City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, I got the motion. We call the meeting to order. Roll call, please. Oh, sorry, we'll start with the stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance. There we go. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Amen.

Thank you. Roll call, please.

Council Member Norby?

Here.

Council Member Woods is absent. Council Member McKenzie?

Here.

Council Member Schwer is absent. Mayor Monge?

Here. Thank you very much. May I have a motion to adopt the agenda, please?

So moved.

So moved. Council Member Norby?

Second.

Second. Council Member McKenzie? All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Thank you, Mayor. First up, we have presentations and proclamations. First item up, if you wouldn't mind coming up, Officer Fleming, that'd be great. So really appreciate you stepping up. We have recognition of you stepping up. Chief Rosales was absent for a little bit and just really appreciate you doing that. I mean, there was no complaint, stepped up, did the job, did a great job and really appreciate it. So we'd like to recognize and expressed our sincere appreciation to Detective Peyton Fleming for his outstanding service to our community while serving as acting chief. for the North St. Paul Police Department during Police Chief Ray Rosales' absence. During this time, Detective Fleming stepped up into a leadership role and took on significant additional responsibilities to help ensure the police department continued to operate effectively and our community remained safe and well served. In addition to his responsibility as acting chief, Detective Fleming continued to carry on his regular duties as detective. His ability to balance both roles reflects his professionalism, dedication, and commitment to the city. Detective Fleming, thank you for your dedication, your leadership, and your continued service to the city of North St. Paul. We are grateful to have you on the team and appreciate what you've done for our city. So thank you so much. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Thank you. I had a lot of help. So I'm grateful for the opportunity. City staff, everybody down at the police department could not have done it without help. So I appreciate it.

Thank you.

And the team.

Appreciate it.

All right, next up we have the proclamation for the POW MIA recognition day. And whereas the people of the city of North St. Paul recognize with profound gratitude the bravery, sacrifice, and suffering of all those who have served our country, particularly those who have been detained as prisoners of war or who are still missing in action. And whereas Minnesota law, Minnesota statute, 10.576 designated the third Friday in September in each year as POW and MIA recognition day to honor and recognize the courage and sacrifices of individuals from Minnesota who have been prisoners of war or remain missing in action. And whereas the families of those who are missing continue to live with uncertainty and longing, and it is our duty as citizens to ensure their loved ones are not forgotten. And whereas it is fitting to observe this day with ceremonies that educate the public, memorialize those who are unaccounted for, and renew our commitment to account for them. And whereas this day serves as a reminder that the freedom we enjoy comes at great cost, and that the service and sacrifice of all POWs and MIAs are integral to the story of our nation's strength and character, Now there, Mayor John Mangi for the City of North St. Paul on behalf of the City Council does hereby proclaim Friday, September 18th, 2026 as POW MIA Recognition Day in the City of North St. Paul, Minnesota and urge all residents to observe the day with due respect, remembrance, and appropriate ceremonies to honor those who have served and those who were lost and those whose fate remain unknown. Next up we have a proclamation of Constitution Week. So whereas the Constitution of the United States of America, the guardians of the liberties embodies the principles of limited government in a republic dedicated to rule by law, and whereas September 17th, 2026 marks the 239th anniversary of drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America, by the Constitutional Convention, and whereas it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to the magnificent document and its memorable anniversary, and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate it, and whereas Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of proclamation each year by the President of the United States of America, designating September 17th through the 23rd as Constitutional Week. Now therefore, on behalf of the City Council and City of North St. Paul, Mayor Monge of the City of North St. Paul, on behalf of the City Council, does your right proclaim the week of September 17th through the 23rd as Constitution Week. And be it further resolved, he asks that all citizens to reaffirm the ideals the framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through these guardians of our liberties.

Thank you very much, Brian.

Next up, we have the Consent Agenda. Item A, August 18th, 2026, City Council Workshop and Regular Meeting Minutes. Item B, general claims of $775,310.19. Item C, HRA claims of $262,191.04. Item D, elect department purchase of eco kits. And item E, charitable gambling permit for Northern Fusion synchronized skating. Looking for a motion.

Anybody like to pull any at this time?

Did he call off the ordinance for the chickens?

No, no. That's under business action items.

This is the charitable and the electric department for the kits.

No, I'm okay.

Anything on your end, Jason? If not, may I have a motion? So moved. So moved. Council Member Kinsey? Second. Second. Council Member Norby? All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Thank you.

All right. We are open to the public for three minutes per person. Dave Nelson, please. Yeah, you can sit down please now.

Okay, this is gonna be 17th and Margaret and B and Margaret. People are not supposed to cross the white line to make a right turn. Up here, I'm in the proper lane making the right turn Some people are blowing their horn. They feel I'm cutting them off. I can see they have in the space where a truck with a trailer, when the truck with the lawnmower, all their stuff in there, they make the right turn, the trailer is two feet from the curb. But they're not supposed to be crossing. Okay. Also, real bad down there, rolling stops. When we're coming by the church there, we can see the cars when there's nobody's parked. They come up there real close. They don't even stop.

Boom!

Right straight through. As the laws change, I'd like to know about it. On front of our house, at 11 o'clock, all the way into 2, 2.30 in the morning, there's drag racing. People going down 4th. and I don't know if they're headed for Charles or 120. I told my wife is why don't you call the officers and let them know. Last time she called the officers, she's got, and this was over a year ago, she'll never call them again. She's like got the bad, they were kind of not happy about when she called. And we have a blind intersection The T, where I'm at, there's little kids on there. I only drive 10 miles an hour to watch for the little kids with their little tiny bikes. All of a sudden, there's weeds that are this high. When you're sitting in your car, you cannot see anybody coming. I come within eight inches of broadsiding that guy's truck. And then we got hit.

What street is this?

It's an alley between 4th and 3rd. 3rd and 4th? Yeah. And it's a T. And one time we come out, we almost got broadsided. And another time when you're going that slow, there's a little kid almost, you know, you had to stop real quick. They need to cut the bushes down, or, you know, because they got the highline pole, they got the rod that comes here that holds the pole. Clean that out. That guy that lives there refuses to do anything. I already turned it in twice for them to have it cut. It has not been cut yet. I called the electric department. And that, and, but the main thing is up there where the white lines are, We had the same problem on 17 and 120. The State Patrol took and put lines in there so that to tell the people not to cross That probably should be done up there. Okay. And now with school starting, I hate to see somebody running the stoplight with the kids coming at school and what they're doing, because if they change the law, that's legal to run the stop sign like they're doing. No.

That sure isn't, so thank you.

Thanks, Dave.

Thanks, Dave. Can I jog that?

Yep.

Okay.

John.

You're going to use jogs in three minutes.

That's right.

Hey, John. John Schmall, 2750 Chisholm Avenue. These electric rates, the situation with not having the full amount for the power adjustment, and now the finance director at the last meeting said we won't have a electric rate for three years. Unbelievable, a miracle to have electric rates be held steady for three years. Why do I say that? I've had my cabin in Wisconsin for 30 years. XL has never had a power adjustment until a letter came that said they're throwing in the towel. They can't do it anymore. The fuel adjustment has just gone wild. We have to have a fuel adjustment. And I can't believe that you don't tell the public. This is the only place that the information was that you're not raising the rates. It's amazing. The world and the electric rates have gone wild, but not in North St. Paul, according to the finance director. How is that possible? As I said, it's a miracle that you can do this. Put it in the Wednesday newsletter. Tell the residents of what is happening. They should cheer this. And you people who are running for the next term, Put that on your curriculum vitae. I held the electric rates. I don't know how you can do it. It's amazing. Tell the residents what a wonderful place this is. Thank you. Thanks, John.

I had something on geese.

Don't forget your geese. I wondered where the geese went. They're at that holding pond or whatever it is off of Shawnee, and you should see the goose crap. It is unreal.

At least you found them. Thank you.

Thanks, John.

Thanks, John. All right.

All right, next up is the city business action items and recommendations. Item A is animal ordinance text amendment with chicken keeping.

Thank you. So we have a animal ordinance text amendment about chicken keeping and a little bit of background. This was upon request of the city code enforcement officer who recommended that we review the ordinance due to resident challenges in complying with existing regulations. And we reviewed the regulations and we determined that it can be revised to improve and develop a more user-friendly ordinance and also comply with the League of Minnesota Cities recommendations. And so we presented to the Planning Commission on August 6th. and they reviewed the proposed text amendment for chicken keeping and they voted four to zero to recommend approval of the animal ordinance text amendment with minor changes proposed by the commission. And so this, text amendment amends the distance of a coop or run from all property lines from 15 feet to five feet. And then it also includes additional language regarding the permissibility of slaughtering chickens for cultural purposes only. It also clarifies that chicken keeping regulations apply to residential properties and also provides a couple of grammatical corrections. And as you can see here, we have just a couple of grammatical corrections. We also see that we add like on residential properties to specify that. And on top of that, we also change the setback from 15 feet to five feet and add that slaughtering onsite is prohibited except for cultural purposes. And then in this section, we just have a small minor grammatical correction. And city staff are recommending that the city council adopt the proposed animal ordinance tax amendment amending portions of chapter 95 of the North St. Paul City Code regarding the keeping of chickens. And do you have any questions?

Yeah. Why would you go from 15 feet? Is that the five feet to run the whole property line of residents that they can run?

Yeah, the setback would be instead of 15 feet.

From their property line to that? To five feet. No, it's got to be at 15 feet. I don't like that. I wouldn't want to be a resident listening to chickens running back and forth. I've read the ordinances for Woodbury, Oakdale, White Bear, and Maplewood, and I don't like our ordinance allowing chickens to run up and down along somebody's property. And all depends on how they're going to deceased the birds, and I've seen it where, in fact, I've been to people's houses years ago where they used to cut the heads off and let them run. Are you going to allow that?

No, we would not allow that.

How do you know that won't happen?

Based on the ordinance.

Do you think someone's going to follow the ordinance? Do you think our code enforcement is going to go out there and check? Uh-uh. I don't believe it. I have a hard time getting them out of the check ordinances now.

Go ahead and finish what you're saying.

Oh, I was just saying that like we have some regulations in the ordinance to like ensure that hens are kept in the coop or if they are not in the coop that there has to be a fence. But yeah, I definitely understand.

Are they going to put a 10 or 20 foot fence up so they stay within the property? We had birds running loose on our neighborhood within the last two and three years. That ain't going to happen. I don't like that.

Not the resident's problem to chase chickens around.

Will our code enforcement come and take them, pick them up? I doubt it.

What do we have now as far as fencing? Where is it? Now it's 15, it's going from 15. Now is this where their coops can be, 15 from the property line?

Yes, it's for the coop and ones. Now it's gonna go to five.

Not fair to the next door resident. Especially if you have two residents who communicate with each other, it'll be a war. The city will be in the middle of it.

Did you want to put that up for a vote?

I'm just trying to get some more questions on it first to begin with.

Jason, do you want to add anything from the...

The Planning Commission, they voted on it, I imagine.

I guess one thing, Jason, before... I don't know how many, there was only four folks at the planning commission that night, and I know Chairman Bleese was not there. I would like to have heard his state on this, and I think there was two others that were not there. I'm not sure how many are on the commission now. There's six, and there was four. So I would like to have a different type of dialogue on what their thoughts are because chairman patrick police has been in the city as many years as i have and i know they're i hope he would have a different outlook on on residents having to deal with other residents chickens mr mayor uh and for council member mckenzie is the

Biggest concern, changing the setback from 15 feet to 5 feet?

Yep.

Okay. And what we were told by code enforcement is because of some of the small lots, by having the 15-foot setback, that creates very limited spaces where coops or runs can even fit. on a property. And that might be.

That's what they live on, that's what they chose.

Right.

I wouldn't want to live next to a chicken coop, I'll guarantee you one thing, they wouldn't be around.

Is it your concern that by moving it 10 feet closer that it'll be just that more impactful or noisy on the neighbor?

Okay.

And then if they only have a four-foot fence, the chickens can jump over a four-foot fence easy. That's why I'm saying, are they gonna put a cage up there 10 feet more taller?

Well, the coops are supposed to keep them enclosed. Now, we can't help it when people let their chickens out and run because- They hop the fence. Well, right. And we're not proposing any changes to the fence ordinance to accommodate that. Because there are no fence ordinance regulations in the chicken ordinance.

Because they're supposed to be enclosed in the coop. I've seen our neighbor has chicken wire around the coop itself.

Supposed to be, but they do get out.

They can get out, but yeah.

SOAKING DOGS.

IN YOUR STATEMENT, YOU SAID SOME OF THESE CHANGES WERE TO KEEP IT IN LINE WITH OTHER CITIES AND THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES RECOMMENDATION.

RIGHT.

DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA RECOMMENDATION IS FOR SETBACK AND WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE FOR SETBACKS?

In terms of the setbacks, I'm not sure about Ligas and Minnesota cities. That was more based on like the slaughtering provision. I might have it written down where like the other ordinances of other cities, I remember like setbacks being like about 10 or 5 feet. I think that's why we landed on 5 feet is because most other ordinances it was not as big at 15 feet.

because I looked at Woodbury's, they don't allow chickens in their residential areas. You can have, in Woodbury, if they're out, basically on the outsides of Manning Avenue, you have more of a property line, and you have more farming area, things like that, they can have the chickens out there, but within the residential area, they do not allow it. So why do we want to allow any more than what we have already? And... the more chickens you get, the more your seniors are gonna move out.

You had said some of these changes were made by the recommendation of code enforcement. When code enforcement made these recommendations, did they give you a distance that they recommended, or was this just done by research?

I believe, if I'm remembering correctly, it was just done by research, but code enforcement did want to reduce the setback.

How is the code enforcement going to enforce this if someone calls that they have chickens loose? Are they actually going to come out and pick the chickens up? Well, then why would they want to do a different code variance or whatever the changing if they're not going to come out and take care of it? If they don't come out and take care of the codes that we have already, what's the purpose of having a code then?

Well, we like to think at least 90% of the people will actually follow the code. It's the 10% that create the work.

Because there's no fencing. It just has to be inside the coop. They're not supposed to have the chickens out. Some people let them out just for exercise or whatever, but that's something we can't control. I like the old setback because I think when you're neighborly, if you're five feet off, I think that's really close to a property line myself. I don't like that idea just because then it becomes kind of tenuous between the neighbors. It's like all of a sudden you have your chickens out there and now they're right there on the line. I would prefer, my thought would be to keep it at 15 feet. I get one more question.

What happens if the chicken gets out and you have all the doo-doo all over somebody else's property? Who's going to clean it up?

I think the attorney would tell you that's a civil matter between the property owners.

Right now, if we're just doing setback, apples to apples, because right now the cages are supposed to be enclosed from the cage. They're supposed to take care of their chickens. We're going to assume that's going to happen. It's just are you going to be five feet off the property line or are you going to be to keep it at the 15 feet off the property line is what we're trying to decipher here.

Or another setback. Or another setback. Yes.

I don't like five myself. I think that's just too close to somebody's property line. Just because it's, then it becomes this, you know, why you have it so close to mine, put it on the other side of your yard.

So. Well, council certainly has the option to either amend the ordinance as proposed or refer it back to the planning commission.

I'd like to, my opinion would be for it back to the planning commission as far as just kind of what we, where we're at with it. I mean, you got two that are, I don't know what your thought is. You haven't got there yet.

I don't have a firm feeling one way or other, but I do like to support and take in the wishes of our code enforcement. So I wouldn't mind seeing some change, but I would be fine with an amendment to 10. I would be fine with sending it back to council because I do really want to support our code enforcement. And if code enforcement was asking for it to be lowered, There was a reason for it and I want to take that to heart.

How many people do we have in town that have chicken licenses? What are we talking about here?

How many of the licenses?

Do we have any idea? I don't think it's more than 15. I mean, there's 13,000 people and there's 15 people that have chickens. At least that we know of. Well, they're supposed to. If they're not, they're not registered. That's a problem too. Yeah.

Mayor, if I could too, I know there was a question about whether or not the League of Minnesota Cities had specific setback guidance, and it doesn't look like they have specific recommendations about guidance for setbacks. They contemplate anywhere from 5 feet to 50 feet. It just depends on the municipality.

So 5 feet is the minimum?

It's not correct. Yeah, they don't articulate it as a minimum, but I've not been able to locate anything that's less than five feet. And again, I think it does, most of them, like the proposed one for North St. Paul, have limitations on either side yard or rear too, and does not apply to the front yard, like this one does not apply to the front yard. But yeah, so there's not specific guidance from the league on that.

We all live on pretty small lots compared to a lot of places, and to be neighborly, I don't think, you know, have something up against some neighbor's lot is where, if their yard is too small, where they don't want it in the middle, then maybe it's not a yard to have chickens in it. If 15 feet is in the middle of the yard. Sure.

How do we find out how many other residents have chickens that aren't coming forth and getting their permits. What are they gonna have, what's gonna happen to them if they get caught and they have chickens and they haven't got a permit?

It would just be a code violation and follow up with them.

Okay, that's what it is now.

That's what it is now, yep.

Is there gonna be a citation if they don't?

Code enforcement would have to make that determination.

Are we looking at sending it back as far as the group here?

I'm gonna vote nay on it no matter what.

All right, we got his. How about you, sir?

I would ask what guidance we would be giving the Planning Commission before we send it back. Right now, I thought they had a good discussion on it. I would be more in favor of amending this to a different setback rather than sending it back to Planning Commission unless there's specific guidance and a reason why we're sending it back. Okay.

Right now I'm for the 15 feet to where it is now too, so.

Then I guess my thought would be is, I would be in favor of amending this current one to 15 feet and approving it, is where I would, unless there's specific guidance or specific, instructions that we would be giving the Planning Commission, I don't see the point of sending it back to them.

Is there anything else in this, and we do appreciate all, I was on the Planning Commission, so I understand, we do appreciate all the work they do on it, so please don't take any offense to it, but is there anything else in that that anybody else has any trouble with besides just the setback? Are we good with everything except for the setback?

I guess I would like to have a dialogue with the code people on how they're going to address this down the road here.

That's kind of separate from this. I mean, but if you just leave it alone, then it's right where it was before at 15 feet. Is that correct?

The other 15 feet, and then the rest is cleaning up some languages, correct? Okay. You good with that? Yeah. All right. So what is the?

My hearing consensus.

Yes. I don't want the words in the mouth of the council.

To approve the ordinance except changing the five feet back to 15, keep all the other changes.

I'm good with that. Okay. That's fine. That's it.

Is that the motion?

Yeah. Do you want to read it? Just read it and we'll say. Go ahead.

Julia wrote that so she can read it again.

Thank you.

What was it? Okay, so City staff are recommending the City Council adopt the proposed animals ordinance text amendment with the proposed change And if council is supportive of the proposed ordinance, staff recommends the City Council make the following motion to approve ordinance 2026 XXX and ordinance amending portions of chapter 95 of the North St. Paul City Code regarding the keeping of chickens

That's with the one change.

So we're going to have to, so is it right to say I move to pass this amendment with the change of the setback to the original 15 feet? Is that the correct way to put forth the motion?

That's correct, yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Do you want to put forth the motion?

So I put forth the motion of accepting this amendment with the change of the setback to remain at 15 feet.

All right, do I have a second? Yeah, second. Council Member McKenzie, Norby, all those in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye. Thank you. Appreciate all your hard work on it. All right, next up is City Business Action Item B, Swing Pool Ordinance Amendments. Turn that back over to Ken.

And just quick, nice job on your first presentation. Good job. Thank you.

Good job. I told her you were fairly nice.

Fairly. She caught me on a good day.

Thank you for your patience, council members. We're proposing tonight, we, the staff, some changes to our ordinances about swimming pools. Why this has come about is a little background. There's two different sections of the code, parts in sections 150 and then parts in section 154 that deal with swimming pools in North St. Paul. And unfortunately, or not surprisingly, there's inconsistencies between those two sections. So what we're proposing to do tonight is Some cleanup to the ordinances, make sure they're consistent with each other, update some of the definitions, some of those kind of things. The Planning Commission reviewed this again on August 6th and they went through the proposed ordinances, had a good discussion and they are recommending approval of the two ordinances, and there are two separate ordinances, one for section 150, which is not in the zoning code, and then one for section one, parts of 154, which are part of the zoning code. So the ordinance language has amendments about the placement of pools, equipment, climbable facilities, clarifies the proper usage of gates and ladders, and fence materials. We're also proposing to change the minimum height of safety fences from five feet to four feet. Some more standards about the openings in the gates and under the fences and that the gates be self-latching. We also are adding some clarifying language About permit applications, our code is not real clear on if you were going to apply for a pool permit or a zoning permit, what you need to submit to the city to get that permit. So we're adding in language about that. There's some more details added in about spas or hot tubs when someone wants to place those on a deck. There are grammatical corrections. And again, we're striving to have consistent definitions and languages in the two parts of the city code. So in 150, and as best I can tell, 150 was written for, places like apartment buildings or hotels or motels that have a more commercial type pool setting then the one of the regulations of 154 which are for Single-family residences and maybe twin homes so that I could see why there would be some differences So in 150 we're proposing new definitions and adding definitions and to again be consistent with both state statute and current practices. And this did involve both researching state statutes about pools and some other city ordinances. For example, we're adding a definition of what a spa pool is, easy for me to say. And we clarify that that's synonymous with a whirlpool or hot tub are more common terms. We even have to define a waiting pool, which is less than 24 inches in depth because there are different standards for those and we hope that somebody won't drown in those. We clarify when property owner or contractor has to get a zoning permit for a pool and or when they might need to get a building permit for the larger pools. And then we include several standards or several filing requirements for both of those types of permits. We've clarified language in this part of 150 about the type of fence material and where the gates can be and where the lock can be on the gates and that the responsible party shall lock the access gate when not in use. Again, thinking about an apartment building or if there was a hotel or motel and they had their pool, we want to make sure those gates are locked. So potentially at least small children can't get in. Related to that then we're adding in language that ladders shall be secured or removed. prevent access when unattended for, again, the pools in Section 150. And some additional safety requirements are clarifying. One thing the Planning Commission wrestled with a little bit is current E, it says, an adult or skilled swimmer shall be present at all times that the pools are in use. We tried to figure out how do you define what a skilled swimmer is. even when an adult is. In the meeting, we didn't come up with a good answer, so a little brainstorming at the meeting, we came up with that the city recommends that responsible supervision always be present when the pools are in use. I don't think anything that the city could enforce, but we're at least trying to be clarifying what the expectation is. Proposing to add H and I in the code here which a little too far that noise lighting and other conditions that interfere with neighboring property rates are prohibited and That if an owner or contractor is proposing to place a spa or hot tub on a deck The owner or contractor also must provide the city with deck structure details the manufacturers way to the spa or hot tub and how many gallons or spa or hot tub holds and because we want to make sure that the deck won't collapse when they put a hot tub on the deck. And so those are things we'd have our building inspections department review to make sure this deck is structurally sound to take out the spa or hot tub. So similar to section 150, we are proposing amendments on 154. This is, again, specifically for residential swimming pools in the zoning code. Clarify the language or add a definition of what a non climbable fences. Update the definition of a pool again. Add in the definition of spa pools and clarify what waiting pools are for or not not intended for. In this case we had in to be used or designed to be used for exclusively for waiting. Again adding in the permit requirements when permits are required what type whether it's a zoning permit or building permit This I don't expect you to read but we outline very clearly all the Application materials that are needed for the pool permit whether it's a building permit or zoning permit There's at least 11 items there that weren't taught in the code before again Residential pools, we clarify. No, I went backwards, never mind. Let's go to the next slide. Clarify where pools can go on a property and the setback requirements for the pools from overhead utility lines and underground utility lines to ensure that they don't interfere and that the utilities don't interfere with their use Again, clarifying and adding language about the gates and the self-closing gates and the latches for the gates. This is proposed, is consistent with what we are proposing in Section 150. And then a little clarifying or additional language about the fences and gates, again, for the residential pools and the climbable facilities of any kind that could be used to gain access to the swimming pool shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the outside edge of all safety fences, so we don't want somebody figuring out a way to climb into a pool and get in when they shouldn't. Adding some language about above ground pools, that it can only be accessed by a ladder, that the supports For the pool shall be attached so no child could climb them to gain access to the pool. The ladder shall be detachable and that the ladders be secured and removed to prevent access when the pool is unattended. Also adding in the same provisions about noise and lighting or other conditions that interfere with the neighboring property rights are prohibited and then the same regulations additional regulations for spas and hot tubs on decks. So a lot of words there, but in the end, in my opinion, we have two ordinances now that are much more consistent with each other, much more up to date of what we found in researching other ordinances, state statutes. So we, again, the Planning Commission is recommending approval of these two, so our recommendation tonight is that the council adopt the two ordinances that are on the screen, and I'd recommend that they be done by a separate motion for each. And with that, I'll take questions.

Yeah, I've got one. Oh, go ahead.

So from five to four feet. So right now our... For the fences. For the fencing. So we're going to be lowering it down. And also for horizontal, of course, a chain link fence has a horizontal, but it's on the inside of the pool area. So is that what you're talking about when you say no horizontal?

No, Mr. Mayor, what I'm envisioning is... If you have a wood fence, instead of having vertical slats, you have horizontal slats like this that someone could use as a ladder to climb up.

Okay. Similar to deck. Planking, you're talking more like planking, you're not, okay.

Yeah, similar to deck railings where you have the vertical balusters versus the horizontal balusters.

I was just, because when you said no horizontal, because they have horizontal on some of the other ones, so you're just talking for the planks so they don't have separation where they can climb up on it. Correct.

I notice also there's no, notification of time limits per day or night for noise ordinances. Normally, North St. Paul's got a 10 o'clock noise ordinance for our parks. Why is there no ordinance for swimming pools when people are out at their pools or whatever and they're partying? It's not fair to the neighbor to have to listen to that. Why do we not have an ordinance on time frames for the pools?

Mr. Mayor, Member McKenzie, it would seem redundant. If there's a noise complaint, there's a noise complaint. We can refer to the noise ordinance. I don't think we need to repeat that in the swimming pool ordinance.

Ken, thank you very much. And I do really appreciate the discussion we had at the Planning Commission. Can you speak a little bit to the five to four foot fence? That was one of the things I struggled a little bit in the Planning Commission too. In the city of North St. Paul, Is there, and I was getting a little bit confused by this on if this was commercial or private. On private property, I'm sorry, not private. In private residential property, is there any requirement for a privacy fence separate to that four-foot fence? Or is the four-foot fence combined with the privacy fence requirement?

If that makes sense, sorry. I think where you're going, Council Member Norby, is that the way I interpret the code and I think most people do is that if the property has a privacy fence around the entire property or a big portion of it, then the yard is fenced and that prevents access to the pool. If they don't have a privacy fence or any kind of fence on the perimeter, then they at least have to fence off the pool area And if they want to do it with a privacy fence, they could, or if they want to do some other type of fencing just around the pool, they have a choice. It doesn't have to be one or the other. But the key is to prevent what I would call unauthorized access to the pool.

Is there normal... Chain link, fences, is that four feet? Is that our normal?

That's pretty typical. Okay. I've seen 36 inch and three and a half foot, but hopefully if people are going to do a pool or have a pool, they have at least a four foot.

I wasn't sure because I thought it was four feet normally for the chain link, which makes sense. Most are. So that's the minimum as far as that then?

Yes.

Okay.

So if they want to put by of course they can put as high as they up to six feet or wherever we allow but minimum of four feet correct And again, I thank you very much to me this is a great discussion Personally, I would propose a slight amendment to this and that That amendment would be if there's no subsequent amendment privacy fence, the fence can only be four feet. But if there's no other privacy fence, I think it should remain at five. Like I say, if they have a privacy fence or a commercial building and the four-foot fence is just for access, I don't really have an issue with it. But if it's a combined privacy and access fence, I think it should remain at five.

For the safety of anybody crawling over.

Well, and just the friendliness of your neighbors to keep a little bit out of view, cut down on some of the stuff. Mm-hmm.

So if I have a privacy fence that goes all the way around my yard, six feet, let's just say, I don't have to have a separate fence around the pool inside, correct?

That is my understanding.

As long as there's gates to prevent access. Okay. I just want to make sure that you didn't have to have a double fence. We're not that mean. I was kind of, that's why I asked the five and the four foot because when it comes time, it's, you know, kids, it's a little bit more time to try to get them to climb over. Right.

But can, help me out here and make sure this is correct. If we, if a commercial place has a pool room and wanted to separate part of that pool room, they could do so with a four foot fence. That's proposed. To limit access to the pool. So in that case, would you be okay with a four-foot fence, or do we just amend it to be a five-foot fence regardless?

Right now, are they both five feet? Is that where they were? One four, one five. Both five. So for the commercial, when you want to... I'm not clear with the commercial one, how that works. So... when you want to divide it up.

So if you have a big room, but you wanted to limit pool hours to let's say 10, but the other part of the room could be used after, you would need to put a fence. Right now that code says it needs to be five foot.

Mr. Mayor, can I clarify? Please. Are you talking about an indoor room or outdoor?

Outdoor, rooftop, something of that nature.

Okay. When you said a room, I was envisioning a pool inside of.

I guess one thing is I'm thinking up at Cedar Heights, they've got the outdoor pool out there. I think they have a taller than a five-foot fence around that. If I'm not mistaken, as you drive by on the highway, I'm not sure about the height, but I think it's taller than the five feet to keep the kids out why they're not in use of that pool. And they can certainly go taller or not. Right. We're just talking minimums. Minimum, right. Right. So, I mean, I would keep it at five myself, but... Just for the safety of the... Now, if they have a fence around the house, does that attach to each side of the property of the house itself where there are gates to prevent people from coming in?

That would work, yeah.

Then you could go with four.

Right now, I was just double-checking. In Section 150 for the commercial properties, the current code says a minimum fence height of four feet. But we could certainly change that to five.

How many properties do we have that have outdoor here?

Not very many.

At Cedar, I think they have one, don't they?

There's one on the, is there one on South as you go across McKnight by the Holiday?

Oh, one of the apartments?

Oh yeah, I think you're right.

Oh yeah, I guess you'd have to go look at that, see what they have. I don't know. I've never paid no attention. Okay, well.

And anything that's existing would be grandfathered.

Oh, that's my next question. I don't want to have somebody have to go out and throw a new fence up because of it.

Right. But yeah, four feet's a really common standard nowadays, but if we want to be a little more restrictive or safer, five feet.

I guess maybe what we could do, could it be per resident on what they've got around their property when they design the property with the pool?

If, for example, it was a backyard that didn't have anything.

Right.

They're putting in a pool.

Five foot.

Well, then, yeah, then we want to change it to just say new installations have to have at least a five-foot fence.

Sometimes you have to look at it individually per property on what they have around their property already.

Well, we have to be consistent across. We can't say, well, you only need four here and you need five here. I think the attorney would call that arbitrary. Mm-hmm.

Yeah, we would want to make sure we are consistent. And as it's currently written, so the language now is that under 4 or 5 is that it has to be, it just has to completely enclose the pool. So that contemplates, you know, the fences you're describing where they come across the house. In that way, as long as the pool in some way is completely enclosed and it meets that height standard, that would satisfy. the ordinance.

So is there a consensus on five feet or four feet?

That's what we have to figure out here. Just asking. You're thinking for both? Five feet for both?

For a new install, yeah, I like five feet.

I'm good with that too.

So we'll stay with five feet for both and then if there's anybody to be grandfathered in that doesn't have it.

Any other questions or concerns? I think everything else was good. I think we're good. Okay, so I'll go back to the motions.

Excuse me.

Would you like me to read them?

Yeah, I don't have them up here right now.

Oh, okay. So the first one is, again, ordinance 2026XXX. This ordinance amends portions of chapter 150 of the North St. Paul City Code regarding swimming pool safety requirements. And I'll add in, with the change, you require a five foot minimum tall fence instead of four.

Can I ask one question just to make sure? Can this, this change would not affect a hot tub, just a swimming pool, correct? Correct. Okay, thank you. Just wanted to be sure.

All right, thank you very much. May I have a motion, please? So moved. So moved. Council Member McKenzie, second? Second. All right, Council Member Norby, all those in favor say aye. Aye.

Thank you. And then the second ordinance, again, Ordinance 2026-XXX. This ordinance approves amendments to portions of Chapter 154, of the North St. Paul City Code regarding residential swimming pools and spas, again, with the amendment to require minimum fence height of five feet.

Thank you. May I have a motion for that, please? So moved. So moved. Council Member Norby? Second. Second. Council Member McKenzie? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. I expect to see an uptick on permits for pools starting tomorrow morning.

Come on in. Thank you. Thanks.

Thanks, Ken. Good job. All right, next up is the reports from city manager and departments. So today's the first day of our new contract with Tennis, so people can start using their free bulk pickup. You can do six items and two appliances per year, and more information and details are online. So that's great. also next week a week from today actually September 8th at 7 p.m. we're having the candidate forum here in the council chambers from the Minnesota League of Women Voters so look forward to that and people getting to know the people running for council and mayor Our electric department crews have been busy installing cable on 11th and McKnight. They've been doing equipment installation at Tower Park. Nearly complete with that project. Northwood Park work is nearly complete as well. They're just doing home transfers at this point. They have two apprentices that are going down to Marshall for training for overhead school here next week. Crews are also completing the final two services for the duplexes up there on 17th and Delaware. Sounds like they've been selling, so that's good. Those are the last two that need power, otherwise they're all energized now. Communications, planning's underway for the Autumn Arts Festival on September 12th. Online's been well attended. More than 1,000 people have indicated they're either interested or planning on attending, so it should be a really good turnout. They're also continuing to promote the Thursday's blood drive here at City Hall. I think they still have a couple openings if people wanna come. Human Resources has been waiting to hear from Gallagher in regards to medical insurance quote for 2027. Finance has been busy with getting together the EDA review and approve the budget, which they'll be at the next EDA meeting. and also preparing the city council for approving the final levy at the next council meeting. And they had three staff members attend some training for their billing system last week, which was good for them. Police has used the force training scheduled for next week. They have two candidates that they are currently going through the background process and hopefully to bring them on by September 14th. The new police vehicles have arrived. They had three of them. Approximately three weeks are expected for squad and equipment installation. Public Works has lots of work planned for the new student-built homes. Beginning on September 4th, it looks like we'll have the contractor out there for installing the sanitary and water for the lots, also digging the basement for the new house and demoing the current house that's there. The 7th Street project passed its water test finally, which is great. They also put the new services in yesterday and the road is expected to be complete by the end of this week. They have a new employee that is completing his physical this week and hopefully bringing him on shortly after that for their new employee in Public Works. They're working on the Silver Lake fishing pier, doing a couple of repairs that are underway this week. And the 2027 project meeting was held last week with 60% plans complete at this point. So there'll be more meetings to come, but they're getting ramped up for the 2027 road project. Fire Department has applications for paid uncalled firefighters. That opening is closing soon for taking any more applications. There are currently 17 applications. They're hoping to get that whittled down to three or four for their hiring process. Jason will be out of office next week. Jordan Wardell will be acting chief, and Ethan Johnson will be handling the day-to-day stuff. Community Development, they have the kickoff meeting with WSB for the comprehensive plan update has taken place. Staff is working on potential dates to meet with council at this point. And they're working with WSB on the plans down at McKnight Field with the goal of having design ready for the October Parks Commission meeting. I hate to put you on the spot, Ken, but we did get some information back from WSB, initial findings out there, which was nice that you didn't find any lead paint or anything on the tennis courts. A couple other findings that they had, do you want to?

Yeah, they had the wetland delineation done, and no surprise, the only wetlands they found are in the ditch right along 36 McKnight, so nothing surprising there. They're also... starting their conversations with the watershed district for storm water management and the possibility of can they use underground storm water management because when that site, if that site gets more hard surface, we can almost count on the need for more storm water management, whether it's onsite ponding or underground chambers and that kind of thing. So they're starting those conversations. The meeting on the 28th will be a first concept plan. be a final plan by any means. And the whole timeline, I think, is for several months to finalize any plans and budgets for the whole complex. So this is a slow progress, and the soil borings are going to be done this week. So we'll find out what kind of soils are under some of those outfields. We hear rumors that it may not be the best fill that was put in there. And that will guide the design of what can go where.

Yep, some more to come on that. That's all I got for you.

Thank you very much, appreciate it.

Okay, from the EDA, we meet next week on Tuesday at four o'clock in the chambers, and we're gonna have Dan Winnick there to explain to us the budgets for our EDA project. And, no, I'll do that on the next one.

Okay. Any planning commission, sir?

The planning commission that is on September 3rd has been canceled due to lack of agenda items. So the next planning commission will be October 1st.

Thank you very much. All right, now we got General.

Well, last week, was it last? I don't know what week it was. We were in front of Gary Insurance, and the EDA presented him with his renovation project check. So the mayor and I and Brian were all out there, so it was very nice to see him get that project done. And I stopped there today and the windows look really nice. It'll be warm in that building then.

Yeah. Up and down that whole south side has been a lot of, looks very nice with the windows. Anything else, sir? You have anything general?

Just in accordance with one of the proclamations today, there will also be a walk march onto the 18th from the VFW to Veterans Memorial Park in honor of VOWs and MAAs. And I encourage everyone, if they haven't been to Veterans Memorial Park, to check it out.

Beautiful park. Thank you very much for bringing that up.

Yeah.

We've got the Canada thing you already talked about, so 7 p.m. on the 8th here also. You mentioned the Delaware 17th project getting close. They really look nice. That corner turned out very nice, so it's a great addition to our neighborhood. It looks good. If there's nothing else, can I ask for adjournment, please? So moved. So moved. Council Member McKenzie? Second. Second. Council Member Norby? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. We will look September 15th at our next meeting.