HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-26-R 75 Years
Approved: April 13,2026
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 9,2026
7:00 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City
Council meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Tena Monson, Emily
Rousseau and Kurt Weber
Absent: None
Also present: City Administrator Jessica Jagoe; City Attorney Kori Land; Public Works
Director/City Engineer David Swearingen; Community Development Director Jake Reilly;
and Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk Julie Hanson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Holden requested Item 81, 8N and 8R be pulled from the Consent Agenda for
discussion as Items 9A, 9B and 9C, respectively.
MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a
motion to approve the meeting agenda as amended. The motion carried (5-0).
2. TCAAP/RICE CREEK COMMONS UPDATE
City Administrator Jagoe stated the Joint Development Authority and neither of the advisory
committees have met since the last Council meeting. The next JDA meeting will be on Tuesday,
March 10`h.
Councilmember Holden questioned if the spine road has been bid.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 2
City Administrator Jagoe indicated the spine road should be bid this fall.
3. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL
Steve Erler, 1704 Chatham Avenue, reported in 2023 the City Council shifted appointment
authority for most commissions and committees from the Mayor to all members of the Council,
with all appointments still subject to Council approval. Following that change and in an effort to
establish a clear and transparent appointment process, the Council created clear administrative
processes to publicize vacancies, conduct formal documented interviews, and use a fixed set of
questions in those interviews in order to establish a fair and accountable selection process. He
reported the Mayor recently ignored this effort in the recent interviews and appointments for the
EDA's two new members. He stated the EDA was a State authorized public corporation with
bonding, taxing and property powers with six-year terms. He indicated these appointments should
warrant more, not less public scrutiny. He noted that while State law authorizes the Mayor alone to
nominate certain members of the EDA, subject to the approval of the full Council,the way in which
the Mayor executed this authority is the issue. He noted the Mayor collected a small set of resumes,
chose from them the two he wanted to appoint with no interviews or consultation with other
Councilmembers. He stated the Mayor then buried the appointments on the Consent Agenda at the
January 12, 2026, City Council meeting effectively shielding the appointments from the other
Councilmembers. He reported that when Councilmember Weber questioned the appointment
process, the Mayor aggressively and successfully employed Roberts Rules of Order to end the
discussion,not once,but twice(on January 12 and February 9). He understood State law allows the
Mayor to make these appointments and by wrapping them up in the Consent Agenda the Mayor
received approval for the appointments as required.The issue,however,was that the Mayor ignored
the process created by the Council to establish a transparent appointment process and then
aggressively prevented any open discussion of his maneuver. He reported this reveals the Mayor's
willingness to resort to procedural manipulation to avoid transparent processes in the governing of
the City.
Gregg Larson, 3377 North Snelling Avenue, spoke to the Council regarding the recent
appointments to the EDA. He reported he has not been able to find the Resolution that establishes
the EDA. He requested the City Administrator provide him with this Resolution. He explained that
State Statute could allow the authority to exercise many powers, including employment of persons,
use of eminent domain, holding, conveying or selling property, awarding contracts, issuing bonds,
levying taxes or assessments and creating economic development districts. He reported this was a
fairly powerful organization. He understood David Grant did not consult with Councilmembers
regarding the process for appointing two members from the EDC to serve on the EDA, nor did the
Mayor invite any Councilmembers to sit in on the interviews. He indicated the individuals were not
discussed at prior work sessions or Council meetings. He stated given the possibly statutory powers
of the EDA, it was difficult for him to understand why there was not a rigorous screening of
potential candidates that involved other Councilmembers and public review prior to the January 12
City Council meeting when the two names showed up on the Consent Agenda. It was also difficult
for him to understand why David Grant decided on the two candidates from the pool of EDC
Commission members who may be qualified but are not Arden Hills residents. He explained it was
a disappointment that after the appointments were approved, David Grant attempted further end
runs around the City Council. He recommended the two non-resident appointments to the EDA be
reconsidered by the City Council.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 3
Kelly Rytel, 3585 Ridgewood Road, agreed with the comments made by Steve Erler and Gregg
Larson. She believed the Mayor needed to provide the City with more transparency.
Anne Hall, 4276 Norma Avenue, addressed the Council regarding the February 9 City Council
meeting. She noted she watched this meeting and found herself to be very upset and disappointed.
She commented on how the Mayor appointed two members to the EDA in a process that lacked any
transparency. She indicated she did not have any issue with the people who were chosen, but she
does not know who else could have been considered. She reported the EDA appointment process
was extremely important because the EDA was a powerful committee that has the ability to levy
taxes on residents. In addition, the EDA has the ability to buy and sell land, and these are six-year
appointments. She believed it was unacceptable that the appointment process was not transparent
and that the actions of the Mayor set a poor precedent. She understood the Mayor had statutory
approval to appoint new EDA members but was required to get Council approval for these new
members. She indicated it appears the appointments were placed on the Consent Agenda without
discussion and when one Councilmember objected and tried to pull the item there was a procedural
mistake and there was no opportunity for him to go back and fix this. This did not feel like the
Mayor was operating in good faith. She explained the end result was that two appointments to the
EDA were made with six-year terms after the Mayor did not follow a transparent process. She stated
this was not how she wanted her City to be run and she was disappointed in the Mayor's actions.
She encouraged the Mayor and City Council to adopt a transparent application and interview
process for all future appointments, especially to the appointments made to the EDA. As a final
comment, she indicated she was disturbed and upset by the tone of the City Council meetings and
urged the City Councilmembers to remain professional and to resist making vindictive comments.
Lynn Diaz, 1143 Ingerson Road, was of the opinion the process for choosing the EDA members
was flawed. She believed all members of the EDC should have been contacted regarding their
interest and interviews should have been held with the entire City Council. She indicated the process
that was followed was not conducive to finding the best candidate,nor was the process transparent.
She was of the opinion it was inconsiderate to have the EDA appointments on the Consent Agenda
because this did not allow for discussion. She reported these members needed to be approved by
the City Council, even though the appointments were recommended by the Mayor. She wanted to
know that these people were thoughtfully chosen and that the entire Council had input. She urged
the City Council to work together in good faith for the overall community. She questioned why the
Mayor had not asked Councilmember Rousseau for her input, as she serves as the liaison to the
EDC. She recommended a motion be made to revoke the EDA appointments and that a proper
process be held.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES
Mayor Grant stated while a number of items were brought up,he noted there were a few he wanted
to discuss. He explained State Statute allows the Mayor to appoint EDA members, subject to the
approval of the City Council.
Councilmember Weber asked for a point of order and recommended the Mayor give his response
during Council Comments versus giving a response on behalf of the City Council.
Councilmember Holden stated this action has been taken in the past.
Mayor Grant reported this was the case.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 4
Councilmember Weber reiterated that he would like to call for a point of order.
Mayor Grant explained that the Public Inquiries/Informational language states the City Council
will generally not respond at the same meeting,but the language does not state the Council cannot
respond at the same meeting.
Councilmember Weber objected to the Mayor making a statement on behalf of the City Council
and recommended a response only be made if carefully worded.
Mayor Grant indicated he would give the public a carefully considered answer on behalf of
himself.
Councilmember Weber stated this speaks to the comment he made at the last City Council
meeting. He explained the response that is given in response to public inquiries should be shared
with the City Council for agreement.
Councilmember Holden indicated it appears the Council does not want the Mayor to respond to
the questions that were raised directly to the Mayor. She reported all committee and commission
appointments are always placed on the Consent Agenda for approval, and the EDA appointments
were no different. She suggested the Council move on with the agenda at this time.
MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Weber seconded a
motion to add an item to the agenda to discuss and allow for the Council to
individually respond to Public Inquires.A roll call vote was taken. The motion
carried (5-0).
DISCUSSION ITEM FOR THE COUNCIL TO INDIVIDUALLY RESPOND TO
PUBLIC INOUIRIES
Councilmember Holden reported there were statements that were made about the appointments
that were made in 2023 for all of the committees, and she said policies were made. She explained
she checked with the City Clerk and the City does not have any written or formalized policies or
administrative procedures in place for committee appointments. She stated the liaison has always
done the best job they can to make recommendations. She understood very qualified people in the
past have applied for a committee that they were on prior and have been turned down, even though
they have served in the past. She questioned where the transparency was with that process at the
time.
Councilmember Holden also noted that all committee and commission assignments are placed on
the Consent Agenda for approval but can always be pulled for discussion. She indicated the Mayor
did nothing sneaky or untoward by placing the EDA appointments on the Consent Agenda. She
stated Councilmember Rousseau had recommended appointment of every member currently on the
EDC and if these people were not worthy of serving on that Commission, they would never have
been appointed. She reiterated that the pool of candidates for the EDA was recommended by
Councilmember Rousseau, who serves as the liaison to the EDC. She discussed how she was
unaware of which candidates were considered for other committee appointments and did not
understand why there was a conflict regarding the EDA appointments. She spoke to how the public
addressed the importance of the EDA but noted the Planning Commissioners were just as important
as were the PTRC members. She stated she believed the appointment of the two business owners
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 5
would serve the community well. She suggested the public ask for more transparency when it came
to all appointments to the committees and commissions.
Councilmember Weber thanked the members of the public who spoke to this issue. He concurred
that all appointments for the other committees are placed on the Consent Agenda and these items
could be pulled off for discussion. He indicated the key to the EDA appointments was that he was
not allowed to pull the item from the Consent Agenda due to a procedural issue. He believed that
was unacceptable. He indicated he was allowed to voice his concerns prior to the vote for the
appointments, but he was blocked from pulling the item for further discussion. He was of the
opinion previous appointments were made through an interview process where notes were taken
and kept in order to maintain a record. He reported he had nothing against the individuals that were
chosen but rather had a problem with the process that was followed. He explained he still supported
a motion to reconsider the EDA appointments. He stated he believed there was still an outstanding
question as to whether Councilmember Rousseau's second on that motion was appropriate or not.
He looked it up himself and he knows there was some disagreement and it was unclear whether
there are multiple sets of Roberts Rules or versions that maybe precluded Council from having a
second on that motion but from what he had seen, Councilmember Rousseau should have been
eligible to second that. He noted he would like a copy of the official Roberts Rules of Order that
the City follows.
Mayor Grant explained that some of the speakers referenced State Statute and that the EDA
appointments shall be made by the Mayor with approval by the City Council. He indicated he had
even higher approval, noting this Council also approved the following: "The two remaining
members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council from the
membership of the Economic Development Commission for six year terms which shall coincide
with their terms on the Economic Development Commission". He stated this was approved by this
Council,meaning he had authority from the Council and State Statute to make the two appointments
to the EDA. He indicated there was talk about procedures. He stated he spoke with the City Clerk
today about if there was a formalized City Council adopted policy or procedure for committee and
commission appointments, noting there were none in place. However, for these specific
appointments, the Council approved the Mayor making the appointments. He reported he had
obtained all of the EDC members' application materials and it was not that some commissioners
weren't considered. He noted the appointments did receive Council approval. He commented on
how the public believed placing the appointments on the Consent Agenda was somehow sneaky.
He stated the item was on the agenda and was included in the meeting packet. He explained any
Councilmember can pull an item from the Consent Agenda for further discussion, as
Councilmember Holden had done at this meeting, she had pulled three items that she wanted to
have discussion about. He indicated that during that meeting Councilmember Weber could have
pulled the appointment item if he wanted to, but he tried to do what appeared to be a "gotcha
moment". He stated that once you approve your agenda, as we did tonight,it takes a super majority
to change your agenda to add an item.
Mayor Grant reported it was stated Councilmember Rousseau is the liaison to the EDA. He
explained this was not correct, but rather Councilmember Rousseau is the liaison to the EDC and
not the EDA. He indicated there were folks that asked about the City's process and noted going
forward he would be submitting documents and records to the City Clerk, but reiterated the
appointments were made by him as directed by the City Council and per State Statute.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 6
Councilmember Rousseau thanked the public for coming out and participating in this process.
She explained when the Council made the decision to bring two additional members onto the EDA,
there was discussion about having one individual from the Planning Commission and one member
from the EDC. She indicated the Council decided to select two individuals from the EDC that would
serve. She stated it was her understanding that there would be one resident and one business owner
from the EDC that would be appointed to the EDA. She noted some business owners live in Arden
Hills while others do not. She commented on how the language within the recommendation was
left vague and noted she was disappointed that the appointments did not allow for one resident and
one business owner to be appointed but rather had two business owners that were appointed.
Councilmember Monson commented she stands squarely behind Councilmember Weber's
comments. She indicated the public has heard an indirect or insufficient response based on their
concerns from the Council. She explained the public was asking for the process to be transparent
for these appointments and the response has been"but I get to do it". She stated she had heard the
concerns of the public and she was sorry the responses were insufficient.
Councilmember Holden requested Mayor Grant go through the list of candidates for the EDA
appointments in order to provide the public with greater transparency.
Mayor Grant thanked everyone who addressed the Council and for speaking their mind. He
reported he received a request for notes and explained he would be submitting this information to
the City Clerk on the process he followed for the EDA appointments. He stated anyone from the
public could come in and read through the information. He explained he ranked the EDC members,
noting the EDA appointments did not ask for applications from the general public, but rather only
sought applications from the current EDC members. He reiterated that the Council supported and
approved his two appointments and noted at the end of the day, these appointments were Mayoral
as was authorized by the City Council.
5. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Grant invited the Boy Scouts in attendance to introduce themselves to the City Council.
Finn Sorensen and Nolan Prince introduced themselves to the Council and noted they were with
Boy Scout Troop#200 in Shoreview working to achieve their Citizenship in the Community Merit
Badge. They provided further information regarding community service they would be completing
in the community.
Mayor Grant thanked the Boy Scouts for their service to the community.
6. STAFF COMMENTS
None.
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. January 31, 2026, Special City Council Work Session
B. February 9, 2026, Special Executive Closed Session
C. February 9, 2026, City Council Work Session
D. February 9, 2026, Regular City Council
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 7
MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holdren seconded a
motion to approve the January 31, 2026, Special City Council Work Session
meeting minutes as presented, the February 9, 2026, Special Executive Closed
Session meeting minutes as presented,the February 9,2026,City Council Work
Session meeting minutes as amended; and the February 9, 2026, Regular City
Council meeting minutes as amended.
Councilmember Weber asked if the City Attorney had reviewed the amendment to the February
9 City Council minutes. He stated it was his understanding that the City Council should not be
amending other people's words. He recommended the change to the City Attorney's comment not
be made to the minutes unless this was done at staff s request.
City Attorney Land indicated she had not had a chance to review the change to the minutes. She
anticipated the change would be fine but noted the Council could opt to postpone action on this set
of minutes to the next City Council meeting, if desired.
Councilmember Weber inquired if the change to the minutes was done at staff s request or at the
request of a Councilmember.
CityAdministrator Ja oe reported staff does o back and listen to the meetings and an language
g P g g Y
added was per the conversation that occurred.
Councilmember Weber stated he could support the City Council approving the minutes if the
Council supported staff adding language to the minutes.
Councilmember Holden questioned if Councilmembers were allowed to change other people's
comments.
Assistant to the City Administrator/City Clerk Hanson explained the policy was when there
was a requested change to the minutes from a Councilmember, she will go back and watch the
meeting to verify exactly what was said.
The motion carried (5-0).
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item- Claims and Payroll
B. Motion to Approve Resolution 2026-008 Approving a Minnesota Department of
Labor and Industry Plumbing Plan Review Agreement
C. Motion to Approve COBRA Administration Agreement with Benefits Extra
D. Motion to Acknowledge the Application of Ducks Unlimited North Suburban
Chapter 239 for an Exempt Permit to Conduct a Raffle with the Event being April
11, 2026, with No Waiting Period
E. Motion to Acknowledge the Application of Fishing for Life for an Exempt Permit
to Conduct a Raffle with the Event being May 18, 2026, with No Waiting Period
F. Motion to Approve Termination of Building Official
G. Motion to Approve Hiring of Building Official
H. Motion to Authorize Recruitment of Building& Code Enforcement Inspector
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 8
L Motion to A ppr- ye Or,linanee 2026 001 Amending Chapter- to Utilities, Seeti,,,
� r
1 nnn W.,ter- Subseetio 1000.20 Rates and Charges and A„4her:ze D„bheat;,,.,
of Summary Or-dinanee
J. Motion to Approve Agreement Extension for Professional Services with Rainbow
Tree Care for Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) and Two-Lined Chestnut Borer (TLCB)
for Ash and Oak Trees
K. Motion to Approve Ramsey County 2025 Bulk Road Salt Purchase Invoice
L. Motion to Approve Update Proposals for Professional Services Agreement with
Bolton & Menk - Risk & Resilience Assessment (RRA) and Emergency Response
Plan(ERP)
M. Motion to Approve Resolution 2026-009 Approving Grant Agreement between the
Metropolitan Council and the City of Arden Hills for 2024 and 2025 Sanitary Sewer
Lining Projects
N. Met:en t Approve Rawl„t;e.. 2026 010 Deelar-in. Costs to he Assessed Or-d
n-epaiutien of Proposed Assessments and ra-calling fo- Hear-inn on Prepe-
Assess eats 2026 PN4P Street and Utility i. pr-eyements Are;eet
O. Motion to Approve 2026 Public Works Capital Equipment Purchases
P. Motion to Approve Planning Case 23-003 — 1174 Edgewater Avenue Extension of
Timeline to Receive Permits
Q. Motion to Approve Ordinance 2026-002 Amending the 2026 Fee Schedule and
Authorize Publication of Summary�Onr�diinance
R. rMation to Approve Resolution 2026 Oil i-z Authorizing G fa t A.,.,he do to
>\ in eset., State De....,rt....ent of rem meree to e,,.pelt_reffffnwiity Development
MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Weber seconded a motion
to approve the Consent Calendar as amended and to authorize execution of all
necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried (5-0).
9. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
A. Motion to Approve Ordinance 2026-001 Amending Chapter 10 — Utilities,
Section 1000 —Water, Subsection 1000.20—Rates and Charges and Authorize
Publication of Summary Ordinance
Councilmember Holden stated she has heard from residents that their meters are not reading
correctly. She reported nowhere in the Ordinance is this scenario addressed. She asked how the
City was going to address this concern.
City Administrator Jagoe reported she would have to review the fee schedule regarding testing
on meters. She commented the 2026 fee schedule does have a call out rate for after hours, which
would allow for the testing to be added to a utility bill.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen explained the fee schedule was very clear on
how the City charged for testing water meters.
Councilmember Holden suggested language be included in Section 1000 that states if a resident
believes their water meter isn't working and the City had to test the meter,there would be a charge
for it.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 9
City Administrator Jagoe reported this language was included in the fee schedule.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen indicated a resident would be required to pull
a water permit in order to create a work order for a staff member to complete the task. He noted
through the permit process the associated fees would be made known to the resident.
MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Weber seconded a motion
to Approve Ordinance 2026-001 Amending Chapter 10—Utilities,Section 1000
—Water,Subsection 1000.20—Rates and Charges and Authorize Publication of
Summary Ordinance. The motion carried (5-0).
B. Motion to Approve Resolution 2026-010 Declaring Costs to be Assessed,
Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessments and Calling for Hearing on
Proposed Assessments—2026 PMP Street and Utility Improvements Project
Councilmember Holden expressed concern with how this project will be impacted by the rising
costs of oil. She inquired if the contract had any language in place to address this concern.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen stated he would have to review the language
but noted the bids that have been submitted to the City were considered final. He noted he would
review the contract and report back to the City Council.
MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a
motion to Approve Resolution 2026-010 Declaring Costs to be Assessed,
Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessments and Calling for Hearing on
Proposed Assessments—2026 PMP Street and Utility Improvements Proiect.
Councilmember Rousseau reported the residential reclamation assessment amount was $5,155
and the mill and overlay assessment amount was $3,395.
The motion carried(5-0).
C. Motion to Approve Resolution 2026-011 Authorizing Grant Application to
Minnesota State Department of Commerce to Support Community
Development Software Transition
Councilmember Holden reported the City would be applying for a grant and questioned how the
City would be spending $60,000.
Community Development Director Reilly explained the City was working towards replacing the
PermitWorks software with modern software that would accommodate planning,code enforcement,
permitting and licensing. He reported the cost for this software was coming in higher than $60,000
and therefore staff was seeking grants to assist with covering the cost. It was noted the grant from
the State could be up to $20,000. He indicated that the solar application was a free web-based
portion of the software program.
Councilmember Holden inquired if the solar program would work with the City's new permitting
software.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 10
Community Development Director Reilly reported this was the case.
MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Weber seconded a motion
to Approve Resolution 2026-011 Authorizing Grant Application to Minnesota
State Department of Commerce to Support Community Development Software
Transition. The motion carried (5-0).
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Interim Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Detention Facilities
Community Development Director Reilly stated Council requested consideration of an Interim
Ordinance establishing a moratorium on detention facilities within the Arden Hills city limits at a
Special Work Session on Saturday,January 31, 2026. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, subd. 4,
enables municipalities to establish interim ordinances applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for
the purpose of protecting planning processes and the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. The
interim ordinance may regulate,restrict or prohibit any use,development,or subdivision within the
jurisdiction for up to one year in order to conduct studies that may result in the adoption or
amendment of official controls, as defined in State Statute 462.352, subdivision 15. The purpose of
this moratorium is to allow the City time to study the issue and determine what, if any, additional
regulations for detention facilities to pursue. The ordinance authorizes the Community
Development Department, in cooperation with other applicable departments, to conduct a study to
evaluate the impact of detention facilities and to propose amendments to the Arden Hills City Code
that it deems necessary and advisable.
Councilmember Holden asked if there was a definition for a detention center within the ordinance.
Community Development Director Reilly explained the City does not have a definition assigned
to a detention center, noting staff would be reviewing this further.
Councilmember Rousseau inquired if the moratorium could be set for two years or longer.
Community Development Director Reilly deferred this question to the City Attorney.
City Attorney Land explained there were very limited circumstances where the City could extend
a moratorium beyond one year.
Councilmember Rousseau questioned if the City could put a moratorium on both detention
facilities and data centers.
Community Development Director Reilly recommended the City Council keep these matters
separate but noted the Council could put a separate moratorium in place and staff could be directed
to study data centers.
Councilmember Weber stated this was a general moratorium on detention facilities which would
apply to the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department as well.
Community Development Director Reilly reported this was the case.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 11
Councilmember Weber asked if City staff reached out to Ramsey County to ask if they have any
intentions.
Community Development Director Reilly commented he had not reached out to Ramsey County.
Councilmember Weber indicated he would support exempting Ramsey County from the
moratorium or more clearly referring to the detention facility being used for immigration
enforcement.
Community Development Director Reilly stated the City could not exempt the Ramsey County
Sheriff's Department.
Councilmember Monson reported the City had federally owned land in Arden Hills and inquired
how this land would be impacted.
Community Development Director Reilly explained the City could not prevent the federal
government from establishing such a facility on their own land.
City Attorney Land reported federal law states for zoning purposes, to the extent practicable they
will try to comply with local zoning and comp plans. She indicated this meant if the federal
government could and wanted to comply, they will comply, or they could move forward with their
plans if practicable in their opinion.
Councilmember Monson indicated the moratorium would then apply to any land that was not
owned by the federal government.
City Attorney Land stated this was the case.
Councilmember Holden questioned how the National Guard's 2,500 acres would be impacted by
the proposed moratorium.
City Attorney Land commented the distinction would be who was making the application for the
detention center.
Mayor Grant supported the City Council moving forward with the moratorium in order to have a
superior position in place.
Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m.
Lynn Diaz, 1143 Ingerson Road, supported the City Council approving the interim ordinance
establishing a moratorium on detention facilities. She indicated she also supported the City Council
creating a detailed long-term ordinance against allowing detention facilities in Arden Hills. She
recommended this be communicated to all residents and property owners. She wanted it to be
known that vehicles and personnel dedicated to the apprehension of alleged criminals are not
welcome here. She wanted to see the vacant land in Arden Hills developed into uses other than
detention centers.
Christine Jacob, 1492 Arden Place,supported the City Council moving forward with the detention
center moratorium. She discussed the egregious behaviors that were witnessed during Operation
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 12
Metro Surge. She appreciated the investigative journalism that was conducted into the detention
centers and spoke to the terrible conditions detainees were subjected to. She discussed how ICE
agents were not properly trained and encouraged Arden Hills to pass a moratorium on detention
centers.
Mary Henry, 3521 Ridgewood Court, supported the City moving forward with a detention center
moratorium.
Clara Griffin, 3535 Siems Court, supported what had been said and she agreed a moratorium on
detention centers should be put in place. She explained she moved to the community because it was
welcoming and diverse. It was her hope that the community could remain this way going forward.
She expressed concern with how ICE agents were propagating fear in the community.
Kelly Rytel, 3585 Ridgewood Road, acknowledged many people feel powerless at this time. She
stated this was an intended consequence from those in power. She explained the conditions in
detention centers were abhorrent. She urged the City and its residents to continue to fight back
against the federal government and use of detention centers, to consider making donations to
commissary accounts and to put this moratorium in place permanently. She thanked
Councilmember Monson and Councilmember Weber for creating a space for community on
January 31 and appreciated the fact she had the ability to share her thoughts.
Lisa Holzemer, 3531 Ridgewood Court, supported the moratorium being put in place. She
recommended the research be done quickly in order to keep detention centers out of Arden Hills.
Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m.
B. Amending City Code Chapter 9 — Building Regulations Related to Plumbing
Plan Review Delegation
Community Development Director Reilly stated the City of Arden Hills currently contracts
supplemental inspection services with Rum River Consultants (RRC). The State of Minnesota
Department of Labor and Industry(DOLI)conducts plumbing plan reviews for commercial permits
in Arden Hills, as stipulated in Minn. R. 1300.0215, Subpart 6. Minn. Stat. § 32613.43, Subdivision
2 permits the delegation of authority for plumbing plan review for public and commercial projects
to municipalities. This statute enables the DOLI Commissioner to establish an agreement with a
municipality,in which the municipality agrees to carry out plan reviews typically performed by the
commissioner or their designee. To obtain this special delegation, the City of Arden Hills must
undertake steps to formalize the delegation, including the approval of an ordinance to offer local
plumbing plan review services, the endorsement of an application and submission of an agreement
with the State of Minnesota, the establishment of local fees, and ensuring the designated
representative of the municipality is eligible to perform the local plumbing plan reviews.
Community Development Director Reilly reported this delegation agreement will benefit the City
of Arden Hills by capturing revenue that the State of Minnesota usually retains. More importantly,
the customer service benefits for permit applicants and residents are significant. The state is
typically eight to twelve weeks behind on plan review, causing considerable delays in construction.
RRC has indicated its capacity to review plumbing plans in half the time. If the City receives this
delegation, it will enable projects to begin and conclude more swiftly in Minnesota's demanding
climate. The existing agreement for building official services with RCC allows for this delegated
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 13
authority to be added to the scope of services performed on behalf of the City. By conducting local
plumbing plan reviews, the City of Arden Hills will generate newfee revenue (i.e. 15% of permit
fees). Per the agreement with RCC, they will receive 85% of the fees collected in accordance with
the City's adopted fee schedule. Although the exact amount remains uncertain due to unknown
future commercial development, sizable public and commercial projects hold the potential to have
a significant impact. This item is associated with item 11 D and all associated information for this
item is included in that item's staff report.
Councilmember Holden asked if the City were to have its own building inspector,this work could
be completed in-house.
Community Development Director Reilly reported this could be the case; however, to do so,the
building official must also be a master plumber.
Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m.
With no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.
C. Planning Case 26-003 — Amending City Code Chapters 10, 11 and 15 Related
to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
Community Development Director Reilly stated the City of Arden Hills is one of Minnesota's
approximately 248 entities required to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permits and develop Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs (SWPPPs). The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) updates Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) Language every five years. In 2025, the MPCA issued new MS4 Permits with updated
language to take effect for the permit cycle of 2025 through 2029. Entities typically have up to two
years to comply with the new rules.City Staff from the Public Works and Community Development
worked with a consultant to update the language within our City's Code of Ordinances to correctly
reflect the revisions required by the MPCA for the new MS4 permit rules. The City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission has review and recommendation authority over proposed changes to Chapter
I I —Subdivisions and held a public hearing at the February 4,2026,regular meeting of the Planning
Commission for the proposed changes to Chapter 11. There were no public comments on this
application. At that time, it recommended approval of Ordinance 2026-005 by a 7-0 vote.
Community Development Director Reilly stated there are related ordinance changes to Chapter
10—Utilities and Chapter 15—Erosion and Sediment Control, also to bring the Code of Ordinance
in conformance with state rules adopted in 2025. The proposed changes to Chapter 10 — Utilities
and Chapter 15 — Erosion and Sediment Control were reviewed with the Council. The Ordinances
are presented here as a package as they are related to one set of rule changes from the MPCA and
must be adopted together. Because the changes are significant,the ordinances have been written to
repeal the existing outdated language and replace with the new language.
Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
With no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m.
11. NEW BUSINESS
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 14
A. Resolution 2026-012 Site Plan Review and Variance at 3628 Connelly Avenue
—Planning Case 25-016
Community Development Director Reilly stated the Applicant has submitted a land use
application for Site Plan Review and Variances at the Subject Property. The Applicant seeks to
purchase the property and relocate an existing retail business, Scale Model Supplies, from Saint
Paul to Arden Hills. The Subject Property is owned by Waters Edge Enterprises Inc., and the
building is occupied by JV Pallets, a company that manufactures and recycles wood pallets. The
existing use is an existing nonconforming use that has been in operation as a light
industrial/manufacturing and warehousing site since 1959. The B-2 zoning district today does not
allow this use as a principal use. The proposed retail use is permitted within the B-2 zoning district.
Community Development Director Reilly explained the proposal includes reconfiguring access
to the parking lot and restriping parking spaces within the existing parking lot. Three existing
parking spaces,partially located within the right-of-way, are proposed to be removed and replaced
with landscaped areas. The Applicant proposes to convert an overhead door to a standard retail dual
door entryway. Other minor modifications to the exterior of the structure are proposed for safe and
convenient access to the structure for customers. The proposal includes a variance request to allow
for fewer on-site parking spaces than required in the Zoning Code. This retail use requires 50
parking spaces. The Applicant has applied for a variance to the parking standard to use 24 existing
spaces in the parking lot, stating that this number is sufficient to operate the business. Scale Model
Supplies has been in business for more than 43 years. The store specializes in model trains and
model kits as well as other hobby-related products. The business owner seeks to downsize from a
20,000 square foot space located in Saint Paul and find a space compatible with growing the online
sales side of the business.The Applicant anticipates using approximately 7,500 square feet for retail
sales and the remaining 1,800 square feet would be allocated for office, storage, restrooms, and
utilities. The Subject Property would allow for a combination of retail space for direct sales and
inventory space for both direct and online sales.
Community Development Director Reilly reported the Applicant states that on the busiest days,
the business does not require more than 22 parking spaces at one time. Recent checks showed that
at the current location,a maximum of 13 spaces have been used at one time,and the average number
of parked cars is eight. The store is a destination for customers who plan their visit,know what they
are looking for, and do not linger for long periods of time. Therefore, sales are typically spread
throughout the day, and the existing parking lot will accommodate the need. The business is open
Monday through Sunday, 10 a.m.to 6 p.m.with typically four(4)employees on site at a given time.
The business receives deliveries from standard-size courier vans and does not regularly use
overhead doors or a loading dock. The Applicant states these operations are likely to continue.
Community Development Director Reilly reviewed the Plan Evaluation and offered the following
Findings of Fact:
General Findings:
1. The Subject Property is located within the General Business District designated for
Community Mixed Uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Subject Property is zoned B-2 General Business.
3. The Subject Property contains an existing nonconforming principal structure and existing
nonconforming setbacks, landscaping and parking lot.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 15
4. The Subject Property has been used for manufacturing continuously since 1959.
Manufacturing is not a permitted use in the B-2 General Business District.
5. The Applicant submitted site plan review and variance applications to establish a retail sales
use in an existing manufacturing and warehousing facility at 3628 Connelly Avenue. Retail
sales is a permitted use in the B-2 General Business District.
6. Site Plan Review is required when a project proposes to reuse an existing property for a use
that requires more parking than the previous use. In the parking requirements table,
manufacturing use falls under the category of Other Business and Industry, which requires
a minimum of I for each 1,000 square feet of floor area, or 10 required parking spaces. The
minimum number of off-street parking spaces required for retail sales use is 1 for each 150
square feet of gross retail sales floor space.The Applicant proposes to dedicate 7,500 square
feet of the structure sales floor space, which would require 50 off street parking spaces.
7. The Applicant is seeking a variance to provide 24 off street parking spaces where the Zoning
Code requires 50 parking spaces, a variance of 26 spaces.
8. The Applicant is seeking a variance from design standards in Section 1325.06 related to
required parking location,parking islands, landscaping,boulevard trees, architectural style,
building character, materials and design, and windows and door openings.
9. The Applicant is proposing to remove three existing parking spaces that encroach on the
right-of-way from Connelly Avenue and to increase the landscaped area on the property.
10. The Applicant requests to waive the requirement for a traffic study. The Applicant offers
sufficient data in the application to demonstrate the proposed use will not result in a large
amount of additional traffic and that the current conditions of the site can support the
anticipated traffic.
11. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code
or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City.
12. The proposed use is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the
community as a whole.
13. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air
pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics.
14. The proposed plan is not expected to have significant impact on traffic or parking
conditions.
15. A public hearing is not required for site plan review.
16. Property owners within 500 feet of the subject property were notified of the application as
established in city code.
Variance Findings:
17. The Applicant is seeking variances from design standards in Section 1325.06 related to
required parking, parking location, parking islands, landscaping, boulevard trees, and
windows and door openings.
18. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the ordinance.
19. The proposed is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance.
20. The proposed is a reasonable use of the property that would not be allowed under the rules
of the Zoning Code without the requested variance.
21. The proposed would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
22. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone.
23. A public hearing is not required for variance requests.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 16
Community Development Director Reilly explained the Planning Commission reviewed this
application at the February 4, 2026, meeting. At that time, Planning Commission recommended
Condition#11 be amended,"waiving the traffic study requirement"as a condition of approval. The
Planning Commission recommended adoption of Resolution 2026-012 approving Planning Case
25-016 for a site plan review and variances from parking and design standards for a permitted retail
sales use at 3628 Connelly Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as
amended by the conditions in March 9, 2026, report to the City Council:
1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the
conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the
Community Development Director, shall require review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
2. The proposed parking area shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
3. A Building Permit shall be obtained for interior and exterior alterations to the existing
principal structure where appropriate.
4. Attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. In
addition, any lighting under canopies (building entries) shall be recessed and use a flush
lens.
5. A Right-of-Way permit shall be obtained from the City's Engineering Department prior to
working in the right-of-way including, but not limited to parking lot resurfacing, driveway
apron installation and installing and d gutter.
p
6. Curb and gutter must be installed according to the City's standard plate.
7. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the City's Engineering Department
prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities greater than 2,500
square feet. The Applicants shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from
other agencies, including but not limited to Rice Creek Watershed District and Ramsey
County prior to the start of any site activities. Verification of approved permits or
documentation from other agencies that a permit is not necessary shall be provided to the
City.
8. A separate sign permit shall be required for each sign on the site.
9. A required future trash enclosure shall use gates and be constructed on three sides using the
similar or complementary materials, colors, and patterns used on the building. Locations
shall be approved by the Planning Department.
10. All disturbed boulevards shall be restored with sod. All areas of the site, where practical,
shall be sodded or seeded and maintained. The property owner shall mow and maintain all
site boulevards to the curb line of the public streets.
11. The requirement for a parking study is waived.
Mayor Grant invited the applicant forward to address the City Council.
Bruce Gardner, Scale Model Supplies, introduced himself to the Council noting he has been in
business for the past 45 years. He explained he would be moving his hobby kit, railroad and model
business from St. Paul to Arden Hills.
Councilmember Rousseau asked if Mr. Gardner was aware of the fact the City was revising its
sign code.
Mr. Gardner reported he heard some talk of it but was not aware of the proposed changes.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 17
Councilmember Holden inquired if the applicant could plant several shrubs around the building.
Mr. Gardner stated he would try to include more landscaping around the building.
Mayor Grant requested further information regarding the most memorable model that had been
created from this business.
Mr. Gardner stated the most memorable project he had worked on was with an elderly gentleman
that constructed a working steam locomotive model that was donated to a hometown museum.
Councilmember Weber commented on the discussion that was held at the Planning Commission
meeting. He noted the Planning Commission recommended trees be planted behind the building.
He understood the site was short on parking spaces but stated Mr. Gardner had mentioned his
business does not require a large number of parking spaces. He explained he was looking forward
to having this building improved in the community.
MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a
motion to adopt Resolution 2026-012 approving Planning Case 25-016 for a site
plan review and variances from parking and design standards for a permitted
retail sales use at 3628 Connelly Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the
submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the March 9, 2026, report to
the City Council. The motion carried (5-0).
B. Resolution 2026-013 Sign Standard Adjustment at 3535 Pine Tree Drive —
Planning Case 26-001
Community Development Director Reilly stated the Applicant proposes installing two wall signs
totaling 163 square feet and one graphic sign totaling 72 square feet on the eastern elevation of the
building for a total of 235 square feet of signage on the building. The Applicant also proposes to
install a 79 square foot freestanding monument on the property with a total of 33.5 square feet in
signage. The Applicant is seeking flexibility through the Site Plan Review process for a sign
standard adjustment for size of proposed wall and freestanding signs and for type with the proposed
graphic sign. The proposed signage would not be permitted without an approved sign standard
adjustment.
Community Development Director Reilly reviewed the Site Data, Plan Evaluation and offered
the following Findings of Fact:
1. The Applicant applied for Site Plan Review to install 163 square feet in wall signage and
72 square feet in graphic signage on the eastern elevation of the building and install a 79
square foot freestanding monument with 33.5 square feet of sign copy at the subject
property, 3535 Pine Tree Drive.
2. On December 9, 2024,the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Agreement
for the Subject Property.
3. The Subject Property is located in the B-2 General Business District and is guided as
Community Mixed Use on the 2040 Land Use Plan.
4. The Subject Property is located in Sign District 7, where the maximum wall signage
permitted is 45 square feet.
5. In Sign District 7, the maximum freestanding sign copy area permitted is 25 square feet.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 18
6. In Sign District 7, the maximum freestanding monument area permitted is 37.5 square feet.
7. Graphic signs are not permitted in Sign District 7.
8. The Subject Property has no existing signage.
9. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area,
and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site
Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process as described for in Section 1320 and
1355 of the Zoning Code.
10. Through the Site Plan Review process, the Applicant requests 163 square feet in wall
signage and 72 square feet in graphic signage, bringing the total building wall signage to
235 square feet.
11. The Applicant requests 33.5 square feet in freestanding sign copy area.
12. The Applicant requests 79 square feet in freestanding monument area.
13. The proposed signage plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City.
14. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the
community as a whole.
15. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air
pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics.
16. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review.
17. The Planning Commission finds the requested sign standard adjustment is appropriate due
to the public emergency services use of the property and the functional need for clear
identification. The approval of this request is based on the specific land use and site context
and does not constitute a general precedence for Sign District 7.
Community Development Director Reilly stated the Planning Commission reviewed this
application at the February 4,2026,meeting. At that time,the Planning Commission recommended
approval of Resolution 2026-013 approving Planning Case 26-001 for a Sign Standard Adjustment
through the Site Plan Review process to install up to 163 square feet in wall signage, 72 square feet
in graphic signage, 33.5 square feet in freestanding sign copy area, and 79 square feet of
freestanding monument area at 3535 Pine Tree Drive, based on the findings of fact and the
submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the March 9, 2026, report to the City Council:
1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant
changes to these plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall
require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
2. A separate sign permit shall be required for each proposed sign.
3. All signage shall meet all other requirements of Sign District 7.
Councilmember Monson stated she supported the sign standard adjustment requests. She asked
why the freestanding sign would not be illuminated.
Community Development Director Reilly explained the free-standing sign would be ground lit.
Councilmember Holden inquired if the fire department will have control over the illumination
level.
Community Development Director Reilly deferred this question to the applicant.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 19
Lake Johanna Fire Chief Tim Boehlke, 3535 Pine Tree Drive, explained he was uncertain if the
sign was adjustable. He was confident the proposed signs would not be impactful on the
surrounding residents.
Councilmember Weber explained he liked the Station 110 signage, noting this would fit in with
all of the fire stations within the Lake Johanna Fire Department.
MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a
motion to adopt Resolution 2026-013 approving Planning Case 26-001 for a
Sign Standard Adiustment through the Site Plan Review process to install up
to 163 square feet in wall signage,72 square feet in graphic signage,33.5 square
feet in freestanding sign copy area, and 79 square feet of freestanding
monument area at 3535 Pine Tree Drive, based on the findings of fact and the
submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the March 9, 2026, report to
the City Council.
Councilmember Holden asked why Commissioner Bjorklund opposed the sign adjustment
request.
Councilmember Weber stated it was his understanding Commissioner Bjorklund objected to the
graphic signage.
The motion carried (5-0).
C. Detention Facilities in the City of Arden Hills
• Interim Ordinance 2026-003 Establishing a Moratorium on Detention
Facilities
• Authorization of Publication of Summary Interim Ordinance
CommunityDevelopment Director Reilly reported this item was resented to the City Council
P Y p P Y
under agenda Item 10A.
MOTION: Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to adopt
Interim Ordinance 2026-003 Establishing a Moratorium on Detention Facilities
within the City.
Councilmember Monson stated the City Council has seen how the detention centers were
adversely impacting the communities they were located in. She noted the detention centers were
creating traffic concerns and erratic driving behavior. She explained she supported the City Council
moving forward with a moratorium on detention facilities within the City.
Councilmember Weber agreed noting this was in no way a reflection on the relationship the City
has with Ramsey County.
Councilmember Rousseau reported these types of detention centers do not fit into the culture of
the community.
Mayor Grant agreed,noting these types of facilities do not serve the community and for this reason
he supported the moratorium moving forward. He commented Ramsey County does not have a
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 20
retention facility in Arden Hills but does have a facility in place for processing and holding an
individual for a short period of time.
Councilmember Holden supported the moratorium being put in place and that staff work to study
this topic quickly in order for the Council to put an ordinance in place as quickly as possible.
Mayor Grant reported he read ICE has $38 million to spend on facilities and he was aware of the
facilities that have already been purchased across the United States. He understood ICE was
approved through the Big Beautiful Bill and noted it was important for the City Council to take this
pp l� g
action in order to keep detention facilities out of Arden Hills.
The motion carried (5-0).
MOTION: Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to provide
staff Authorization for Summary Publication of Interim Ordinance 2026-003.
The motion carried (5-0).
D. City Code Chapter 9 - Building Regulations
• Ordinance 2026-004 Amending City Code Chapter 9—Building Regulations
Related to Plumbing Plan Review Delegation
• Authorization of Publication of Summary Ordinance
Community Development Director Reilly stated this item was presented to the City Council under
agenda Item IOB.
MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a
motion to adopt Ordinance 2026-004 amending Chapter 9 — Building
Regulations to establish Rum River Consultants as the delegated commercial
and public plumbing plan reviewer. The motion carried (5-0).
MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a
motion to provide staff Authorization for Summary Publication of Ordinance
2026-004. The motion carried(5-0).
E. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System(MS4) Amendments—Planning Case
26-003
• Ordinance 2026-005 Amending City Code Chapter 11 — Subdivisions,
Section 1140.08
• Authorization of Publication of Summary Ordinance
• Ordinance 2026-006 Amending City Code Chapter 10 — Utilities and
Chapter 15—Erosion and Sediment Control(MS4)
• Authorization of Publication of Summary Ordinance
Community Development Director Reilly stated this item was presented to the City Council under
agenda Item 1 OC.
Councilmember Holden inquired if the proper drainage of water runoff from one property to
another, even if the property is located on a hill, was addressed within this plan.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 21
Community Development Director Reilly explained it was his understanding that there was a
separate set of rules that references stormwater runoff onto and around other properties and deferred
to the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
Public Works Directory/City Engineer Swearingen reported the City runs into this quite often
given the topography of the City. He indicated the idea was there cannot be an increase in flow to
the adjacent property, noting there was a natural flow for water downhill. He commented that staff
tries to direct water to flow down property lines and neighbors are not to negatively impact the flow
to adjacent properties at the end of the development.
MOTION: Councilmember Weber moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion
to adopt Ordinance 2026-005 amending Chapter 11 - Subdivisions to bring the
City's Code of Ordinances into conformance with required updated rules set
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The motion carried (5-0).
MOTION: Councilmember Weber moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion
to provide staff Authorization for Summary Publication of Ordinance 2026-
005. The motion carried (5-0).
MOTION: Councilmember Weber moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion
to adopt Adoption of Ordinance 2026-006 amending Chapter 10—Utilities and
Chapter — 15 Erosion and Sediment Control to bring the City's Code of
Ordinances into conformance with required updated rules set by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency Adoption of Ordinance 2026-006 amending Chapter
10 — Utilities and Chapter — 15 Erosion and Sediment Control to bring the
City's Code of Ordinances into conformance with required updated rules set
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The motion carried (5-0).
MOTION: Councilmember Weber moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion
to provide staff Authorization for Summary Publication of Ordinance 2026-
006. The motion carried (5-0).
12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Rousseau explained at the last PTRC meeting that the Committee asked that the
Council change the membership number from 12 plus one youth to a committee of eight plus one
youth. She asked that the Council discuss this matter further at a future work session.
Councilmember Rousseau stated the PTRC and EDC were working on their work plans for 2026.
She noted the chairs from both of these committees would like to attend an April work session to
review these work plans.
Councilmember Rousseau requested staff advertise the adopt a park plan in the next City
newsletter. She inquired if the City would be doing an adopt a spot as well as the adopt a park
program.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 22
Public Works Directory/City Engineer Swearingen reported this topic would be coming to the
City Council at the second meeting in April or first meeting in May.
Councilmember Rousseau requested staff invite NYFS to attend a future City Council meeting in
order to provide an update on their organization.
Councilmember Rousseau stated she wanted the Council to discuss putting a moratorium in place
for data centers.
Councilmember Weber explained he supported the Council discussing the membership on the
PTRC, discussing a moratorium on data centers and that staff invite NYFS to attend a future
meeting.
Councilmember Weber stated the Planning Commission's March meeting was canceled.He noted
the Planning Commission would be reviewing the inclusionary housing ordinance in April. He
commented on a meeting he had with a local non-profit regarding the City's inclusionary housing
ordinance. He explained he learned the City of Arden Hills was 80% AMI for its rental units. He
reported he believed the proposed inclusionary ordinance was aggressive but was not out of line.
He indicated after learning that the City's rental units were already at 80% AMI, he supported
lowering the requirements within the inclusionary ordinance to 60% AMI if a developer wished to
receive density bonuses.
Councilmember Weber commented that the Mayor made a statement when the Council was
discussing the EDA appointments that he used the moment as a"gotcha"moment. He believed the
Code of Conduct called for the Council to interpret each other's behavior in the best of light, with
the best intentions. He was of the opinion he had the right to question the nominations that were
made to a vital board for the City and this was not a"gotcha" moment as he was trying to get the
best for the City. He wanted to ensure everything done from this bench was done in the light of day,
clear, transparent and accountable.
Councilmember Holden reported the National Guard had a celebration two weeks ago after one
of the original Red Bulls from 1943 turned 103. She explained General Joe Sharkey was there.
Councilmember Holden stated Councilmember Weber made a statement that as soon as the Mayor
and Councilmember Holden found out his intent to try and redo it, they blocked it. She questioned
where Councilmember Weber's best intent was in this situation. She stated best intentions go both
ways, noting she had no idea this was her intent in this situation. She indicated she was not happy
with the way things were going and she hoped the Council could do better.
Councilmember Monson reported she supported the Council discussing the new membership
number on the PTRC. In addition, she supported the EDC and PTRC Chairs attending an upcoming
work session. She commented she was interested in discussing a moratorium on data centers and
standalone storage facilities.
Councilmember Monson stated she wanted the Council to discuss the structure of public hearings
and new business items. She indicated she would like the City Council to take action on public
hearings items after the public hearing was held and not under a new business item because this
would be more accommodating to the public.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 9, 2026 23
Councilmember Rousseau supported this recommendation.
Mayor Grant requested staff take a look at the upcoming work session agendas and place the
PTRC make up, PTRC and EDC work plan presentations, data center moratorium and public
hearing process on future agendas.
Mayor Grant reviewed the language that was added to the City Council agendas to ensure the
public knows that a Councilmember may be attending a meeting remotely,which was now allowed
per State Statute.
Mayor Grant explained he and City Administrator Jagoe met with the Nine Cities mayors' group
where new cannabis retail shops were discussed.
ADJOURN
MOTION: Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember Weber seconded a motion to
adiourn. The motion carried (5-0).
Mayor Grant adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 9:28 p.m.
(�IT j;-(ZL M4�� '4M�'-
JulliHanson David Grant
Ci Clerk Mayor