298 Walton Avenue Memo

Neighbors - the Board of Trustees received four responses from our RFP for 298 Walton Avenue (a dog daycare and boarding facility, a training/fitness facility, youth after school programming/summer camps, and a spay/neuter clinic with a 7 day municipal hold for dogs). This was an incredibly difficult decision and I know the emotions and passion from our residents were very high on this topic. The Board of Trustees received hundreds of emails and petitions (on all sides), we hosted a community forum, and on Monday night we needed to make a decision which ultimately would leave three out of four groups disappointed, which is never easy. A working group of myself, Trustees and staff (supplemented by the interviews and public input at the public forum) evaluated the proposals on a number of criteria, including:


1. Suitability of the proposed use for the facility and the site, (including the need for modifications to the facility and site, the interaction or conflict of the use with adjacent DPW use, the adequacy and safety of ingress and egress from the site, and the adequacy of the available parking);


2. Compatibility of the proposed use with, and its impact on, the surrounding neighborhood. (Including, hours of operation, nature of operation, traffic impacts);


3. Public Benefit provided by the use


4. Village’s Animal Control Services; and


5. Financial Benefit to the Village


Ultimately, the Board selected Run Jump Lift. Attached to this post is a detailed 10-page memo which I read into the record last night and I encourage everyone who was following this topic to review our findings to better understand why we selected RJL for the 298 Walton site (it will be a five year lease agreement).

http://southorange.org/DocumentCenter/View/802

Thanks,

Sheena


Thank you, Sheena. I read the document and I'm glad you shared it.


Too bad. Community needs more drop off options for kids. Yay. A gym for people with a lot of money.


While I like People for Animals as a group I am sad that some people supporting that option got so nasty during and after the decision. As I respect the feeling of those who live in the area.


how do you know how much money people have for a gym?

Just the kind of nasty comments the Village president was talking about.

ApartmentSeeker said:

Too bad. Community needs more drop off options for kids. Yay. A gym for people with a lot of money.



how do you know how much money people have for a gym?

Just the kind of nasty comments the Village president was talking about.

ApartmentSeeker said:

Too bad. Community needs more drop off options for kids. Yay. A gym for people with a lot of money.



Did you read the report - there were a number of valid reasons for nixing the YMCA proposal. The Y never clarified how it was going to manage the drop off of the kids given the challenges schools buses would have on that road nor was there any clear proposal to provide for a safe drop off on walton due to the lack of sidewalks.

ApartmentSeeker said:

Too bad. Community needs more drop off options for kids. Yay. A gym for people with a lot of money.



Thanks for posting this. I appreciate the thoroughness of the report, it's thought process AND the supporting data.


RJL is thinking damn, we left at least $50k on the table.


Couldn't have been an easy decision and any decision is going to disappoint someone. The nice part everyone should cheer is how openly the process was conducted.



dave said:

Couldn't have been an easy decision and any decision is going to disappoint someone. The nice part everyone should cheer is how openly the process was conducted.

Exactly. There Is Bound to be disappointment, but I continue to be impressed by the board's transparency and willingness to be open. And willingness to work with the "losing" parties to work out a solution for them as well


I feel bad for the animals .. this was a great opportunity to have People for Animal in that location.



HarleyQuinn said:

I feel bad for the animals .. this was a great opportunity to have People for Animal in that location.

I am sure that the BOT lead by Sheena will look into alternate opportunities



librarylady said:



HarleyQuinn said:

I feel bad for the animals .. this was a great opportunity to have People for Animal in that location.

I am sure that the BOT lead by Sheena will look into alternate opportunities

Librarylady, I'm really confused by your comment. Can you please elaborate?


If the shelter advocates could just let go of that location, they'd find a few more allies and fewer opponents.



librarylady said:



HarleyQuinn said:

I feel bad for the animals .. this was a great opportunity to have People for Animal in that location.

I am sure that the BOT lead by Sheena will look into alternate opportunities

This was a building specifically constructed to hold animals and paid for in part by donations made for that purpose. And it is located across from a water pumping station and right up the hill from the Department of Public Works. Can you think of a more suitable location in South Orange?



MaryGee said:



librarylady said:



HarleyQuinn said:

I feel bad for the animals .. this was a great opportunity to have People for Animal in that location.

I am sure that the BOT lead by Sheena will look into alternate opportunities

This was a building specifically constructed to hold animals and paid for in part by donations made for that purpose. And it is located across from a water pumping station and right up the hill from the Department of Public Works. Can you think of a more suitable location in South Orange?

This argument has been going on for a few years now, rehashed exactly the same way over and over. First, the fact that donations were made means nothing. Zip. Nada. Those donations were made to the JAC, which screwed everyone over when it comes to that site. Second, after that screwing, the residents there do not want any type of shelter, even though this iteration seemed very professional. Third, a more industrial area would be better, and since we don't have many of those in South Orange, it may not be here. It may be in East Orange, or Irvington, or some other town where those buildings exist. Finally, as Tom said and others including me have now said for a few years, get away from that building and you will lose all of the opposition. Who wants to start a business venture of any sort with a large negative right off of the bat?


The report revealed statistics relating to the number of our local strays. I do not believe that this small number (averaging 2.88 stays per month) justifies reusing the building as a holding facility/shelter.

And, the traffic issues relating to the other three proposals appear to be significant, conflicting with the SO DPW operations and posing serious safety concerns in the case of the Y's proposal.

"With respect to stray dogs caught by the ACO and formerly held at the JAC and at alternate
locations since, it is important to understand the magnitude or number of these dogs. The table
below provides the total number of dogs “held” from South Orange and Maplewood (and the
combined total) for the past four years.

Year South Orange Maplewood Combined
2012 12 24 36
2013 12 17 29
2014 18 20 38
2015 11 24 35
Average Per Year 3.25 21.25 34.5
Average Per Month 1.10 1.77 2.88
"


eta: sorry, cannot align the data columns I copied from the report



bigben_again said:



librarylady said:



HarleyQuinn said:

I feel bad for the animals .. this was a great opportunity to have People for Animal in that location.

I am sure that the BOT lead by Sheena will look into alternate opportunities

Librarylady, I'm really confused by your comment. Can you please elaborate?

Simple really. The Board acknowledged a need . I am sure that they will look into other placements and opportunities and act appropriately for the benefit of both the animals and the community. Perhaps a partnership with Maplewood and/or Livingston. It seems, from the numbers, we dont have a large enough of a stray problem to house a shelter specifically for SO animals and this might be an opportunity for merging services across the county.


I personal feel that South Orange/ Maplewood dose not need another gym
especially with the high price they are charging. We have plenty of gyms. I
personally feel that the building at 298 Walton Avenue would be best as non kill
animal shelter which is something that both towns desperately need.



MickeyMouse said:

I personal feel that South Orange/ Maplewood dose not need another gym
especially with the high price they are charging. We have plenty of gyms. I
personally feel that the building at 298 Walton Avenue would be best as non kill
animal shelter which is something that both towns desperately need.

Why do you say it is desperately needed? What is wrong with buying the service considering there were less than 3 dogs/month and most were reunited with their owners within a day or two? Lots of building have been built and then times changed and the buildings were re-purposed. Many office buildings in NYC are now residential. Many warehouses are now residential lofts including a couple in Orange.

And if the gym is doing well and has a large following then maybe it did make sense to let the gym continue. for what you consider a high price, other people obviously consider to be reasonable.



Raise your hand if you'd personally like to live adjacent to an animal shelter. Didn't think so.



annielou said:

Raise your hand if you'd personally like to live adjacent to an animal shelter. Didn't think so.

Been there, done that. Its not like those of us in the neighborhood haven't already given this the college try.


So it turns out that the Livingston Animal Shelter is not a legal shelter. It doesn't have an isolation room which is required by state law. This where South Orange has been taking stray dogs.

Is South Orange going to continue taking dogs there since it doesn't have a legal license?



citizenjane said:

So it turns out that the Livingston Animal Shelter is not a legal shelter. It doesn't have an isolation room which is required by state law. This where South Orange has been taking stray dogs.

Is South Orange going to continue taking dogs there since it doesn't have a legal license?

Standard operating procedure is for South Orange to wait until enough people call Linda Frese of the State Department of Health. She had to take the time out of her busy agenda to close the JAC, and then to drag herself to the East Orange pound a year later to give the vet that South Orange was using a failed inspection.. The town loves added drama such as the fact that he euthanized 4 of our local rescues cats that he was supposed to board. They typically like a great deal of media coverage as well.

The Office of Animal Welfare
Infectious and Zoonotic Disease Program
New Jersey Department of HealthPhone: 609-826-4872 or 609-826-5964
Fax: 609-826-3700



Can someone tell me why so many facilities are poorly run? It seems like every 6 months we hear about another shelter that is busted for poor management or abuse or improper licensing. The JAC was just one example of a terribly run place. Thank heavens our town is not involved in one anymore.


Filmcarp, with all due respect, before anybody takes the time to craft a detailed response, are you really interested in getting an answer to your question or is this just a snarky attempt to take a dig at animal advocates? Because the last sentence of your post kind of suggests the latter.


Snark is as snark does, read the post above mine and ask Morganna that question. I will be the first in line to donate to a well run regional shelter, but I'm tired of people attacking our town over this.


Okay, Filmcarp, then I don't need to provide you a thoughtful, detailed answer to what was actually a pretty good question.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.