By Coral Gables Gazette staff

Late last year, the Coral Gables Parks and Recreation Board floated the idea of holding a public meeting to hear from residents who live near a proposed dog park planned across the street from the Coral Gables Library. The idea stalled when board members and city staff were uncertain whether the advisory board had the authority to convene such a meeting on its own.

At the board’s first meeting of the year on January 8, members finally received clarification — though not without dispute. Community Recreation Director Fred Couceyro told the board he had consulted with City Attorney Cristina Suarez and City Clerk Billy Urquia and was advised that a public meeting could be held, but only with additional approval.

Couceyro explained that there were two possible paths. One option would require the board to make a formal request to the City Commission seeking approval to hold a special public meeting. “It would have to be a formal motion from the board to the commission requesting that the board be able to do that,” Couceyro said, noting the request would appear as a specific agenda item at a commission meeting, where a board representative would explain the purpose of the proposed hearing.

A second option, Couceyro said, would involve the board recommending that the city manager authorize a special meeting. In that scenario, the manager would make that decision, without commission consent. Either way, Couceyro emphasized that any such meeting would be informational only, since the Parks and Recreation Board is advisory and lacks decision-making authority.

Former Commissioner and current board member Kirk Menendez pushed back on that interpretation, arguing that city policy already allows boards to hold special meetings without seeking permission. Menendez cited several examples, saying boards such as the Sustainability Board, Retirement Board and other boards regularly convene special meetings without commission or manager approval. “In the city’s website itself, it say. (Also) the Transportation Advisory Board can have special meetings whenever it wants,” Menendez said. 

He also referenced a 2020 administrative order from the city manager stating that city policy “in no way precludes a board or committee’s ability to schedule special meetings when circumstances dictate.” Menendez said he had never seen a written policy requiring boards to “jump through hoops” to hear from the public.

The Gazette reached out to the city clerk and city attorney on December 11 seeking clarification over the issue, with follow ups two other times, and despite acknowledging receipt of the correspondence, neither has provided a response as of the publishing of this article.

Commission scheduled to hear about dog park on January 13

Despite the inconsistencies, both Couceyro and Menendez, and other board members, acknowledged that a separate public meeting might not be necessary if residents are given the opportunity to speak at the upcoming City Commission meeting. Menendez noted that Commissioner Melissa Castro had already placed an item on the agenda related to the dog park, while Couceyro said he was scheduled to present an update on the park’s design.

Couceyro told the board he had been informed that the discussion would be set as a time-certain item at 6 p.m., allowing residents to attend after work. Menendez, however, said the most recent version of the agenda did not reflect a time-certain discussion, raising concerns about whether public input would be adequately accommodated.

The board ultimately agreed to wait and see whether the commission meeting provides a clear opportunity for opponents of the park to speak. As a contingency, Menendez sponsored a motion stating that if the City Commission does not provide an opportunity for public comment on the proposed dog park, the Parks and Recreation Board would formally request that a special meeting, town hall or other public forum be held for nearby residents. The motion passed, with one member objecting.

The board will revisit the issue after the commission meeting to determine whether further action is needed.

Immediate neighbors oppose park despite petition of support from residents further way

The controversy surrounding the proposed dog park across University Drive from the Coral Gables Library began late last year, when nearby residents learned after the fact that the commission had already approved moving the project forward. Neighbors who live closest to the triangular parcel between Riviera Drive and Cadima Avenue said they were blindsided by a November vote and had not been notified or consulted beforehand, prompting frustration and calls for a more transparent process.

Thoser concerns were first raised publicly at a December Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting, where residents questioned why neither they nor the board had been asked to weigh in before the commission acted.

Since then, opposition from the immediate neighborhood has coalesced, with residents organizing meetings, circulating their own petition and pressing city leaders to revisit the decision. While supporters of the dog park previously presented a petition with more than 200 signatures to the commission, nearby residents dispute how representative that support is, arguing that many signers do not live in the surrounding area and will not bear the brunt of traffic, parking and quality-of-life impacts.

The growing backlash has led Commissioner Castro to request the item be brought back before the commission and has fueled the Parks and Recreation Board’s ongoing debate over whether it should convene a public meeting to ensure residents’ concerns are formally heard.