Council leans toward fenced off‑leash area at Purgatory Park after staff report on noncompliance

Minnetonka, Minn. — Minnetonka City staff told the council on June 15 that the trial off‑leash configuration at Purgatory Park has produced recurring noncompliance and confusion about where dogs may be off‑leash, and recommended clearer physical delineation to improve enforcement.

Matt Kuma, the parks staff lead, summarized the pilot’s background and mapping: council adopted revised off‑leash ordinance language in November 2024 and staff implemented soft barriers and an “unleash corridor” in 2025. Kuma said the two southern off‑leash areas together measure about 18.8 acres and the corridor runs just over a half mile. He told council that terrain, numerous informal trails and the difficulty of orienting park users to posted maps made the signage plan “pretty tricky” to implement and enforce.

Police Captain Rachel Mihan presented the enforcement data that helped shape staff recommendations. The QR‑code reporting system generated 142 reports citywide; 128 concerned Purgatory Park, submitted by 24 unique users, and “81% of all the reports came from just three individuals,” Mihan said, adding that staff had reviewed those reports and found them credible. Trail‑camera monitoring showed roughly 70% compliance at the Southern Creek Bridge intersection but as low as about 20–27% compliance at other primary trail entrances. “Establishing a clear, visible, and understandable boundary is the most important next step to improve compliance,” Mihan said.

Staff presented four options for council consideration: (1) continue the current layout and bolster signs and education; (2) enhance the corridor and install limited fencing and entry features (a back‑of‑envelope $25,000 for low‑cost enhancements was mentioned by staff); (3) remove the corridor and build new fully fenced areas south of the main lot (estimates presented included about $140,000 for one 2,000‑foot fenced area and $250,000 for a larger 3,700‑foot installation); and (4) a fenced configuration at an alternative site in the park with similar order‑of‑magnitude costs.

Council members traded concerns over park character, public safety and cost. Councilmember Kimberly Wilburn said she was “leaning towards option four,” arguing a fenced area would make compliance and enforcement clearer. “I think having an area that’s sort of separate so that off‑leash is going one way and everyone else is going another way… you’ll have less interactions,” Wilburn said. Councilmember Paty Foster Bolton and others expressed similar views. By contrast, Councilmember Deb Calvert cautioned that about 70% of users complied with the rules in some monitored locations and warned that fencing would change the preserve’s character; she and others urged staff to pursue lower‑impact or phased options where feasible.

Several council members pushed staff to explore lower‑cost materials and to consider the city’s corrections‑program labor as a possible way to reduce installation costs; staff responded that labor and access are significant cost drivers because some locations require equipment and site prep that raise installation costs beyond the raw material price.

With staff asking for direction, the council’s conversation produced a practical outcome: staff said they heard a clear leaning toward the fully fenced option and will return to a regular council meeting with refined cost estimates, alternative materials and staging scenarios, a plan for interim enforcement and education measures, and recommendations on how to phase work to reduce environmental and budget impacts.

What happens next: Staff will come back with sharper cost estimates and an implementation plan that addresses tree/soil protection, wetland buffering and enforcement transition measures. No formal vote was taken at the June 15 study session.