Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council August 11, 2025 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />City Administrator Zikmund requested the Council introduce an ordinance that would approve a <br />cable franchise extension agreement with Comcast of Minnesota, Inc. He explained Nine North <br />did all of the work on this item and staff recommended approval of the franchise extension <br />agreement. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Smith/Meehlhause. To Waive the First Reading and Introduce Adopt <br />Ordinance 1047, Approving a Cable Franchise Extension Agreement with Comcast of Minnesota, <br />Inc. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br /> <br />C. PUBLIC HEARING: Second Reading and Approval of Ordinance 1046, <br />Amending Mounds View City Code Chapter 92, section 92.007 of the <br />Municipal Code to Specifically Prohibit Nudity ROLL CALL VOTE. <br /> <br />Public Works/Parks and Recreation Director Peterson requested the Council hold the Second <br />Reading and adopt Ordinance 1046 which would amend City Code to prohibit nudity within City <br />parks. He explained this amendment was in response to a recent Minnesota State Supreme Court <br />Case when it comes to lude conduct and the state of undress. Staff commented further on the <br />proposed City Code amendment and recommended approval of Ordinance 1046. <br /> <br />Council Member Clark requested the Code allow nursing mothers to be within the City’s parks. <br />Public Works/Parks and Recreation Director Peterson reported he could work with the City <br />Attorney to amend the language to allow nursing mothers in City parks. <br /> <br />Council Member Smith questioned how the City would define appropriate swim suits, noting many <br />suits were high cut which exposed the backsides of females. Public Works/Parks and Recreation <br />Director Peterson indicated this ordinance would provide the City with a dress code for public <br />parks. He explained he could not offer a definition for an appropriate swim suit. <br /> <br />Mayor Lindstrom opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. <br /> <br />Joyce Jones Strait, 7728 Knollwood Drive, stated she believed this ordinance was extremely <br />problematic. She reported the State Supreme Court case said lude equals nude. She commented on <br />the difference between an ordinance and a law. She questioned if the laws of Minnesota were <br />applied within the boundaries of Minnesota and inquired if this ordinance would be a redundancy. <br />She was of the opinion the proposed ordinance was poorly written. She stated she did not want <br />anyone in the community to be a victim of sexual assault and she understood the State’s ruling <br />from the Supreme Court case has left the indecent exposure laws extremely ambiguous. She noted <br />for the record, breastfeeding mothers were exempt from the indecent exposure law. She believed <br />this ordinance was a huge overreach for the City Council and recommended the Council rethink <br />their position on this. <br /> <br />Chris Lillimo, 5132 Long Lake Road, stated he believed this ordinance was out of control. He <br />reported the law for the State of Minnesota allows breast feeding mothers to do this anywhere in