Agenda Packets - 2025/08/25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 11, 2025 Regular Meeting Page 5 cable franchise extension agreement with Comcast of Minnesota, Inc. He explained Nine North 1 did all of the work on this item and staff recommended approval of the franchise extension 2 agreement. 3 4 MOTION/SECOND: Smith/Meehlhause. To Waive the First Reading and Introduce Adopt 5 Ordinance 1047, Approving a Cable Franchise Extension Agreement with Comcast of Minnesota, 6 Inc. 7 8 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9 10 C. PUBLIC HEARING: Second Reading and Approval of Ordinance 1046, 11 Amending Mounds View City Code Chapter 92, section 92.007 of the 12 Municipal Code to Specifically Prohibit Nudity ROLL CALL VOTE. 13 14 Public Works/Parks and Recreation Director Peterson requested the Council hold the Second 15 Reading and adopt Ordinance 1046 which would amend City Code to prohibit nudity within City 16 parks. He explained this amendment was in response to a recent Minnesota State Supreme Court 17 Case when it comes to lude conduct and the state of undress. Staff commented further on the 18 proposed City Code amendment and recommended approval of Ordinance 1046. 19 20 Council Member Clark requested the Code allow nursing mothers to be within the City’s parks. 21 Public Works/Parks and Recreation Director Peterson reported he could work with the City 22 Attorney to amend the language to allow nursing mothers in City parks. 23 24 Council Member Smith questioned how the City would define appropriate swim suits, noting many 25 suits were high cut which exposed the backsides of females. Public Works/Parks and Recreation 26 Director Peterson indicated this ordinance would provide the City with a dress code for public 27 parks. He explained he could not offer a definition for an appropriate swim suit. 28 29 Mayor Lindstrom opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. 30 31 Joyce Jones Strait, 7728 Knollwood Drive, stated she believed this ordinance was extremely 32 problematic. She reported the State Supreme Court case said lude equals nude. She commented on 33 the difference between an ordinance and a law. She questioned if the laws of Minnesota were 34 applied within the boundaries of Minnesota and inquired if this ordinance would be a redundancy. 35 She was of the opinion the proposed ordinance was poorly written. She stated she did not want 36 anyone in the community to be a victim of sexual assault and she understood the State’s ruling 37 from the Supreme Court case has left the indecent exposure laws extremely ambiguous. She noted 38 for the record, breastfeeding mothers were exempt from the indecent exposure law. She believed 39 this ordinance was a huge overreach for the City Council and recommended the Council rethink 40 their position on this. 41 42 Chris Lillimo, 5132 Long Lake Road, stated he believed this ordinance was out of control. He 43 reported the law for the State of Minnesota allows breast feeding mothers to do this anywhere in 44 public. He recommended the City not step in and try to change the rules that were set by the State 45 when it comes to breastfeeding in Mounds View. He also feared the City would be discriminating 46