Central Dog Park: A Question of Spending and Priorities

I support parks.

I support recreation.

And I support community spaces that bring residents together.

The Central Dog Park is a popular amenity in Rancho Cucamonga and many residents enjoy taking their pets there. Community spaces like this can improve quality of life and help strengthen neighborhoods.

But when a public project exceeds its expected costs or raises questions about maintenance, residents deserve clear answers about how the project was funded and how it will be maintained over time.

Transparency builds trust.

Understanding How the Dog Park Was Funded

The City has stated that the dog park was funded primarily through grants and developer impact fees, rather than the City's General Fund.

Developer impact fees are funds collected when new development projects are approved. These fees are intended to help offset the increased demand that growth places on infrastructure, parks, and other public facilities.

Because these funds do not come directly from the City's General Fund, officials often say the project did not cost taxpayers.

However, it is important to understand what that actually means.

Developer impact fees are still city-controlled public funds collected as part of the development process. They represent money that the City allocates toward certain projects and priorities.

That also means:

• It does not cost nothing to residents
• It still has an opportunity cost
• It may displace other capital priorities

Every allocation of public funds involves choices.

Questions About Project Costs

Public reports indicate that the dog park project ultimately exceeded its original grant funding.

When public projects grow beyond their original estimates, residents naturally ask questions such as:

• What was the original project budget?
• What was the final project cost?
• What improvements or changes increased the cost?
• Were additional funds approved after the project began?

These are normal questions residents ask about any major public project.

Clear explanations help maintain public confidence in how decisions are made.

Public Art and the $20,000 Sculpture

The dog park also includes a decorative sculpture reportedly costing approximately $20,000, created by Nevada-based artist Seth Johnson and shipped to Rancho Cucamonga.

Public art can enhance community spaces and create memorable landmarks.

At the same time, some residents have asked whether future projects could also consider opportunities for local artists.

For example, a public competition among Rancho Cucamonga artists could encourage local creativity while keeping more economic activity within the community.

This is not criticism of the artwork or the artist.

It is simply a broader conversation about how public projects can support local talent and community identity.

Maintenance Concerns Raised by Residents

During recent City Council meetings, several residents spoke during public comment about the current condition and maintenance schedule of the dog park.

Speakers noted that the park includes three separate activity areas, but that only one section has been open for regular use, with the others remaining closed for extended periods.

Some residents suggested that rotating access between sections could help reduce wear and allow sections of the park to recover.

Residents also expressed concerns about odor and sanitation issues, including the smell of dog urine and waste.

One speaker compared Rancho Cucamonga's maintenance schedule to the nearby dog park in Upland, noting that Upland reportedly cleans its dog park daily, while Rancho Cucamonga's park has been described as being cleaned approximately once per week.

These comments highlight an important issue with public facilities:

Building a park is only the first step.
Long-term maintenance determines the quality of the experience residents receive.

What Residents Expect

Residents who use the dog park want it to succeed.

Most of the comments made during public meetings reflected that same sentiment: people appreciate the park and want it to remain clean, safe, and enjoyable.

That raises a broader planning question:

When the City invests in new facilities, are adequate resources being allocated to maintain them properly over time?

Responsible planning considers not only the initial construction cost, but also the ongoing cost of maintenance and upkeep.

The Bigger Principle

Projects like the dog park remind us that public spending always involves priorities.

Even when funding comes from grants or impact fees rather than the General Fund, those funds still represent choices about how resources are used.

Residents deserve to understand:

• how projects are funded
• how costs change during construction
• and how facilities will be maintained in the future

Transparency builds trust between City Hall and the community.

David VanGorden's Position

I am not opposed to parks.

I am not opposed to public art.

And I certainly support spaces where residents can enjoy time with their families and pets.

What I believe residents deserve is clear explanations and responsible spending.

If elected, I will work to ensure that:

• Major projects include clear cost comparisons and explanations
• Funding sources are communicated transparently
• Long-term maintenance costs are considered before projects are approved
• Public funds are used in ways that reflect community priorities

Good government is not about criticizing projects after they are built.

It is about making sure residents understand how decisions are made before they happen.

Because spending without clarity erodes trust.

And transparency strengthens it.