Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates fencing a southwest holding pond after neighborhood safety concerns; attorney says legal risk is low
Summary
Councilors discussed installing a fence around a southwest stormwater holding pond after neighborhood concerns; cost estimates ranged from about $5,000 (split rail) to $12,000 (chain link). City attorney Morgan said case law suggests minimal legal liability from the mere existence of ponds, and the council agreed to gather neighborhood input and revisit the item.
Council member Greg opened a discussion at the Little Falls City Council work session on July 21 about installing a fence around a southwest stormwater holding pond after residents raised safety concerns.
Greg said cost estimates were roughly $5,000 for a split‑rail fence and about $12,000 for chain‑link, and he asked the council for direction. “A split rail fence was just over 5,000 ... chain link fence would cost ... right around $12,000,” a council member stated as the cost comparison.
City attorney Morgan advised the council that legal exposure from the ponds is limited under current case law, and that liability typically depends on whether an unreasonable risk exists. “It really really comes down to there being an unreasonable ... there's very little risk there,” Morgan said, adding that choosing to fence one pond could create expectations to fence similar ponds unless factual differences justify disparate treatment.
Several council members and residents’ advocates urged action on safety and community peace of mind. One council member said parents in the nearby neighborhood were concerned and that “$12,000 isn't that much” to address safety concerns. Others noted differences among ponds — some are infiltration ponds and others hold water year‑round — and recommended a case‑by‑case approach that balances deterrence, maintenance access, aesthetics and precedent.
Council members discussed alternatives including signage, split‑rail deterrent fencing, chain‑link for greater exclusion, and mowing/access considerations for future maintenance. Multiple members asked staff to solicit broader neighborhood feedback; one council member asked that Councilman Meyer gather input from his ward so the council could revisit the matter at a subsequent work session.
No formal motion or vote was taken. The council directed staff and concerned council members to collect constituent input and return the item for further discussion at a later meeting.
