Resident raises concern about pool definition; council narrows fence ordinance to in-ground/public pools

A resident raised a concern that language in the proposed fence ordinance could unintentionally require a four‑foot fence around small portable pools, prompting the council to amend section 5 to limit fencing requirements to in‑ground and public pools.

At the start of the public-comment period, Jocelyn (Speaker 6) said she is "not opposed to the fence ordinance per se" but flagged section 5, pointing to Minnesota administrative rules that define a "pool" broadly and could capture inflatable or temporary backyard pools. She described scenarios where a homeowner who bought a small kiddie pool might suddenly face a city requirement to erect a four‑foot fence.

"To think that they would have put up their pool each year and then have to erect the fence around it… it just seems ridiculous," Jocelyn said, urging a clearer definition that would exclude portable pools.

Councilmembers discussed options including omitting the section or changing the language to refer specifically to "in‑ground" and public pools. Speaker 3 moved to add the stipulation for in‑ground pools under section 5; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.

The staff member who drafted the ordinance (Speaker 2) acknowledged state law imposes additional requirements for public pools and that narrowing the language would better conform the local ordinance with Minnesota rules. No other changes were adopted at the meeting.

The council approved the amendment and then proceeded to vote on the other ordinances on the agenda.