02-13-23-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—FEBRUARY 13, 2023 6 to participate publicly. He encouraged the Council to continue to interact at public meetings and to be open and transparent with each other. He stated discussions were not personal but rather were on behalf of the City's constituents. He suggested the finance committee be started again and that they be tasked to review this project with the County. He noted this project would not be completed in the next decade and he anticipated future changes would have to be made to this project, and that was okay. Steve Scott, 4286 Norma Avenue, discussed the proposed Ordinance change. He stated there was no confusion regarding the status of the City and noted the vast majority of the cities in Minnesota were organized in the same manner as Arden Hills. He explained the Mayor was elected to a four year term and was only allowed one vote, no more or less than any other member of the City Council. He indicated the only confusion was why the new Councilmembers were doing this. He stated current City Code allows the Mayor to solicit individual Council preferences for liaison positions with the final approval coming from a vote of the entire City Council. He discussed how Shoreview manages their appointments. He encouraged the new Councilmembers to act in a manner that does not further divide the Council. He expressed concern with a comment from Councilmember Fabel regarding something he was told about the City's mediation effort with the County. He reiterated the fact that the City was willing to move to alternative levels of housing noting the County rejected the compromise. He encouraged the new Councilmembers to stop operating under "the big lie". He discussed how the new Councilmembers would be learning in their new role and noted parking would have to be considered if the proposed density within TCAAP were doubled. Steve Erler, 1704 Chatham Avenue, reported several speakers at the January Council meeting encouraged the newly elected Councilmembers to be more cooperative with Mayor Grant and Councilmember Holden. He stated cooperation only works when all parties are involved. He discussed how the actions of the previous Council, in December, could be viewed as uncooperative. He indicated these actions could be viewed by the incoming Councilmembers as an attempt to deny the incoming Council the opportunity to make those appointments. He stated he was not surprised the new Council changed the appointment process. He reported Councilmember Holden's behavior at the January 9 meeting was unbecoming of a City leader. He feared the cooperation that the public was calling for was one-sided and was only meant for the newly elected Councilmembers. He stated this was not cooperation but rather was capitulation. He understood some residents were not pleased with the results of the election. He indicated the residents of Arden Hills clearly voted for change by replacing three of the four incumbents. He noted the Mayor barely won reelection. He believed it was time for Mayor Grant and Councilmember Holden to adopt a spirit of cooperation and to find a way to govern the City with the newly elected Councilmembers. Mary Henry, 3521 Ridgewood Court, stated during the last Council meeting she heard Councilmember Holden express concern that the Arden Hills Council could become more like the Maplewood City Council. She encouraged this Council to listen openly and to hear what the other Councilmembers are saying, as well as the residents. She suggested the Council also be willing to ask the public what they want. She urged the Council to work to trust that each Councilmember wants the best for Arden Hills. She strongly recommended the Council treat each other as individuals and not as groups. Lynn Diaz, 1143 Ingerson Road, stated honesty and trust were important in any relationship. She explained she spoke to Mayor Grant years ago about including affordable housing within TCAAP and she was told this was not economically feasible. She noted after the law suit was over she asked what the plan was for Rice Creek Commons and she was told this could not legally be discussed.