had trouble with a dog,never seen a dog fight.
I just don't see what the problem is.The one problem that they do have is having the hours so late.I get home like
at 11 o'clock at night and most of the time...that one light that they have out there is not even on.As I drive in the
driveway many times I see it flash off and it doesn't come back on for at least another half hour.I don't see how
people can walk their dogs out there in the dark.You know,we don't have a,what you call a violent neighborhood,
we don't have any big problems.The one problem we don't have is a dog problem.Now I just wish the Council
would stop and think about all the people that go there and they meet people.It is just like a neighborhood party.
Many times you see groups of people standing out there talking.Now I just wonder what you think about that
before they vote against it.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Karla Archuleta,a Denver resident,said I am not an Englewood resident and I live less than two blocks away from
Eisenhower Park,but I cannot utilize it as an off-leash park.I have a two year old,very hyper English bulldog that
Page 201 of 229
EnglewoodCityCouncil
October 5,2009
Page 13
loves to run and be off-leash,chase balls and just play with other dogs and I can’tdothat there without having risk
of a ticket of $75.00 or more.So,we have gone to Canine Corral a lot and she is white and when we leave from
there,she not white anymore.She is very cute when she's clean,but we always have to have a bath after we go
home.I never really took her to Jason Park,because I thought,the fact that it not being fenced and there were ball
fields and things like that,ljust thought that was just ridiculous.But I took her there the first time and she did
wonderfully.She didn't go into the parking lot.She stayed away from the ball fields and just proved to me how
much I can trust her and how much she trusted me in being her owner and how well I had done in actually training
my dog.So,Jason Park is actually helps me in learning how to train my dog,get her voice command controlled,
she doesn't go within 30 feet of me without turning around making sure she sees me and if she doesn't see me,
she almost panics and comes running to find me.For responsible dog owners it is awesome and it is unfortunate
that there have been some bad decisions made from certain owners to make it such a horrible experience for the
ones who take care of their dogs and actually enjoy the use of parks.I hope this all goes well and you hear all
these wonderful points that have been made this evening and that you will listen to the majority that has shown up
so far tonight.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Jaxine Hensley,an Englewood resident,said I would just like to say that I think people from 1 to ‘I00,with or
without animals,should be able to enjoy the public parks,that we all pay for with taxes,year round.Centennial
Park is busy with people no matterwhat season it is.We have baseball,soccer,rugby,football...we have people
out there playing volleyball.We have fishermen almost 24/7 year round.I don't know how they do it in the cold,
but I see them out there because I can see the park right out my window.We have a hill that the little kids come
and slide down whenever it snows and they are a lot of fun to watch,but they always say,we have to watch for
landmines.I think the hours that you all originally set seem very fair to everyone.I would like to see maybe the
kids have a little more time in the winter,in our park especially,because they do sled.I thank you for all the time
you've spent on this and look forward to what you decide.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Dorothy Haefeli,an Englewood resident,said I am for dogs on leash,as you well know,but I think you've worked
long and hard on these hours and they seem like a good compromise to me.And as these people spoke,I never
heard a one of them say that they couldn't put their dogs on a leash.Ifthey can't find it after dark,I think they
better put their dog on a leash and know where it is at and keep our parks for people and children and dogs if they
are on a leash.I guess if you can't do that,then these hours are a good compromise.Now,ljust read in the
papers yesterday about the attack on this Adams County woman by two dogs,neighbor dogs.These dogs has
also never been reported to the police before,but they got out of the yard and this woman was going for her mail
and they attacked her and tore her up.She was hospitalized and then had a heart attack.I guess these dogs off-
leash people would just say,well those are bad dogs.Well they were bad dogs that turned out,but nobody had
ever reported that they were bad dogs before.So it can all always happen.People,your dogs are around other
dogs and other people,whatever.So,think about that.And thank you very much for your time and all the effort
you have put into this.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Emme Putnam,an Englewood resident,said just a couple of points.The idea of inclusive and exclusive,it seems
to me that our parks are inclusive and not exclusive.We include the residents of Englewood,which is why the
parks were built and we also include dogs as long as they are on leashes.I don't see the exclusive aspect that was
referred to earlier.Also,I love dogs.I've lived with dogs my whole life and most of the people who have spoken
ahead of us who are for off-leash,make it sound like all dog owners are the same and all dog owners want
unleashed dogs in some of the parks.I have had dogs in Englewood and they have never been off their leash in
any park and yet we run and walk and they get exercise and they meet other dogs and they socialize so,you know,
it is as though all dog owners are for having unleashed parks.I know that Dorothy is another dog owner and
Jaxine,and both of them would agree with me.We had dogs,we are dog owners and we like our dogs to be
leashed.Also somebody said earlier,I'm sorry I don't know the names of the people that spoke,but that there is no
problem,and that is simply not the case.Maybe in Jason,I actually respect the diehard Englewood Unleashed
people,they do seem to be very responsible and caring for their dogs and the messes and all the rest of it,but
Page 202 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 14
unfortunately there are people who do not behave that way and people who let their dogs out and don't regulate
them at all.And there have been many incidents that were very unpleasant,scary and damaging and many,many,
many droppings that are not picked up.Soto say that there is no problem...maybe it's because in Jason Park that
is where Englewood Unleashed is concentrated and those are the responsible dog owners.In Centennial Park that
is not the case.There is dog poop all over that park and even on benches where people sit.So it's not quite as
rosy,at least in our park,as maybe it is in Jason,I don't know,although I guess Martha would disagree...because I
know that she has had unpleasant experiences in Jason.Anyhow,I do want to say that I appreciate all the work
and it does seem like an awful lot of work for dogs,butthe parks are primarily for people.Just remember that.And
thank you for your time.Good luck.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Lisa Crammer,an Englewood resident,said I have lived in Englewood since 1984.And prior to Jason becoming a
multi—use park,actually four and a half years ago...l never went to Jason Park.I go there strictly with my dogs and
it is to socialize them,but it is my social time.It is the only social time I have.There are people that don't clean up
after their dogs and that is why there are people like myself and people that I hang out with that clean up after their
dogs and apparently we must need to come to your park.I've never been to Centennial Park,so I think I will go to
Centennial Park with my bags and go pick up some dog poop.Ijust wanted to say that I agree with the majority of
the people that have spoken before me.The time is not going to work for a lot of people.I'm semi-flexible.It will
work for me,butl don't particularly care for it.I don't think we have a problem in Jason Park as it has been made
out.I have never seen any problems when I have been there.If there was a problem between dogs and children,
then I would be on the side with the children,but let's be real here.But that is all I wanted to say.I agree with
Colleen,Alice,Dana,Dan,Justin and the list goes on and on and on.I do want City Council to know that I do
appreciate all of the time that you have spent and your efforts.I hope this can be put to rest finally.This is the
second time that we've all been here,or at least that I've been here going through this...two years ago.So,if we
can all make everybody happy,which I think we can,that is the best way to do it.Thank you.City of Englewood is
a great place.I shop here,I live here,I vote here and I even work here.
Jim Crammer,an Englewood resident,said Ijust want to say that I'm for this off-leash park at Jason and really
anywhere in Englewood.This has been a really great thing,especially for our dogs and my wife.She is there a lot
and I get to go occasionally.Ijust really think that it is a really good thing that we have something like this in our
City.I do think it is attractive to bring other people to this City.I don't see the problems,at least at Jason,that
some people talk about.And I would just like to see it stay the way it is.I think that the times that are scheduled,I
think it is really going to be tough for working people to get there and utilize that park.I would just like to say that
I'm for it as far as having an off-leash park.Thanks foryour time.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Brenda Hubka,an Englewood resident,said thank you for your time tonight.I'lljust try to only add and not
reiterate.This year I adopted two rescue dogs from the Colorado Humane Society who would othenlvise have been
euthanized.It is very important for me to get them exercised and I tried running with them on the leash,but it is not
very easy.And I tried three times to take them to Canine Corral.They just hang out at the gate,they want out of
there really bad.I think it is the enclosure and too many dogs and there is no grass for them to rub their head in.
So,I do think we need to compromise though at Jason Park and the hours aren't too bad of an idea,except for 7:30
is pretty late for a single woman.And I will bring up for the first time tonight that if there is going to be a
compromise,I think that it is a very valid concern for children and picnickers to be safe in the picnic area.I think it
is a very reasonable solution to put a gate around that area just like Cummins Park.I know it hasn't been brought
up tonight and we are only discussing the hours,but as you know,the hours are already controversial.I have lived
here just 9 years now,but my parents went to Englewood High School and my grandparents,they all lived here too.
Ifthey were still around,we could ask them what the original intent of these parks were.I am pretty sure that my
grandmother would actually side with Dorothy.She doesn't much care for dog poop and having to step in it.
Doris...she would just let the dog run all over the place.But those were different times,certainly not with the
population we have now,and a lot of people need so many dogs.Sol hope you willjust take into consideration,
you know,this is a different kind of community now.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Page 203 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 15
Kim Love said greetings Honorable Mayor and City Council members.As you know I am President of Englewood
Unleashed.I am last probably,but certainly not least but do appreciate your time this evening even though we are
running late tonight.As most of you know,as I said,I am President of Englewood Unleashed,we are a non-profit
Title I 3C group that raises money and educates people about proper etiquette with their dogs in the off-leash parks
like Jason and Centennial.We know that all of you are familiar with the good work we do on behalf of our members
and non-members alike when it comes to the off-leash privileges at our parks.We have,by the way,always
referred to the parks like Jason and Centennial as multi-use parks with off-leash privileges.Approximately 53%of
Englewood Unleashed members are Englewood residents with the rest being other metro area residents.Our
survey that we completed recently,and I believe you all have it in your packets tonight,included EU members and
other park users.The overwhelming majority want to keep the parks as status quo,or as is.But we too,are realists
and understand the true meaning of compromise,so that both groups can co-exist.Several Council members
asked us to state what we would accept as a minimum compromise.We therefore make a formal recommendation
as our number two choice that these hours be 6 am to 11 am and from 6 pm to 11 pm seven days a week forthe
spring and summer.And this again is in your packet.This is really a very fair proposal and extends the hours
beyond the starting point that you had originally proposed for this vote and is a fair compromise to all parties.The
opposition will also like this proposal.You also recommend signs that state ‘no dogs allowed on the playground or
in the pavilions at any time’.Also we would like to see winter hours from October through March as being 100%
off-leash as these are months that we know that we are often the only group in the park.The hours we respectfully
submitted are a fair compromise for all users and we need to point out that Englewood Unleashed organizes a
brunch and a cleanup every two weeks.Since these days fall on either a Saturday or a Sunday,and usually start
around 10 am,depending on the time of year,obviously in the winter they start later and in the summer they start
earlier to avoid the heat.We request that this be taken into consideration when setting the off-leash hours.As
stewards of these parks,we have a large group and also we take care of the parks,both for the city and the
citizens are benefiting Englewood Unleashed because we work hard to keep the parks clean.Some folks miss
their dog droppings and we all help to catch the ones that get missed.Since our group brings their dogs to the park
during these cleanups,we set an example for everyone.So,the hours need to be considered as something
important because our group does go to pick up the droppings...in addition to the ones that get missed.I was alive
in 1961 and remember now a very famous speech by John F.Kennedy and he asked “not what your country can
do for you,but what can you do for your country.”Well this is as timely a speech as it was then...as is now,as it
was then.So what can we do for our City,not what the City can do for you.Englewood Unleashed is the
embodiment to this statement.We give a lotto Englewood and the parks.And Ms.Griego’s group is still only
interested in what the City of Englewood can do for them.They have given all of the ultimatums and disrespect.
Again I say,when is the last time this group gave anything back to the City?In reference to Mr.Crabtree,he said
earlier that there is nothing wrong with the Canine Corral to use for dogs.We overwhelmingly disagree.Canine
Corral is very heavily used and so is Jason Park,so there is a reason to bring dogs to Jason as well as the Canine
Corral.Some people,in fact one of our Board members,has a dog named Snoopy that is much smarter than
anyone on the Board.This dog is a great dog.It gets along with dogs,runs around and plays,but unfortunately
can't be trusted in a park like Jason,because he will run off into the street.So,the park like the Canine Corral is
necessary because certain people have to have dogs enclosed by a fence.Where other dogs like,you know,
many of our members have dogs that are under voice control and do stay in the boundaries that they should.Geri
Hughes,who spoke earlier,who most of you know,who has been a long time Englewood resident,mentioned to
me that she never was asked to sign a petition keeping Jason off-leash.We have heard this from many people
bordering Jason Park and have never seen or heard from the group and have never been asked to sign a petition,
so we question the validity of such a petition and especially the video which we believe was edited to show what
they wanted to show,not the real facts.What defines a family?In these days,dogs are members of the family and
most people have dogs and children and consider the dogs as members of the family.So,the family members,
including dogs,should be able to use the park...Centennial and Jason and the other parks that have off-leash
privileges.Lastly,if a compromise can be reached,we would strongly urge City Council to adopt the EU suggested
proposal again in your packets for the hours we mentioned earlier.This is not only a real compromise,but it works
for both sides.Thank you for your time tonight.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Martha Griego,an Englewood resident,said okay,I wasn't going to talk,but after hearing everybody from
Englewood Unleashed and other people talk,I decided to come up and do my little spiel here after taking notes.
Page 204 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 16
First,I would like to say,I don’t really want to take this personal but you know,all you guys,I've had dogs,okay?
I've had Red Dobies.I know what it's like to have a dog,okay.So it is not like we don't want your dogs to be in the
park.We don't care if they are in the park,but we want them to be on the leash.And as far as the kids being
around but you never heard anything,you never seen anything,well let me tell you,I would rather be at home
watching my Monday night football than being here,okay.Because when the dogs start coming after my
grandbabies,that becomes a problem.So if you guys weren't there,so,you know that is something that you guys
got to work with there.And as far as about the video and the petitions,well you know,ifl don't go to your door that
is probably that you weren't there and I'm not going back and forth to your house and make sure that you are there
or not.I did what I had to when I had the time to do it.I was working and I had other things to do besides going
door to door to make sure that you guys are there.80 about the compromise,now you know,to us we thought we
were doing great.Englewood Unleashed said yeah,let's compromise on the hours.So,we said yeah.We talked
with Centennial people and like yeah,let's compromise,let's do the hours.Well now the compromise isn't good
enough for the people of Englewood Unleashed.And so the community that signed the petition,I mean,we were
asking for something different and when the hours came out...we agreed.Okay,you know,whatever hours you
guys come up with as long as they are reasonable,we will agree.And that is what we did.You know,we brought
you guys a lot of facts regarding dogs...regarding how aggressive they can be,you know,the past mayor that was
here,a dog approached them and we know it was in the 7 newspaper,so if she lied and they lied,while sorry about
that,you know,but this is where I got one of the facts about that.And so to me,you know,we have to remember
the usage of the park,okay,now they are saying there are more dog owners at the park.Well,yeah,that is
because there are a lot of people around the parks that have not gone to the parks any longer because the dogs
have taken over,so they don’t want to deal with the dogs.And yes,there are other parks,Belleview,Cushing that I
can go to,but if I live a block down from Jason Park,why should I go to all these other parks.I just don't
understand that,why I have to remove myself from a park that you guys originally built for people...that was for the
families.Your intent was not to build a park to have the dogs run loose so that way everybody can co-exist.It was
built originally for the families to have picnics,to have a good time.And so to me,that is...l just can’t understand
that kind of thinking,I guess,of how people are saying the park is for dogs.Well,yeah,I can understand Canine
Corral.I mean I drive there two or three times a day down Windermere and there are times that there is nobody
there at Canine Corral.And then there are times when I see a lot of dogs.But you know,that is not the only dog
park.There is one over on Littleton and Belleview and it does have grass over there and it is about double the size
of what Canine Corral is.So,you know,if it is minimizing,I mean,why is it that we have to minimize our time at
the park with our children when they want to have the park fully and they can also go down to Canine,they can go
down to LittIeton...some of these people live in Littleton.Why don't they use that other dog park?So you know,
they talk about...welI they can't go there certain hours because it is dark and there is no light,well you know they
say they can't find their dog.Well,isn't it one of the rules that there dog has to be under voice control?So why are
you looking for your dog when all you have to do is call your dog and your dog should be coming to you.So that is
another point I have on there.Like the lady said about believing the kids,that she would believe the kids,well if
she looked at the minutes when my grandbabies came and they talked to all of you guys.I mean,you know,I was
surprised that they wanted to talk to you guys about how scared they were,how many times that there had been
incidences where they cannot go down the slide because there is a dog at the bottom of the slide,or an aggressive
dog that came up against us.So you know you really,to me,need to think about that part.And yes,there is a lot
of people here that have the majority from Englewood because the other people that were for the dogs to be on
leash have really given up on you guys and I told you guys that the last time,because they have a lot of belief in
you guys.And they've just given up that you guys are going to do what you guys are going to do no matter what
they say.So you know,I am here because I am just hoping that you guys will still compromise and that we willstill
have it to where there is a compromise of the hours so that people can go to the park.And I am talking about all of
those people that have signed the petition that live in the surrounding areas of Englewood and Centennial.We are
talking within the blocks.We are not talking about we went down to Elati,Bannock,all those areas,it was just
within the few blocks that we walked it and we did it.We didn't have an Internet to get petitions going.So the
bottom line is,you know,to keep the hours as you have indicated and go by what you guys feel in your hearts and
what the parks are really meant for...is it for the dogs or is it for the children and the families?Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Michael Thorpe,an Englewood resident,said I like a lot of the points people have brought up
tonight,but I am sure you guys could all give gold bars to everyone here if you could afford it and that is pretty
much what the bottom line comes down to.The City tries with the budget crisis and all that.I think that the price
Page 205 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 17
you have to pay in overtime and/or extra hiring of more Code Enforcement officers to make these make these
hours viable,you could probably buy a lot of fences.I realize this is a presumption,we're not really suppose to
discuss it,but I think you should discuss the cost of what this will do.The Canine Corral cost $200,000.00.You
are going to have to spend at least that to get more parks,because Canine Corral is way too small.But I would just
like you to think of the cost.The Canine Corral is way too small.I think that maybe some of the problems in the
other parks may be because they're forbidden in Denver and other cities like that,they just might not care and if
their dogs crap in our City and it's not in theirs.So maybe that is why the lesser qualities of the other parks exist.
Butl don't think this is a good plan.I have boxers,I'm out of shape,I can't run behind my boxers,that's why I like
the off-leash aspect.You know,I just don't think the hours are a good idea but if that is the way you guys are
swinging,I would like you really think of the bottom line,ofjust the cost.You're going to pay an officer for overtime,
people are going to pay your tickets,are the tickets going to cover that?And maybe just weigh that in the future
before you give your decision out.Some other alternatives perhaps fencing or something like that.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Tracey Jones,a Highlands Ranch resident,said I am just here to talk about the bull dog issue thing.I apologize for
Englewood Unleashed and the people who are here because they are the responsible owners who do pick up after
their dogs and who probably do have their dogs on voice control.Unfortunately,there are more people out there
who do not have their dogs on voice control and don't pick up after their dogs.And I can even really care less if
they don't pick up after the dogs,I'm just...it kind of sucks when you go have a picnic or a lunch at the pavilion at
Jason Park or any other park and a dog comes up and snatches a sandwich out of your kid's hand...not very cool.
It is not nice at all and what do you tell your kid and after you just spent money at McDonald or something on the
hamburger.I know I've talked to most of the Councilmen individually.We have had meetings and stuff and I don't
think that I have ever once disrespected you guys and ifl have,please let me know,but I don't think I have ever
disrespected and I don't think I have ever given you an ultimatum either.I know the community of Englewood and
other communities are evolving and changing and I've never...l've talked to Joe Jefferson and me and him have
tried to talk about where we could build another Canine Corral in Englewood and somehow doing fund raising
money because it is expensive.And Englewood Unleashed is really good at raising the money.I know I play a lot
of sports...to address,I don't know her name,the second lady who spoke from Englewood Unleashed,about how
much money I've spent in Englewood.I spend quite a few dollars in Englewood even though I don't live here.My
bank is based herein Englewood and I shop here in Englewood and I dojoin EngIewood's sports and when you
are not a resident,it is quite a hefty fee.So I do spend my time and money and my kids spend a lot of time here in
Englewood.Butl think the times that you guys came up are a good idea and I hope you stick with it.And I thank
you very much for spending months on this issue and I hope we don't have to come back to this.So,it is just...|
just wanted to say again,it is not just about the aggressive dogs that are coming up to the kids or the elderly
peopIe...it is the annoyance of them,of coming around them.My kids,they don't fear all dogs,they have an
American Bulldog at their grandmother's house.And as you know,American Bulldogs aren't the nicest things just
to run up to.So,they are used to being around dogs,but it is just when the dogs approach them that they have a
problem with.The parks may not be used every minute of the day by the kids,by the families,but when we are
there for45 minutes or 3 hours during the day,mid-day,we would like to know that we were safe and don't have to
worry about dogs coming up from behind us and bothering us,jumping on us...even if it is a playful jump,it is not
very playful to a kid when it knocks the kid over.Again thank you for your time and again I apologize to everyone
who is here who has dogs and are very responsible,because I know there are responsible owners out there.I'm
just talking about the ones who are not and unfortunately,they messed it up for a lot you.Thank you for your time.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Anna Hunt,an Englewood resident,said I moved into the community a couple of years ago.I'm originally from
Littleton.I work with victim's assistance in Denver.I also have my own business.I would like to say that I feel
embarrassed about the whole situation.Ms.Griego...and they are such a small portion of the community to voice
for this to have been created.It is a life of it's own.And I think that what's most important is that you hear the word
community a lot and the people from the dog park,this is their family.I mean,you know,you are creating hours.It
is not going to work.That is the reality.It's not going to work.Okay,you know,this has become ajoke.This is
my second time here and I've been silent,but I've had a lot of people approach me from the park to say,you know,
say something.And I feel bad for Ms.Griego because of your tenacity and your audacity.Your energy could be
spent in schools working with children,working with kids,put your energy into something useful.The dog park?
Page 206 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 18
Come on people,you know,let's get real here.You know,the dog park is,you know,dogs are people's family.
You know,I come to the dog park.I have taken people to their doctor's appointments.I have listened to their
crisis.I mean,this is my family,you know and I feel completely embarrassed that,you know,you peopIe...the
Council member...you have to understand that we as dog people are the majority.We vote and I would like for you
to understand that.That we will mobilize.We will make sure that we will have our voice heard.You are not
listening.This isn't going to work.Compromise,no.This isn't about compromise,this is about the reality.Ms.
Griego and all your bunch...it is lies.The fabricated...putting people on YouTube...are you kidding me?Come on
people.You know,this is a joke and you know,I am going to continue to take my dog,we will police our park.You
people should be proud of the community of people that are here.People come from all over Colorado to come to
Jason Park,to come to Englewood.You people should be proud of that.Stand by to the majority,the bigger voice
in this community,which are the dog people.Because it is our family.And you know,we will continue to fight.
And we willvote.So not to threaten you,you know,I'll run,I may sit here one day.You know what I mean?
Because,you know,I have a lot of passion for this and ljust can't believe that this is turned into something so
ridiculous.So,you know,I'm just pleading with you.These hours won't work and as a single woman,ifl am there
at night,and anything happens to me or any of my fellow women...because there are a lot of single women with
dogs...I don't think you want to read about that.I really don't.So,let's be reasonable and leave the parks status
quo.We take care of our own.You know,trust us,you know,don’t defeat us,be a part of us.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Laurett Barrentine,an Englewood resident,said I agree with all of you on some level here.I agree with you.This
is a joke.It was ajoke when the issue came up in 2003 and 2005 and 2007 and it was ajoke that you got sucked
into this when they said,we want to compromise,we want to bring all those petitions and those people that are
complaining about these issues,it was a joke because it is the same thing they did.Englewood Unleashed
proposed all of these time limits and everything last time.It wasn't satisfactory to their constituency then and it's
not satisfactory now.It is a waste of time.It didn't work last time,it's not going to now.You got suckered
in...okay.Because then they went ahead and said,we will compromise and City Council can present this.Most of
the people on that Board up there went through this and they know it didn't work.It can't be policed,it can't be
enforced and it was never a viable option really for Englewood Unleashed and it is never going to be a viable option
for the people who are trying to use the park with their kids and their families either.So,I think,what we can end
up agreeing on is that once again,this faux waste of time to go ahead and wear the heck out of everybody,wear
them down and just have it come up again and it will come up again.It will come up again when T-ball season
happens and when the dogs are running around and interrupting the soccer games and then it will become an
issue again...and then it will go away.And unfortunately,they have worn the other side down enough and I know
that they have gotten personally attacked.I experienced enough of that myself and I'm sorry for that.I am sorry for
the other side that your organization once again did a compromise on the intent or the proposal that they were
actually making a serious compromise because it wasn't.It was never going to work.It didn't before.Kim Love
came up and made the same speech in 2005 and 2007 minus the Kennedy thing...|think that was new...okay.So
I apologize for that.One of the things that I'm a little disappointed about is that the reason that it keeps coming up
is because there is a real problem.There are some issues.Maybe it is not to the extent that you guys think it is
but there are.These people didn't take their time and now for her to come down and make up stories about dogs
because they want to go ahead and create havoc and give City Council something else to do.They were real
issues and when those issues truly and honestly get addressed about how these guys are going to work together in
the park,maybe there will be a real compromise,but this was never intended to be it.And I'm sorry it was a waste
of your time.It was a waste of this organization's time just as much as yours.And I appreciate the effort that you
made and I am sorry that you guys got dragged down here for something that was never going to be good enough
for either side anyway.So I agree with you guys.This isn't going to work.It didn't work last time and it is not going
to work this time.Thanks.
Mayor Woodward said thank you.
Mayor Woodward asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak during the Public Hearing.There was no
one.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCASLIN MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER PENN SECONDED,TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING TO GATHER INPUT ON A PROPOSAL TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY MANAGER THE
Page 207 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 19
SETTING OF SPECIFIC OFF-LEASH HOURS FOR DOGS FOR JASON,CENTENNIAL,DUNCAN,AND THE
NORTHWEST GREENBELT PARKS TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,2010.SPECIFICALLY:MARCH 1
THROUGH OCTOBER 31 —OFF-LEASH HOURS FROM 6:00 A.M.TO 9:00 A.M.AND 7:30 P.M.TO 11:00 P.M.;
AND NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28 OR 29 —OFF-LEASH HOURS FROM 6:00 A.M.TO 11:00 A.M.
AND 4:00 P.M.TO11:0O P.M.
Mayor Woodward asked if there was any comment by Council at this time.We will not be debating this until our
next meeting.
Council Member Jefferson said I just want to thank everybody for coming out and voicing their opinion.I know it
can be exhausting and emotional for a lot of folks on this issue.I know a lot of times when you come to a public
meeting like this and expect a resolution at the end.Unfortunately,we are not going to have that tonight.We will
have some discussions on this and potentially vote on a motion two weeks from tonight.Again,we appreciate
everybody coming down.
Mayorwoodward said and I would also like to mention that this was the opportunity for the public to speak and I
have,at least on my list that I was numbering and making notes,30 people that did speak,which is very,I think,
representational of the community.Council now is in ex-parte communication,which basically means that we will
not be talking to other or talking to the public about this issue,and at the next meeting,under guests,scheduled or
unscheduled,we will not be considering testimony at that time.Testimony was at this public hearing.
Council Member Jefferson said sorry.Just a point of clarification on that Your Honor.So,I mean,somebody can
make more general comments about the park,right,as long as it is not,you know,particular to this particular
motion that might be coming forward,correct?City Attorney Brotzman said correct.The whole idea that the public
hearing and not having ex—parte communication is everybody got to hear,the entire public got to hear this and there
was full discussion and disclosure so the idea is not to have conversations after that because we want everybody to
know why you are making your decisions.Council Member Jefferson said but I just want to clarify that it is on the
narrow...City Attorney Brotzman said right.Council Member Jefferson said it is on the narrower path than I think
is being...it isjust on these particular hours.City Attorney Brotzman said correct.
Mayor Woodward said and I also want to mention that Englewood Unleashed provided something for our packet
last week that is in the record and that there is also,in the record,a letter from Keely Sugden and Jennifer Enger.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried and the public hearing closed.
The meeting recessed at 9:37 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:48 p.m.with all members present.
11.Ordinances,Resolution and Motions
(a)Approval of Ordinances on First Reading
(i)Director of Finance and Administrative Services Gryglewicz presented a recommendation
from the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to adopt a bill for an ordinance approving the 2009 Mill
Levy for collection in 2010.He said I think everybody is aware that this has been a long and difficult budget
process.We've had a number of times at Study Session,starting in April.Council got the proposed budget
September 10th and they are required to have that,the proposed budget,by September 15”‘of each year.We had
a public hearing a couple of weeks ago on September 21st and then,as staff and Council are aware,we had a
budget workshop on the 26”‘of September.Met again at last week’s Study Session and then just met briefly
tonight,just to go over the reconciliation of the ordinances and the budget worksheet that the Council is very
familiarwith right now.But this part of the budget...bills for ordinances...is the mill levy that is set in 2009 and
Page 208 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 20
collected in 2010.For the General Millthat is the funds,General Fund activity is 5.88 mills and for the General
Obligation Bonds is 2.031 mills.Total mill levy is 7.911 and I did,in my Council Communication,give an illustration
of what a homeowner in Englewood with a $200,000.00 house would pay to the City.And if you took a look at that,
they basically,for General Fund activities...the General Fund provides Public Works,Parks,Police,Fire,all of
those public services...they pay $93.61.That’s a pretty good bargain.The mill levy for the General Fund has not
gone up,I believe,since 1992 and the mill levy for the bonds,a citizen with a $200,000.00 house would pay a
$32.33.Those are the bonds that were issued to build Pirate's Cove,improve the Malley Center,and the Rec
Center as well.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any questions for Frank.There were none.
COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER MCCASLIN SECONDED,TO APPROVE
AGENDA ITEM 11 (a)(i)-COUNCIL BILL NO.45.
COUNCIL BILL NO.45,INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON
A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE FIXING THE TAX LEVY IN MILLS UPON EACH DOLLAR OF THE ASSESSED
VALUATION OF ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHINTHE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,COLORADO.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any comments.
Mayor Woodward said I just want to make a comment to reiterate what Frank said.It is really an incredible value,I
believe,that on a market value of $200,000.00,that the General Fund operations allocation all of the property tax,
residential property taxes,is $93.61.That is an amazing number compared to other cities.We also have $32.33
for our General Obligation Bonds,for a total of $125.94...and that is for a full service city.And in comparing that,
you would have to take into consideration parks districts,library districts,fire districts and all of the other districts
that are associated with other cities.So,I am really proud of that number.I think that’s really impressive and
maybe the lowest in the area.He asked if there were any other comments.
Council Member Oakley said after spending many hours on other subjects,I'm not sure anybody will be listening to
the recording by now.For the record,I think it should be stated that because of the TABOR restrictions to the City,
we cannot raise the mill levy without a vote of the people.That’s the reason it hasn't been raised since 1992.In
talking to a lot of people,they don’t understand that.They think that they can be raised on a whim and it certainly
can’t.
Council Member McCaslin said I also believe the total tax is $10.44 a month.To me,that is quite a bargain.It is
just unbelievable.I guess that's all I have to say.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council MemberWiIson
Motion carried.
(ii)Director of Finance and Administrative Services Gryglewicz presented a recommendation
from the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to approve a billfor an ordinance adopting the 2010
Budget for the City of Englewood.He said,as I said earlier,Council is aware of this.It has been a very difficult
process.I would like to again thank the employees of the City,because they gave up wage increases,some of
their benefits were reduced,their personal leave payouts,we’ve frozen positions to make this budget work;
particularly in the General Fund,which Ijust said really provides those general public services that the citizens of
Englewood rely on.So,I'm going to focus on that,as far as the numbers are concerned.We are looking at an
estimated fund balance January 1,2010 in the General Fund of $8,518,581.00;total sources of funds for 2010 in
the General Fund is $40,377,398.00;total uses of funds $40,616,941.00 and that will leave an ending total reserve
of $8,279,038.00 and the ending unreserved,undesignated fund balance will be just over 10%.As you can see in
the ordinance,it is broken down by the General Fund and then Special Revenue Funds,Debt Service Funds,
Page 209 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 21
Capital Projects Funds,Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Funds.But as I said,I focus on the General Fund
because of the provision of the services to the public.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any questions for Frank.There were none.
COUNCIL MEMBER PENN MovED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLIN sEcoNDED,TO APPROVE
AGENDA ITEM 11 (a)(ii)-COUNCIL BILL No.46.
COUNCIL BILLNO.46,INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PENN
A BILLFOR AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,COLORADO,FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 2010.
Mayor Woodward asked if there was any discussion.
Council Member Moore said Your Honor,I would just like to make a few comments.Once again,a very,very tough
budget.I think Council did a great job working through the issues and the process that we went through trying to
find balance that worked across seven different opinions.I think it went well,but...really focusing on the budget
first and foremost,I want to thank the staff...the sacrifices that the staff was willing to make allowed us to be able to
present,at least,a livable budget where we did manage to still maintain a 10%minimum reserve,which given how
quickly the economy can go either way,even where we are now,I know I personally think that this is extremely
important.We also avoided touching the Long Term Asset Reserve for the sake of operations currently.And
again,with the staff's help...because of the staff’s cuts,we were able to achieve those goals and avoid layoffs.
And so,I really appreciate that.I think we have a budget that hopefully works.The one downside,of course,is
that things can certainly deteriorate further.Hopefully,that is not the case.If it is,then more tough decisions will
be necessary,but based on where we are now,I am very pleased with where we were able to come out on this
budget.Thanks very much.
Mayor Woodward said I would certainly like to second what you said and thank staff.I know that staff has been
working a long,long time on this;longer than typical for a budget.I also feel that we have a good budget that will
be monitored...certainly again in December and February as we look at these and see where we are at.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any other comments.There were none.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council MemberWiIson
Motion carried.
(iii)DirectorofFinance and Administrative Services Gryglewicz presented a
recommendation from the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to adopt a bill for an ordinance
appropriating funds for the 2010 Budget for the City of Englewood.He said basically this provides legal authority to
expend funds in 2010.For the General Fund,the total appropriation is $40,616,94l.0O.The rest of the funds are
also broken out in this bill for an ordinance.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any questions for Frank.There were none.
COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLlN MovED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER MooRE sEcoNDED,TO APPROVE
AGENDA ITEM 11 (a)(iii)-COUNCIL BILL No.47.
COUNCIL BILLNO.47,INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCASLIN
A BILLFOR AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING MONIES FOR ALL MUNICIPAL PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD,COLORADO,FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY “I,2010,AND ENDING
Page 210 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 22
DECEMBER 31,2010,CONSTITUTING WHAT IS TERMED THE ANNUALAPPROPRIATION BILLFOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2010.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any comments.There were none.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
(iv)Director of Finance and Administrative Services Gryglewicz presented a
recommendation from the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to adopt a bill for an ordinance
approving the 2010 Budget for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant.He said beginning funds
available for the fund is $115,674.00;total sources of funds and uses of funds are $16,400,883.00 and with an
ending funds available of $115,674.00.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any questions.There were none.
COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER PENN SECONDED,TO APPROVE AGENDA
ITEM 11 (a)(iv)-COUNCIL BILL NO.48.
COUNCIL BILLNO.48,INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE
A BILLFOR AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2010.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any comments.There were none.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
(v)Director of Finance and Administrative Services Gryglewicz presented a
recommendation from the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to adopt a bill for an ordinance
appropriating funds for the 2010 Budget for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant.He said the total
appropriation for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant for 2010 is $16,400,883.00.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any questions.There were none.
COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLlN SECONDED,TO APPROVE
AGENDA ITEM 11 (a)(v)-COUNCIL BILL NO.49.
COUNCIL BILLNO.49,INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE
A BILLFOR AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING MONIES FOR THE LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT PURPOSES IN THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1,2010,AND ENDING
DECEMBER 31,2010,CONSTITUTING WHAT IS TERMED THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BILLFOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 201 0.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any comments.There were none.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Page 211 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 23
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
(b)Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading
(i)Council BillNo.42 as amended,amending Title 5 (Business and License
Regulations)of the Englewood Municipal Code by the addition of a new Chapter 22 pertaining to Medical Marijuana
Primary Care-Givers was considered.
COUNCIL MEMBER PENN MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON SECONDED,TO APPROVE
AGENDA ITEM 11 (b)(i)-ORDINANCE NO.41,SERIES OF 2009.
ORDINANCE NO.41,SERIES OF 2009 (COUNCIL BILLNO.42,INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
OAKLEY)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5,OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPALCODE 2000,BY THE ADDITIONOF
A NEW CHAPTER 22,PERTAINING TO MEDICALMARIJUANA PRIMARYCARE-GIVERS.
Mayor Woodward asked if there was any discussion.There was none.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
(ii)Council Bill No.43,amending Title 7,Chapter 6D,Section 12 of the Englewood
Municipal Code entitled Possession of Marijuana Prohibited pertaining to enforcement was considered.
COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER PENN SECONDED,TO APPROVE
AGENDA ITEM 11 (b)(ii)-ORDINANCE NO.42,SERIES OF 2009.
ORDINANCE NO.42,SERIES OF 2009 (COUNCIL BILLNO.43,INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
WILSON)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDINGTITLE 7,CHAPTER 6D,SECTION 12,OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPALCODE
2000,ENTITLEDPOSSESSION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITED WHICH PERTAINS TO ENFORCEMENT.
Mayor Woodward asked if there was any discussion.There was none.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCas|in,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
(0)Resolutions and Motions
(i)Director Gryglewlcz presented a recommendation from the Department of Finance and
AdministrativeServices to approve a resolution establishing licensing fees for Medical Marijuana Primary Care-
Givers.He said the council bill was just approved by Council a couple of minutes ago.This is set at $250.00 for
the license,the background fee is $50.00 and the application fee is $15.00.As Council is aware,we generally
review these licenses annually.We are sort of going into unchartered waters here because this is a new license.
We really don’t know how much administrative time this will take,but if it looks like this is going to take more than
Page 212 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 24
this,we'll review this with Council with the annual review of license fees.But as I said,we're suggesting a fee of
$250.00 and the background fee and the application fee are standard.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any questions for Frank.
Council Member McCaslin said and I agree.If you read the papers,lately there are a lot of cities dealing with this
same issue.So,I think everyone is struggling with these issues.I think,like you said,I think it is unchartered
water right now and we have to be careful what we are doing.I know it's been passed by the people,but we still
have to be cognizant of some of the issues that we haven't confronted yet.So thank you for your time on this.
Council Member Penn said Frank,how did we come up with the $250.00 fee?Was it by what we thought we were
going to do or use for administrative purposes?Was it according to other municipalities?Was itjust established?
How was that established?Director Gryglewicz replied actually I reviewed our other miscellaneous fees and I took
a look at those and tried to determine the amount of time that we would spend on this.I looked at this as about
where a Purchaser of Valuable Articles License would be...l don't think it is going to be as much as say a pawn
broker or an auto pawn.So I set in right in the middle there until maybe we can get some more information.I don't
believe anyone,at this point in time,has set a license on this.As I said,we can set it here initiallyand review these
as others come on-line,to see where we are in the market.But of course,fees are determined really on the
amount of administrative work additionally that you would do for this.I don't believe that we can charge above that,
so we try tojust get a handle on it at this point in time.
Council Member Penn said thank you very much.
MayorWoodward said on this,with the primary care-givers it is $250.00 and then the background fee is $50.00.
Now if it is an establishment,is that background fee only on...l mean does that cover all of the employees that are
in the establishment orjust the one primary care-giver?Director Gryglewicz said this license is licensed to the
primary care-giver,so each person that is a primary care-giver needs to be licensed and have a background check
and pay an application fee.Mayor Woodward said okay.
COUNCIL MEMBER PENN MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER MCCASLINSECONDED,TO APPROVE
AGENDA ITEM 11 (c)(I)-RESOLUTION NO.70,SERIES OF 2009.
RESOLUTION NO.70,SERIES OF 2009
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ANNUAL LICENSE FEES FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA PRIMARY CARE-
GIVERS FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,COLORADO.
Mayor Woodward asked if there was any further discussion.
Council Member Jefferson said yes,I just wanted to comment that I am really proud of where we are at on this
issue.I think we've really been proactive about setting a license that's not overly restrictive on the businesses but
addresses the concerns of the community on,you know,who it is sold to and things of that nature.And I guess I
willjust leave it at that.Thank you.
Mayor Woodward said is there anything else?There was nothing else.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
(ii)Community Planning and Housing Coordinator Stitt presented a recommendation from the
Community Development Department to approve a resolution authorizing the Community Development Block Grant
Program Application for the Year 201 0.He said staff has been submitting these applications to the County for
almost 32 years and for the last 19 years,have been applying through Arapahoe County.Arapahoe County
Page 213 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 25
became an entitlement entity in 1991 and as a jurisdiction in Arapahoe County we have to apply through the
County.The funding that we are requesting,from the County,would total about $1‘/'5,000.000 for three programs:
$100,000.00 for a new program for energy efficiency improvements to homes in the community,$50,000.00 for
continuation of our housing rehabilitation program,and then $25,000.00 of continuing support for the House of
Hope for administrative purposes.These grant applications would then be submitted to Arapahoe County for
consideration by the County Commissioners and if approved,funding would be available in June 2010.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any questions for Harold.
Council Member McCaslin asked if there was any more funding available out there.Community Planning and
Housing Coordinator Stitt replied actually we're requesting $25,000.00 more than we have in the past several
years,primarily so that we can increase the amount of money available for the energy efficiency program,but the
amount of money available is limited by the amount that the Department of Housing and Urban Development
provides through the State to Arapahoe County.The County also has to provide funding for the cities of Littleton,
Sheridan,Glendale,Deer Trail,and Greenwood Village,so we are essentially in competition for $175,000.00 with
those other communities.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCASLIN MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON SECONDED,TO APPROVE
AGENDA ITEM 11 (c)(ii)-RESOLUTION NO.71,SERIES OF 2009.
RESOLUTION NO.71,SERIES OF 2009
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,COLORADO,TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH
ARAPAHOE COUNTY FOR A 2010 COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT.
MayorWoodward asked if there was further discussion.There was none.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
(iii)Community Planning and Housing Coordinator Stitt presented a recommendation from the
Community Development Department to approve a resolution clarifying signing authority for the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program Grant.He said the contract that was entered into by Council several weeks ago for the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding,in the amount of approximately 1.2 milliondollars,specifies that the
Mayor is the primary signator for all requests for grant funding and because of the tight timeframes built into that
program and the mechanisms by which we will be able to acquire single family homes in the community,we are
requesting that that authorization be extended to the Department of Community Development Director so that,in a
timely manner,we can get requests submitted to the State.The funding that is available,the 1.2 million dollars,is
a grant from the Federal government and the City will be able to draw on those funds on an as needed basis.The
process works by which we submit a draw request for expenses incurred and the State will then have to make a
similar request to the Federal government.Because of the time involved,it is imperative that we get these requests
in as soon as possible and ensure that the funding flows from the Federal government to the State and then hence
to the City of Englewood.So requesting that the Department Director have the authority to sign willspeed this up
and not overly burden the Mayor,who I'm sure,is quite busy.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any questions.There were none.
COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON SECONDED,TO APPROVE
AGENDA ITEM 11 (c)(iii)-RESOLUTION NO.72 SERIES OF 2009.
RESOLUTION NO.72,SERIES OF 2009
Page 214 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 26
A RESOLUTION CLARIFYING SIGNING AUTHORITY FOR CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,COLORADO FOR THE
PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY ORDINANCE NO.37,SERIES 2009 FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION
PROGRAM GRANT.
MayorWoodward asked if there was any discussion.There was none.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
Council Member Moore said Your Honor,may we ask that...is it all right if we ask Sue just to go ahead and present
all three of these together?Given their similarity...Agenda Items 11 (c)(iv),(v),and (vi)?MayorWoodward
responded yes.
(iv),(v)and (vi)Director of Human Resources Eaton presented the three recommendations
from the Human Resources Department to adopt a resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding
amending the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Englewood Police Benefit Association and the City of
Englewood regarding employee contributions for insurance premiums in 2010,to adopt a resolution approving a
Memorandum of Understanding amending the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Englewood
Firefighters Association and the City of Englewood regarding employee contributions for insurance premiums in
2010 and to adopt a resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding amending the Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the Englewood Employees Association and the City of Englewood regarding employee
contributions for insurance premiums in 2010.She said,as we have discussed before,the City's three collective
bargaining agreements refer to employee premium participation in a single plan medical insurance model.The
MOU’s outline contribution levels for a two plan model.Employee contributions for the base City plan will be 7 1/2%
lower than the percentages described in the contract and the employees choosing the buy-up plan,the second
selection,will pay the difference between the premium costs of the two plans.The MOU’s are essentially the same
for all three of our unions.
COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON SECONDED,TO APPROVE
AGENDA ITEMS 11 (c)(iv),(v),and (vi)-RESOLUTION NO.73,74 and 75,SERIES OF 2009.
(Iv)RESOLUTION NO.73,SERIES OF 2009
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENTTO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE ENGLEWOOD POLICE BENEFIT ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD FOR THE
PERIOD OF JANUARY 1,2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2010,PERTAINING TO “ARTICLE22 —
INSURANCE."
(v)RESOLUTION NO.74,SERIES OF 2009
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENTTO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE ENGLEWOOD FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL NO.1736 AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD FOR THE
PERIOD OF JANUARY 1,2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2010,PERTAINING TO “ARTICLE 24 —
INSURANCE."
(vi)RESOLUTION NO.75,SERIES OF 2009
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENTTO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
BETTNEENTHE ENGLEWOOD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD FOR THE
PERIOD OF JANUARY 1,2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2010,PERTAINING TO "ARTICLE 21 —
INSURANCE.”
Page 215 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 27
Council Member Moore said appreciation to all of the unions for considering this option and for being willingto
pursue it.
Council Member Jefferson said I'll second those comments.Thank you to staff for that.
Mayor Woodward asked if there wereadditional comments.
MayorWoodward said Ijust want to note that this is included in our budget that we approved earlier.Again,thank
you to staff for your cooperation.Several Council members said thank you.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any further questions.There were none.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCasIin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
Director Eaton said thank you.MayorWoodward said thank you Sue.
12.General Discussion
(a)Mayor's Choice
(i)Mayor Woodward said I would like to mention that we are dedicating the opening of our
two new bridges...pedestrian and bicycle bridges...on 17th of October,at 10 am at Broken Tee EngIewood...at the
Golf Course.There will be tents set up and people from the County,people from the Great Outdoor Colorado have
been invited.I'm sure there will be people some from the public.It should be,hopefully,a nice day and we will
have the fall colors there.I know the South Platte Working Group,we met last week.Their members will be
coming and they are excited about seeing it,those who haven't seen it.I wanted to mention that.Again,that’s
October 17”‘at 10 am at Broken Tee Englewood,which is our Golf Course over on Oxford.
(ii)Mayorwoodward said I would like to address the rumor that's out there right now
regarding campaign signs and who's responsible and that sort of thing,I also want to mention that initiallyI had put
in a Council Request that was part of our packet from last week that came in Thursday,regarding signs showing up
missing in District 4.And then last Thursday,I had called Chief Vandermee,that's when I emailed him,in the
morning to tell him about what appeared to be a number of numerous signs that were missing in District 3,including
from my front yard,my neighbor's yard,and all over and asked that the officers on patrol be looking for where the
signs might be as they have shown up in past years...in 2007,I believe it was Rotolo Park where we got them;I'm
sure they've shown up at Randy's house in different years;I know they've shown up at the high school along with
other ones.Well,I got a call late Friday or Thursday afternoon that they were in the 4500 block of South Pearl.I
went down to the yard and retrieved Wayne's and mine and knew the house.It was the home of the Englewood
High School Football Coach.And there were other signs,of course,other campaign signs of candidates...Matt's
were there.Rick's were there.Roofing companies’signs were there.Singles Only signs were there.All kinds of
signs were there.And then I get an email with somebody sending me something that actually calls out that Bob
McCasIin and I are responsible and that this high school prank,as they noted,was...that we were behind it...and
that I guess we had control over cheerleaders and football players and I...it is just more beyond believable to me,
the rumor mill.I know I took probably close to 40 signs out of that yard.Don't know where they go.Replaced
them yesterday.Waited until after the homecoming dance.Still have more to go.One I replaced last night was
gone by this morning.So signs are still disappearing and it isn't the high school kids at this point.And it isn't
myself and I don't think its Bob or Wayne.Council Member McCasIin said no,it's not.I'll go on record,with a Bible
here,that it's not.I had nothing to do with it.Mayor Woodward said what I saw was just very insulting to the school
and to Bob and I.Whose responsible for it should just really learn to grow up or something.Get a life.Do
something.Very negative.I have my thoughts on that one.
Page 216 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 28
(iii)MayorWoodward said I want to thank the people,all of the people,that showed up for the
public hearing and I know that there was a lot of people and I see four left,that commented.I appreciate you even
staying for that.
(iv)Mayor Woodward said I would also like to address Mr.Estes...try to address what he was
talking about.He brought up this stuff from May 25,2007...Englewood nearly bankrupt.It is 2009.In 2007,we
ended the year pretty good.Things did turn around and certainly last year we ended,considering the year,better
than we expected.I think we have had a handle on our budget.I wouldn't call us nearly bankrupt right now.So,I
don't quite know what the point was.He had mentioned that he had put in Council Requests.I don’t know how he
can do that not being a Council member,unless he has asked some Council members something and Council
members didn't turn it into a request.But a Council Request comes from a Council member.So,I don’t know what
he is talking about with regard to his Council requests.
(v)MayorWoodward said and then finally I want to bring up the sign moratorium...the
resolution that we have been looking at or discussing the resolution recommending to the City Manager of the City
of Englewood,Colorado the establishment of a Temporary Suspension or Moratorium on the enforcement of select
provisions of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000,the Sign Code,pertaining to Banners and Portable Signs for a
period of four months.Of course,that could be extended from the four month period.
[Clerk's note:This was listed on the Agenda as 12 (b)(i).]
MAYOR WOODWARD MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER PENN SECONDED,TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO.76,SERIES OF 2009.
RESOLUTION NO.76,SERIES OF 2009
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,COLORADO
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OR MORATORIUM ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF
SELECT PROVISIONS OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000,THE SIGN CODE,PERTAINING TO
BANNERS AND PORTABLE SIGNS FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS.
Mayor Woodward said I would like to open it up for discussion at this point.
Council Member Jefferson said I would just like to comment I think we did a pretty good job of narrowing down the
moratorium to some areas that really were more at the heart of the issue,the recent issue.I still have a little bit of
concerns about it,but I will be supportive of what's in front of us.
Mayor Woodward said I have shared this with a few members of the BlD...the president,vice president and
treasurer...Ted Vasilas,Rick Reese and Bob Laugh|in...and I think you know the idea is that they believe that there
may be some economic opportunities with this change.It gives ACE and P &Z the opportunity to start looking at
things and it also gives the business community the opportunity to...as they said,I believe,police themselves on
some of this.I know I made it clear that I sure didn't want to get into a position that we were looking like parts of
east and west Colfax or parts of Federal Boulevard.They didn't want that either.So,that was good.I want to
compliment the City Attorney’s office on writing this to cover the things that we had discussed,I believe,at our last
meeting.That's my comment.
Council Member Jefferson said so one quick question,under Section 4,is that language in there to try to get us out
of a...City Attorney Brotzman answered it is actually required.The case law requires the temporary suspension
language...that’s taken right out of the cases.Council Member Jefferson said okay.I don’t know.I rememberwe
talked a little bit about a potential takings issue about some of this.Is that addressed here at all?City Attorney
Brotzman said yes.If you look at the very last Whereas.What we are doing is basically giving a warning that if you
are buying a banner,then at the very least,you are taking a risk.
Mayor Woodward said they are taking the risk.There’s no grandfatherlng based upon this.It does address the
public right-of-way that we passed last year,the fences.And side—yardfences...correct me if I'm wrong Dan,are
still not approved within this.City Attorney Brotzman said correct.MayorWoodward continued and then of course,
Page 217 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 29
any prohibited,hazardous or abandoned signs or signs that need maintenance will not comply.I have had two
calls this week from...a call and an email from people with disabilities that were concerned.I tried to reassure them
that the right-of-ways,the openings would be enforced for ADA and access for them.
Mayor Woodward asked if there was any other discussion.
Council Member Moore said I'll comment.I will be reluctantly supporting this tonight.|...the rules that are in place
were set up after going through due process.I think that this suspension of enforcement is hasty.I don't
appreciate the way this subject came to our attention,although I missed that particular Council meeting.I don't like
that that's how this whole thing started.Nor do I agree with the portrayal that the City of Englewood is anti-
business as opposed to businesses just needing to recognize government bodies aren't meant to be able to
operate quickly otherwise they're too easy to be influenced.I will only be in support of this because it's limited to
four months.I'm willing to support the experiment,even though I fundamentally oppose setting laws in this manner.
I think that the process we were under in terms of public hearings,gathering input,going through all of the right
steps is the way we should be doing this.That's my two cents.
Council Member Jefferson said I too have concerns about the process and the potential ramifications.Like I said,I
think we have done a good job of limiting the amount of damage...I guess,so to speak...that could be done.I will
generally agree with John's statements there and I too will be cautiously supportive of this.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any other comments.
Council Member Penn said I would just like to say that we are putting this out for them as kind of an experiment like
John said.Hopefully,knowing,as professional as our business people are,that they will take care of this and do a
greatjob.I mean,that's our expectation that they will take care of it.They've asked for this.I think we've listened
to them and so now I think it’s...hopefuIIy they will respond and do a very professional job at handling this situation.
Council Member Jefferson said and hopefully this is a step in the right direction,as far as giving the appearance of
being more business friendly.I know that there is that perception out there that we are not business friendly and
again,whether true or not,I think this will help alleviate some of that perception.At least,show business owners in
the community that when issues do come up we are responsive and responsive in addressing businesses’
concerns in our communities.
Mayor Woodward asked if there were any other comments.There were none.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
(b)Council Members’Choice
(i)Council Member Oakley:
1.He said in regards to the public hearing,I believe that there were a few points brought out tonight,but I
think I'll hold my thoughts until we actually start talking about it because it will be the most productive time to do it.
2.He said since acquisitions were leveled against Council on the subject of signs,I will state that I lost a full
25%of my signs between Tuesday and Thursday.I was able to retrieve a fair portion of them,but they were
severely damaged.So,it appears to be across the board on all candidates.
13.City Manager's Report
City Manager Sears did not have any matters to bring before Council.
Page 218 of 229
Englewood City Council
October 5,2009
Page 30
‘I4.City Attorney's Report
(a)City Attorney Brotzman presented a motion to settle Jefferson County District Court Case No.2008-
CV5163 —Norkoli vs.City of Englewood for $20,000.This is the garage door case at Bi-City.
Council Member Jefferson said I'm sorry.Which case is this again?City Attorney Brotzman replied the garage
door at the Bi—Cityplant.
Council Member Moore said I certainly support the City Attorney’s advice in this matter,so I'll make the motion to
proceed with this settlement.
COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED,AND COUNCIL MEMBER PENN SECONDED,TO APPROVE A MOTION
TO SETTLE JEFFERSON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.2008-CV5163 —NORKOLI VS.CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD FOR $20,000.
Mayor Woodward asked if there was any discussion needed.
Council Member Oakley said for the record,it was strictly financial.It would cost us just as much one way or the
other,correct?City Attorney Brotzman said correct.
Vote results:
Ayes:Council Members Penn,McCaslin,Moore,Woodward,Jefferson,Oakley
Nays:None
Absent:Council Member Wilson
Motion carried.
15.Adjournment
MAYOR WOODWARD MOVED TO ADJOURN.The meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m.
Page 219 of 229
Norkoli VS City of Englewood
This case was erroneously filed in Jefferson County District Court
by Norkoli Construction but then filed correctly in
Arapahoe County District Court,Case No.2009 CV183.
The settlement that was approved in the Council minutes of
October 5,2009 states the correct lawsuit with
Arapahoe County District Court in the Settlement Agreement
and Release.
(NOTE:Per the City Attorney’s Office,the City Attorney stated
Jefferson County District Court by mistake at the Council meeting.)
See Agreement No.89-2009.
Page 220 of 229
Page 221 of 229
EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION FORM
(Note: 2/3 quorum present must vote yes to pass any motion to go into executive session; and an
executive session may only occur at a regular or special meeting of the body.)
If 7 members are present 5 members must vote yes
If 6 members are present 4 members must vote yes If
5 members are present 4 members must vote yes
I MOVE TO GO INTO CONSECUTIVE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS TONIGHT:
____1____ For discussion of a personnel matter under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(2)(f) and not involving: any
specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member
of this body or any elected official; the appointment of any person to fill an office of this body or
of an elected official; or personnel policies that do not require the discussion of matters personal
to particular employees;
____2___ For discussion of a personnel matter under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(2)(f) and not involving: any
specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member
of this body or any elected official; the appointment of any person to fill an office of this body or
of an elected official; or personnel policies that do not require the discussion of matters personal
to particular employees;
Present at the 1st executive session are the following persons:
Mayor Linda Olson
Mayor Pro Othoniel Sierra
Council Member Rita Russell
Council Member Joe Anderson
Council Member Dave Cuesta
Council Member Steven Ward
Council Member Cheryl Wink
City Manager Shawn Lewis
Present at the 2nd executive session are all of the same council members plus City Attorney Tamara Niles
May I have a second? VOTE We will now exit this meeting and reconvene in the Pike’s Peak room on
the 3rd floor.
Page 222 of 229
ANNOUNCEMENT 1 A
BEFORE EXECUTIVE SESSION COMMENCES
ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE MADE BY PRESIDING OFFICER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION (MAKE SURE THE TAPE RECORDER IS TURNED ON; DO NOT IT OFF
DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO ADVISED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY)
TURN ON RECORDING
When all are present Ask: City Manager Lewis can you please begin the recording of this Exec. Session
1?
Today’s date is September 13, 2021, and the time is ______________________.
For the record, I am Mayor Linda Olson. As required by the Open Meetings Law, this executive session is being
electronically recorded
Also present at this executive session are the following persons:
Mayor Pro Othoniel Sierra
Council Member Rita Russell
Council Member Joe Anderson
Council Member Dave Cuesta
Council Member Steven Ward
Council Member Cheryl Wink
City Manager Shawn Lewis
This is an executive session for the following purpose:
For discussion of a personnel matter under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(2)(f) and not involving: any specific
employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of this body or any
elected official; the appointment of any person to fill an office of this body or of an elected official; or personnel
policies that do not require the discussion of matters personal to particular employees;
If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is going outside the proper
scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion and make an objection
Page 223 of 229
ANNOUNCEMENT 2A
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
ANNOUNCEMENTS TO BE MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR LEGAL
ADVICE, OR FOR THE DISCUSSION OF LEGAL ADVICE DURING AN EXECUTIVE
SESSION WHOSE STATED PURPOSE IS A SUBJECT OTHER THAN LEGAL ADVICE
By City Attorney:
As City Attorney, it is my opinion that the discussion of the matter announced in the motion to go into executive
session constitutes a privileged attorney-client communication. I am therefore recommending that no further
record be kept of this executive session, unless or until the privileged communication is concluded.
By Presiding Officer:
The City Attorney has recommended that no further record be kept of this executive session. The time is
now__________ and I am turning off the tape recorder
(turn off tape recorder at this time)
(If the attorney-client communication has finished, but the executive session continues, TURN THE TAPE
RECORDER BACK ON)
By Presiding Officer:
The time is now ________________and I have turned the tape recorder back on because the privileged attorney-
client communication is concluded.
(AT THE END OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, MAKE SURE ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 2 IS MADE
BEFORE TURNING OFF THE TAPE RECORDER)
Page 224 of 229
ANNOUNCEMENT 3A
CONCLUDING 1st EXECUTIVE SESSION
ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE MADE BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER BEFORE CONCLUDING THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION (WHILE THE TAPE RECORDER IS RECORDING).
I hereby attest that this recording reflects the actual contents of the discussion at the executive session and has
been made in lieu of any written minutes to satisfy the recording requirements of the Open Meetings Law.
The tape will be retained by the City for a 90-day period.
The time now is _______________, and this executive session is concluded. Would City Manager Lewis turn
off the recording and The Governing Body please join me in the 2nd Executive Session
Page 225 of 229
ANNOUNCEMENT 1B
BEFORE EXECUTIVE SESSION COMMENCES
ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE MADE BY PRESIDING OFFICER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION (MAKE SURE THE TAPE RECORDER IS TURNED ON; DO NOT IT OFF
DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO ADVISED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY)
TURN ON RECORDING
When all are present Ask: City Attorney Tamara Niles can you please begin the recording of this Exec. Session
2?
Today’s date is September 13, 2021, and the time is ______________________.
For the record, I am Mayor Linda Olson. As required by the Open Meetings Law, this executive session is being
electronically recorded
Also present at this executive session are the following persons:
Mayor Pro Othoniel Sierra
Council Member Rita Russell
Council Member Joe Anderson
Council Member Dave Cuesta
Council Member Steven Ward
Council Member Cheryl Wink
City Attorney Tamara Niles
This is an executive session for the following purpose:
For discussion of a personnel matter under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(2)(f) and not involving: any specific
employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of this body or any elected
official; the appointment of any person to fill an office of this body or of an elected official; or personnel policies
that do not require the discussion of matters personal to particular employees;
I caution each participant to confine all discussion to the stated purpose of the executive session, and that no
formal action may occur in the executive session.
If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is going outside the proper
scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion and make an objection
Page 226 of 229
ANNOUNCEMENT 2B
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
ANNOUNCEMENTS TO BE MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR LEGAL
ADVICE, OR FOR THE DISCUSSION OF LEGAL ADVICE DURING AN EXECUTIVE
SESSION WHOSE STATED PURPOSE IS A SUBJECT OTHER THAN LEGAL ADVICE
(make sure Announcement No. 1B has been made first)
By City Attorney:
As City Attorney, it is my opinion that the discussion of the matter announced in the motion to go into executive
session constitutes a privileged attorney-client communication. I am therefore recommending that no further
record be kept of this executive session, unless or until the privileged communication is concluded.
By Presiding Officer:
The City Attorney has recommended that no further record be kept of this executive session. The time is
now__________ and I am turning off the tape recorder
(turn off tape recorder at this time)
(If the attorney-client communication has finished, but the executive session continues, TURN THE TAPE
RECORDER BACK ON)
By Presiding Officer:
The time is now ________________and I have turned the tape recorder back on because the privileged attorney-
client communication is concluded.
(AT THE END OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, MAKE SURE ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 2 IS MADE
BEFORE TURNING OFF THE TAPE RECORDER)
Page 227 of 229
ANNOUNCEMENT 3B
CONCLUDING AN EXECUTIVE SESSION
ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE MADE BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER BEFORE CONCLUDING THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION (WHILE THE TAPE RECORDER IS RECORDING).
I hereby attest that this recording reflects the actual contents of the discussion at the executive session and has
been made in lieu of any written minutes to satisfy the recording requirements of the Open Meetings Law.
The tape will be retained by the City for a 90-day period.
The time now is _______________, and this executive session is concluded. The Governing Body will now
return to the open meeting
(turn off recording and return to open meeting)
Page 228 of 229
ANNOUNCEMENT 4
RETURN TO OPEN MEETING
STATEMENT TO BE MADE BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER UPON RETURNING TO THE OPEN
MEETING
The time is now ____________________and the executive session has been concluded.
Present at the 1st executive session are the following persons:
Mayor Linda Olson
Mayor Pro Othoniel Sierra
Council Member Rita Russell
Council Member Joe Anderson
Council Member Dave Cuesta
Council Member Steven Ward
Council Member Cheryl Wink
City Manager Shawn Lewis
Present at the 2nd executive session are all of the same council members plus City Attorney Tamara Niles
I move to close the executive session; may I have a second? VOTE
For the record, if any person who participated in the executive session believes that any substantial discussion
of any matters not included in the motion to go into the executive session occurred during the executive session,
or that any improper action occurred during the executive session in violation of the Open Meetings Law, I would
ask that you state your concerns for the record
Seeing none, the next agenda item is: (13 b. 1. Council Members Choice)
Page 229 of 229