New Runway Dog Park? Maybe Not

Runway Dog Park. Photo courtesy of Milwaukee County Parks.

The question of whether or not the county should replace Runway Dog Park is likely one most of the Milwaukee County Board can agree on. But when to replace it, and with what money: that’s another story.

In 2022, the largest dog park in the Milwaukee County Parks system was shut down after the Federal Aviation Administration determined that the dog park, which sat on Milwaukee Mitchell Airport property, was in violation of federal rules regarding airport land use.

A resolution allocating $75,000 would initiate a process to plan and design a replacement. But after hearing concerns about the source of the funding and the timeline to get the work done, two different county board committees have taken different positions. The proposal now appears stuck before the board’s Committee on Finance.

On Tuesday, the Committee on Parks and Culture voted unanimously in favor of the project, though not before members aired some reservations. On Thursday, the Committee on Finance, however, voted to hold the item in committee.

Supervisor Ryan Clancy said his resolution would “start to fix” an issue that has disappointed his constituents and that the closure of Runway has added traffic and wear and tear to other dog parks.

“Dog parks are great spaces for socialization, both for recreation for peoples and pooches,” Clancy told his colleagues on the finance committee.

Parks previously submitted the project as part of its long list of project funding requests for the 2024 budget. But an ad-hoc committee scored the project near the bottom of a priority list.

The funding in Clancy’s resolution would come from the county’s rainy day account. Given that it’s still only the first month of the year, Parks Director Guy Smith expressed trepidation about pulling from the account to fund the dog park project, 1214 E. Rawson Ave. “We try to be as fiscally responsible as we can,” he told the parks committee Tuesday. 

The recent cold snap led to several ruptured water mains throughout the parks system, Smith said. The department is currently covering repairs with funds within its budget, he said, explaining that it is these types of unforeseen expenses that could cause parks to return for funding from the rainy day account in the future. “There’s a lot more of the year to progress, and I  may have to come before you for other issues,” he said.

Supervisor Steve Taylor said the disappearance of Runway Dog Park is an issue he has heard a lot about in his district. Clancy also noted it was one of the issues he hears about the most. Sup. Juan Miguel Martinez noted that while campaigning for re-election he to has heard a lot of interest from constituents in dog parks.

At the parks committee Sup. Felesia Martin wondered whether the board shouldn’t hold off on funding the project now and instead try to fit it in the 2025 budget. Sup. Sheldon Wasserman, chair of the committee, joked with his colleagues, “I will tell you, that to vote against dogs in an election season is stupidity at its finest.”

The committee unanimously endorsed the project, sending it to the finance committee. But Taylor warned that he may change his vote a few days later, pending more information from parks on the timeline and capacity to complete the project this year.

And change his vote he did.

During the finance meeting Thursday, Smith said it’s unlikely that Parks could complete the project design in time to request construction funding for 2025. That would push construction back to 2026 at the earliest. The estimate was based on conversations with the departments planners and with the county’s engineering division.

Taylor successfully moved to hold Clancy’s proposal.

The proposal now sits in an unusual place: endorsed by one committee but stuck in another. And even under a perfect scenario, the replacement park could still be at least another election cycle away.