Contagious disease defined as public nuisance – Minnetrista draft

Twice during my term on the Minnetrista City Council the matter of adopting a new nuisance ordinance (p.27) came up because of an unsightly property on Deer Creek Road. Both times the council was given the option of modifying the nuisance ordinance and chose not to do so. Why? Because it wasn’t necessary. Instead it was suggested the city write a demand letter to the property owner. It was also suggested the city file an abatement order against the property if the owner refused to cooperate. The city never did the latter.

Now the matter is before the current council once again. The city’s contract attorney from Kennedy & Graven has provided the council with a memorandum recommending all kinds of modifications and additions, justifying why each are needed. They get paid by the hour, by the way. They also state in their memo they “were not able to prepare a redline” showing the proposed changes, ostensibly because the new ordinance replaces the old one. Sorry but that is just plain irresponsible to omit a redlined version and shows a lack of respect for the council and city residents.

The section on “Additional Public Nuisances Defined” includes a total of 18 extra nuisances including:

Subd. 10. The public exposure of persons having a contagious disease or condition which
endangers public health, safety or welfare.

Subd. 12. Accumulations of animal waste, litter or manure which pose a risk of pollution of
ground or surface waters or which endanger public health, safety or welfare.

Many of these additions contain overly vague language (pose a risk?) that could conceivably make any Minnetrista residents with an animal a violator of the code.

Below is a letter I wrote to the Mayor and Council today on the matter. I suggest if you’re concerned about property rights in Minnetrista you may want to do the same or attend the next Work Session where it will be discussed on May 3. Download the Work Session Agenda when it’s posted next week and dial into the meeting. Email addresses for city council:;;;;

Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members,

As you know the previous council discussed the city’s nuisance code on two separate occasions (2018 and 2020) for the same reason it has come before the current council, the property on Deer Creek Road. The previous council did not agree to amend the city’s current nuisance code although it was given that option.

One of the suggestions I made in April 2020 was to take steps to abate the property, which was never done. I don’t know why it was never done. The matter just sort of went away but that question needs to be asked.  Attached is a model order for abatement from the League of Minnesota Cities. I would recommend asking the city why, instead of spending thousands of dollars on attorney’s fees to draft a new ordinance, they don’t just file an abatement order on the problem property.

The previous council did not feel it was responsible to incur the cost of drafting a new ordinance after discussing the matter at length. Chief Falls indicated there were only 2 properties, at the time, he was aware of that were problems.

There is no reason whatsoever to add the plethora of new nuisance definitions to the city code when the city could just file an abatement order. Why hasn’t that been done?

Shannon Bruce

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s