Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Off Leash Dog Areas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City kicks off off‑leash work group; board raises questions about consultant prep and accountability
Summary
Staff reported a Jan. 22 kickoff of a community work group to identify off‑leash dog areas ahead of an ordinance effective May 19; board members sought more guidance from the Natural Resources Master Plan, asked about enforcement roles for public safety, and questioned consultant facilitation and who is accountable for the group's success.
Matt (park project manager) reported that the community work group held its first meeting Jan. 22 and includes public works, public safety, two park board representatives, members of Friends of Minnetonka Parks, representatives of the Paws organization and five residents appointed through Minnetonka Matters.
The group's stated goal is to produce themes and criteria for candidate off‑leash areas — balancing safety, park user impacts and natural resources protection — and to recommend designated areas in advance of a May 19 ordinance effective date. Matt said the Feb. 19 meeting will begin to dive into specifics on site characteristics and constraints.
Board members asked whether the community service officer or public safety would actively participate to ensure recommendations are enforceable. Staff said Captain Meehan would attend and “answer questions and guide the group,” and that enforcement considerations (signage, location characteristics) will be part of the discussion.
Several board members requested that relevant planning documents — including the Natural Resources Master Plan (NRMP) and the purgatory master plan materials — be made available to the work group so members can evaluate candidate sites against ecological guidance. A number of board members said the first meeting felt underprepared (limited pre‑meeting materials and best‑practice guidance) and expressed concern about consultant facilitation; one board member said the consultants' performance at the first meeting made them “a little nervous” about who is accountable for meeting success. Staff responded that recommendations will come back to the Park Board and then to City Council, and said staff will aim to provide clearer guidance and materials in advance of the next meeting.
The work group has two more meetings scheduled before recommendations are due; the board discussed whether it will be asked only to review and comment or to approve final recommendations and requested clarification on that role before later meetings.
No formal decision was taken on Feb. 5; staff said timing and next steps will be returned to the Park Board for review and that there may be an extra meeting in late April or early May to accommodate the schedule.
