At the July 5 meeting, the Fountain Council discussed in length a number of citizen complaints. They included both noise during the day and after the 10 p.m. noise cutoff, as well as parking and street concerns.
“Some of them are kind of nit-picky,” said Councilor David Gudmundson, who’d requested the complaints be discussed. No identifying information was given during the discussion regarding those making complaints or those allegedly causing them.
Mayor Tammy Danielson collected the complaint information and compiled a brief overview of them and the ordinances to which they relate.
“They’re opinions,” she stated. “Comments are subjective. Some offered suggestions.”
With noise complaints, it was clear it boiled down to two things: what’s unreasonable and what’s not. There is no decibel level in the ordinance to describe excessive noise. According to Danielson, complaints included loud music, doors slamming, vehicles, people talking in front of houses, generators running, and speakers that are too loud. After 10 p.m., the complaints included outdoor noise and loud business patrons. Complainants cited privacy, quiet, potential harm to children, loud and drunken laughter, and excessive noise in public spaces.
Suggestions to curb these problems included the installation of a wall or sound barrier, directing outside music back to businesses instead of the streets, or moving to areas not facing residents.
“These are broad,” added Danielson. “The city has to determine what is obnoxious noise. It’s a tough one. There are many noises in a town during the day. It’s how do we see if any are not pertaining to the ordinance.”
Councilor Colleen Fohrenbacher contacted the Preston Police Department about the complaints and asked whether any were registered with the department as formal complaints. One was, and officers did check on it.
“They should call the police. If they find these complaints are valid, then we’ll bring it back to a discussion,” said Fohrenbacher.
“Too often, complaints are coming the next day or a week after instead of the time of issue,” added Danielon. “They [police] are aware of our ordinances and want calls to come if there is an issue. The complaints are subjective without a record of them. We need to be able to have complaints documented with details.”
The biggest issues related to parking and streets were those on Cedar Street, where speed bumps were placed again this year to deter speeding. Some drivers are now crossing lanes and driving around them or hitting them at high speed to avoid slowing down. Other complaints included visitors parking on resident lawns and parked vehicles, causing visibility issues, handicap parking, and defined areas for business parking. Some of the less savory complaints included animal control and cleanup.
Permanent asphalt speed bumps were suggested by complainants, but this will cause damage to the roadway and maintenance equipment. The city can extend the length of the temporary speed bumps, making it impossible to go around and move the city-owned digital speed sign. Instead, the council approved extending the speed bumps, if possible, and installing a four-way stop at the intersection of Cedar and Third Streets, which is about halfway down the length of Cedar Street.
The council also discussed the sinkholes located to the east of Cedar Street. Fohrenbacher discussed the issues with engineer Matt Mohs. Looking at the county Beacon Geographic Information Systems mapping, the two determined the city did not own any of the sinkhole areas. They discussed what could be done to mitigate the issues. Forenbacher suggested the city discuss the matter further with the Soil & Water Conservation District and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resouces about options, costs, and possible mitigation funding to assist the landowners.
The city will confirm who owns the land, look into options, make any needed connections, and dig up records to see what was done historically.
There was also discussion about Tom Tienter’s recent suggestion that a portion of Second Street be deeded to the city with the survey and recordation of the gift with the county be at the city’s expense. The purpose of deeding property is to assure property access, according to Tienter.
The city will clarify roadway ownership and discuss the issue with the city attorney and engineer. Additionally, the city will determine if there are any costs that may be incurred before bringing it back for discussion next month.
The next regularly scheduled council meeting is Wednesday, August 2, at 7 p.m. at city hall. The public is encouraged to attend.
Leave a Reply