This transcript is from the Rosemount City Council meeting held on April 7, 2026. [0:26] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Good evening and welcome to the regular city council meeting for the city of Rosemount on Tuesday, April 7th, 2026. Please rise and join me as you're able to the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [0:57] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Good evening everyone. It's nice to see a full council chamber this evening. Are there any additions or corrections to the agenda? [1:05] Logan Martin (City Administrator): No, sir. [1:08] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Seeing none, I'll move the agenda. [1:10] Council Member Tyson: Second. [1:11] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: All in favor signify by saying I. [1:13] Council Members: I. [1:13] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Opposed. We have an agenda and we will proceed right to presentations, proclamations, and acknowledgements. First being up 3A, swearing in of our police chief. Mr. Martin. [1:22] Logan Martin (City Administrator): Thank you, mayor, members of the council, members of the Rosemount community, public safety community. Uh really exciting night here, a historic night for the city of Rosemount as we swear in our new police chief, Mr. Carson Thomas. Uh just thrilled to be here tonight. Uh having reached this point in our journey to be able to present Carson to you as as uh the Rosemount's next police chief. [1:46] Logan Martin (City Administrator): Uh by way of a little bit of background, so Carson joined our team in 2022 uh after serving two communities in California for over 20 years. a dedicated career in California, uh, traveling through all divisions, patrol, SWAT, SWAT leader, a detective, um, union steward, business agent, and and and much more, winning awards in California, winning community awards, officer of the year, uh, getting recognized by nonprofits in California, just a storied career before he came to Rosemount in 2022. Um, serving as our deputy chief for three years, and and his impact was was very quickly realized. Um he's been serving as our interim chief since October of 2025. Uh and he's done just an incredible job of leading the community through leading the the department through a time of some transition and some some healing and growth. Um and we just so appreciate what he's done for for the community and in the city and and the department in his six months of interim leadership. Um not going to go through the full list uh but most notably really breathed life into a number of programs that were ready to launch: our K9 program, our drone program, wellness equipment programs, and just again just empowered the staff, allowed staff to feel that that growth again, that leadership opportunity. Uh he talks about in a press release that's coming out later tonight, um about really focusing on the city's three core the department's three core values of honor, integrity, and courage and and and really has nailed those home. um has been so well loved by the department, by us as a leadership and staff team, just a wonderful addition to the leadership team. Um and uh and just want to thank him for that. By way of a little bit of background too of getting here tonight, um not only did his six months of interim leadership serve as kind of an on the job interview for for me to be able to recommend to council uh getting to this moment here tonight, uh I also engaged in a lengthy process with our department. I had about six hours of open office time with the department. talked to a large number of folks uh in the department. Uh whether it was a lot in person over those six hours, my door was full the whole time. [3:51] Logan Martin (City Administrator): Uh but then also some some emails and some reachouts from all of you in in blue here, which we really appreciate hearing. And just unanimous recommendation of saying this guy needs to be our next chief. This guy is our chief. Uh we can't wait to continue to follow him going forward. And and so I just want you to hear those words tonight, Carson, that your team is behind you. Your leadership partners here are behind you. We're so honored to have you as our chief. Um, and mayor, if I could, to that end, to nail home uh kind of the department's excitement about Carson becoming our chief, I wanted to call Sergeant Eckstein up to the microphone maybe to say a couple of words. [4:26] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Welcome. [4:27] Sergeant Eckstein: Thank you, mayor, members of the council, city leadership. Um, I'm sure interim chief is wondering why I'm standing up here right now, but we'll get that here in a minute. Um, it's pretty crazy to see all these people here in support. Um, I first want to thank city administrator Logan Martin, uh, city clerk Aaron Fassbender for working with us to make this moment right now happen. Um, again, Carson has no idea what I'm doing and why I'm up here. The department does know. Um, I just like to discuss the reason why I'm here. Um during a sergeant meeting, the sergeant group of eight unanimously voted to recognize the work of interim chief Thomas and present him with a department award of merit uh for his performance and achievement under difficult circumstances. Um I'm going to take a a moment to read. It's a statement that is a compilation of information provided by our city staff members uh at every level. They nominated Carson for 2025 officer of the year and employee of the year. So, I'm going to read a statement here that is like I said, it's a compilation of all members, all ranks from our department. [5:34] Sergeant Eckstein: I will try and get through this quickly, but I want to hit on a lot of things. So, since assuming the role of interim chief in October of 2025, Carson has demonstrated an exceptional leadership during one of the most critical and uncertain periods in our department's history. Though he did not initially intend to take on the role of chief, he stepped forward without hesitation and accepted full responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the police department by ensuring stability, direction, and continuity. Carson immediately set a tone of unity and empowerment. He successfully brought the leadership team together and instilled confidence in our sergeants by encouraging them to lead with sound judgment, professionalism, and autonomy. This empowerment has reinforced accountability strengthened decision-making at every level, and significantly improved motivation and morale throughout the organization. His leadership is defined by approachability, presence, and collaboration. Carson is consistently engaged, accessible, and fosters an environment built on trust and mutual respect. He listens to concerns. He acknowledges frustrations and provides steady, thoughtful guidance throughout some of the department's most challenging moments. He served as a calming and reassuring presence and remained optimistic while always placing the needs of the department above his own. Carson has also demonstrated a deep commitment to mentorship, professional development. His ability to provide constructive meaningful feedback has contributed to measurable growth among supervisors and officers alike. In a short period of time, his leadership has resulted in a complete cultural shift within the department and has created a more positive, welcoming, and cohesive work environment centered on teamwork. Beyond internal improvements, Carson has taken deliberate and meaningful steps to repair and strengthen relationships with other city departments. He's also made several critical decisions regarding long-standing projects and neglected initiatives, ensuring progress, accountability, and forward momentum. [7:37] Sergeant Eckstein: Notably, Carson made the selfless decision to remove himself from a new professional opportunity to provide stability for this department. This action reflects his unwavering dedication to our officers, our organization, and the community we serve. Carson guided this department and placed trust in his people. He has applied his experience and has positioned us for long-term success through improved communication, empowered leadership, and a renewed sense of unity. He has raised overall morale and place the department on a strong and sustainable path forward for his steady leadership, selfless commitment, and transformative impact on this organization. Interim Chief Carson Thomas has been awarded the department award of merit, and we wanted to recognize him for this in front of all of you guys and everybody here. So, I just ask that Sergeant Coughlin come up here, say a few words, and we'll present interim chief with the award. [8:23] Sergeant Coughlin: Thank you, Sergeant Eckstein. Uh, council, I just want you to realize what a significant thing this is. In 20 years of law enforcement, I'm not aware of any department that has nominated their chief for officer of the year or employee of the year, let alone get multiple nominations as we saw in this instance. And I think it's a huge reflection of all these officers, the confidence that they have in him, the appreciation we have for him, and just the enthusiasm we have going forward with his leadership. As city administrator Martin mentioned, we've accomplished a lot in the last 6 months, and we're really excited for where he's going to take this department in the coming years. So, without further ado, I invite the interim Chief Thomas. [9:24] Chief Carson Thomas: Humbled, um, grateful, um, could not be more proud of the men and women that protect and serve this community both at the fire and at the police level. Uh the men and women who are dedicated to the development of where this city is going to go in the future uh is steadfast and they put their own wishes and desires aside each and every day to make sure that they're honoring the integrity of what this council brings and what you desire from us. And so, um, this is overwhelming, um, by multiple ways, but really this is a small reflection or a huge reflection of what's standing behind me and those who couldn't make it because this is all them. This isn't just me. This is me getting together and saying, "You have a voice. You have the ability to be strong. You're a positive influence. Go and do the things you can do and I'll support you." And because I was able to do this, they recognized me for this, but they realize it was always there. It just needed to be released and let go. So, thank you very much. Appreciate it. [10:44] Logan Martin (City Administrator): So, uh, mayor, I would just wrap up to say with that, it's just with an extreme level of confidence that we're just thrilled and honored to recommend your appointment of Mr. Carson Thomas as the next chief of police, and I'll turn it over to you and Miss Fassbender to eventually do the oath of office. [11:00] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: And if you'd like to say a few words, council, now might be the right time. [11:03] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Yeah, I'll open it up to the rest of the council. Anything that they'd like to start out with. [11:06] Council Member Freski: Wow, that was that was um a little overwhelming, but thank you um Eckstein for um acknowledging what he's done. It's been it's been a journey to watch you guys the last six months and I'm really proud to support this. So, thank you. [11:21] Council Member Esler: Yeah, I'd just like to say thank you and and um there's nothing there's not a better compliment to be had than when your men and women um not only see you as the leader that you are, but um recognize that in a public setting. So, congratulations. [11:36] Council Member Tyson: Not much additional to say. Thank you. Um, and thank you um to everyone else with the Rosemount Police Department for um coming along for this ride with us, I guess. Um, but um we're really proud to have you coming on board. Thank you for starting this process uh of moving forward with the team and empowering the team. It's really exciting to see. [11:57] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Yeah. Yeah. And as as uh Sergeant Eckstein was was commenting about about uh soon to be Chief Thomas, I was watching the crowd uh watching all the police officers nodding their heads very very much in agreement with what what was being said. So clearly, you know, we've all had several conversations with several of the officers and some of some of the sergeants. Uh we've heard the feedback. We've heard nothing but incredible things about uh soon to be Chief Thomas. and we're really really excited about where he's going to take the department and and again I continue to see nodding. I love it. So very excited. Um congratulations and we're we're thrilled. [12:35] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: So with that I'll turn it over to our clerk to administer the oath of office. [12:40] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Please raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I, Carson Thomas, solemnly swear... [12:43] Chief Carson Thomas: I, Carson Thomas, solemnly swear... [12:45] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: That I will support the Constitution of the United States... [12:47] Chief Carson Thomas: That I will support the Constitution of the United States... [12:49] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: And of the State of Minnesota... [12:51] Chief Carson Thomas: And of the state of Minnesota... [12:53] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: And will faithfully discharge the duties... [12:55] Chief Carson Thomas: And will faithfully discharge the duties... [12:57] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Of the police chief... [12:59] Chief Carson Thomas: Of the police chief... [13:01] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Of the city of Rosemount... [13:03] Chief Carson Thomas: City of Rosemount... [13:05] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: In the county of Dakota... [13:07] Chief Carson Thomas: In the county of Dakota... [13:09] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: And the state of Minnesota... [13:11] Chief Carson Thomas: And the state of Minnesota... [13:13] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: To the best of my judgment and ability. [13:15] Chief Carson Thomas: To the best of my judgment and ability. [13:48] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: So with Chief Thomas leading our police department, Rosemount is entering a transformative era, one defined by professionalism, collaboration, and a culture where every staff member is supported and empowered. His leadership approach reflects the values of our community, what it expects, and what it deserves. And the council fully supports his appointment as he advances our city's public safety priorities. Congratulations. [14:36] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: The council's going to head down and take a picture quick with Chief and then if other leadership team wants to take one too. [14:48] Chief Carson Thomas: Her family again. I just I couldn't be more honored. This guy can use this for this opportunity. That's their views. [14:53] Chief Carson Thomas: Um, yeah. I I I don't necessarily always want to be in front saying things or talking about information that's going out there. But for this time in my life, I couldn't be more proud than standing in front of this group of men and women and saying that I am honored to lead with you. I am honored to support you in your endeavors. You will be. My goal is to be better off when you retire than when you start. Our goal is to bring you back to your families whole. And we're going to make sure that each and every day you feel welcome and loved. And if it's something that we collectively can do as a department moving forward, then I know that we will succeed in every way. So, thank you for being here. [16:14] Chief Carson Thomas: And those who are part of the department move forward. We're headed back to our department asking for refreshments and continue. [16:59] Council Member: It's awesome. [17:12] Council Member: Yeah. Big heads. [17:36] Council Member: I do too. I do too. Make that work session short. You can get over there. [17:52] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: All right, we're going to uh transition here from one uh part of our public safety to a second one. Um what uh okay uh so we've completed 3A. We'll move on to 3B. Asked our fire chief Kip Springer to come forward. [18:21] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: We ask those that are coming in to uh please be quiet as we are proceeding with the meeting. [18:27] Chief Kip Springer: All right. Good evening, mayor, council members, and members of our community. Um, I first want to just say thank you for the opportunity to allow us some time to do this presentation tonight and for your continued support of our department and all things public safety. Um, we all know our community is growing, right? New new homes, new businesses, all that increased activity um are all a positive sign. [18:50] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Please the audience be quiet. We are proceeding with the meeting. Please be quiet. Thank you. Proceed. [18:59] Chief Kip Springer: Yep. But again, with that with all of that tremendous growth, uh comes an increased demand for emergency services. Um over time, these rising call volumes and service expectations have certainly played a significant strain on our paid on call style department um and on our firefighters who have really been the backbone of our organization. Um recognizing these challenges, we have already taken several proactive steps um to help strengthen our organization and to better serve our community. We have started a you know, we implemented a station-based uh paging protocol uh for lower acuity calls. We've invested in our leadership and operational support, hiring a full-time fire chief, a deputy fire marshal, administrative support. Um in this past winter, uh, council also supported us by contracting with an outside consultant to conduct a fire department analysis just to help us build a roadmap for future success. So, tonight we are here to share the results of that fire staffing study, an important step in evaluating um, how we can continue to meet the needs of our growing community. Uh, before we begin that, I just want to sincerely say thank you to the council. Thank you to our community for your ongoing trust, your partnerships, and your commitment to public safety. Your support has allowed us to take meaningful steps forward already. Um, and we look forward to discussing how we will build a sustainable and effective fire service in the future. So, with that, I would like to introduce Stuart Garry uh from CityGate and Associates. [20:30] Stuart Garry: Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. Pleasure to be with you again. This concludes the presentation of the fire master plan study. Going to go briefly through the headlines tonight in a PowerPoint deck. The chief and I are here to answer any questions you may have. We start the study with a reminder that in America, the provision of fire service and first responder EMS is a local control issue. Many people mistakenly believe there are federal or state requirements on the provision of response time in fire services, and that's not the case. What is the case, however, is if you provision fire services at all as a city, a community, a fire district, you do so with the safety and standards for the firefighters and the public in mind. It has become a very expensive technical business. Circa 2026. [21:19] Stuart Garry: The level of fire service provided is thus a local policy choice. You have the level of service you desire, but you may not be able to afford that level of service. And we balance with master plan technical analysis advice to you on what level of fire services to purchase or aspire to. The goal of fire service deployment is to deliver outcomes. We don't start with response time. We don't start with the number of trucks or the number of people. What is the customer service objective? Keep a house fire small. Hopefully prevent injury or fatal injuries to the occupants of the house or the commercial building fire. get to EMS patient care in time to prevent furthered medical decay, get them to hospital care in time. Other outcomes in very rural communities would be get there in time that the house of origin burns down but keep a forest fire from starting or keep the house of origin from spreading to adjoining houses but we can only afford a token force in too many minutes to keep the house of origin from becoming fully consumed. [22:26] Stuart Garry: We talk about these urban suburban community. In a community like this, the outcome is keep a fire small, not consuming the entire building and get to emergency medical patients in time to start positive interventions. So the clock is ticking from the moment 911 says hello, what is your problem? Delivering those outcomes depends on adequate staffing, apparatus, and spacing across the geography because as is common sense, this community is too big. Most communities this size are for just one fire station to reach everybody and everything quickly enough. [23:04] Stuart Garry: Fire service deployment is especially about two things. The speed of the attack and the weight of the attack. Speed is the spacing of a first responder into every neighborhood to fairly quickly with one crew get to common everyday emergencies and handle it for the family, the business owner, the patients benefit. No extra trucks or personnel are required. The weight of attack is amassing enough fire crews together on a serious fire or rescue or hazardous material spill to quickly begin mitigation so the incident doesn't grow to greater alarms. So there's this constructive tension. I want to space the crews across the geography for neighborhood first response, but if I space too few, too far apart, I can't aggregate the crew fast enough for that weight of attack when it really, really is needed. So, in Rosemount, we find three fire service delivery challenges as you continue to evolve. Response times are delayed by unstaffed stations. I want to say three times tonight, you have a fantastic volunteer what's called paid on call workforce, but they in the traditional model common in this state and elsewhere. They respond from home or work have to get to the fire station, put the protective clothing on, get the unit running, and the clock is running because when the dispatcher notified the crew to go, there was no pausing of the clock. The emergency is still escalating. [24:33] Stuart Garry: Fire station facilities. If you went to partial and we're going to talk about combined combination department part-time staffing with full-time career as a blended model, you need sleeping facilities for a 24-hour crew shift-based model. Whether they're part-time or full-time, your stations were only built to house apparatus and to clean and maintain them. Your fire prevention programs were limited. Uh I'll say at the end of tonight during this study, you and the staff were not sitting still and in fact a second fire prevention officer was funded and has already started and you've already started to make an investment in part-time daytime staffing. So the good news is everyone has been working these issues consistent with finishing the master plan to expand the department to meet the three challenges. in-station staffing, anticipating someday a third fire station if you really continued to densely evolve out to the east, but that's not in the next few years, and increasing the fire inspection mission. Your strengths, outstanding personnel, full and part-time, culture of duty, community focused and cooperative, best practices driven. You have an excellent framework of policies, procedures, training, and the regulations meeting safety norms to deliver safe, effective fire services. [25:54] Stuart Garry: Your existing apparatus are fine. In fact, the ladder truck is on order and due to be replaced. So, you've made the investments in the apparatus. The buildings are 25 to 30 years old. They're too small for overnight staffing, but they're by no means in dire need of replacement. Some modest expansion remodels can take care of that. So this master plan provides a roadmap for services in terms of risk assessment just as a general geography for the audience at home. The two fire stations are located in the western half of the city where the population density is the greatest and Rosemount started to evolve outward from the values to be protected. We talked about service delivery customer service. What does that mean? And how many things are an asset in this community? You got a little under 30,000 residents today. Nearly 27% of the population is under 10 or over age 65. Why is that important? Because not everyone is of the right age, physically fit, mentally, physically capable to be a full firefighter, fire combat firefighter, not just a helper or an aid doing office work. your daytime population decreases by a little more than 22%. So you're more of a suburban community with outflow of migration during the day. [27:15] Stuart Garry: That further declines your available volunteer firefighting force. They're committed, they're trained, but they commute to a job outside the city limits. You will grow slowly, modestly, to maybe 38,000 people or more by 2050. and you're that I mentioned again a future third station is down the road as you get more intense development in the eastern city. You've got about 10,000 residential housing units, 470 employers employing about 7,200 people, 92 maximum and high-risk occupancies. Those are critical infrastructure things that keep modern civilization running. power, freshwater, wastewater, garbage transit collection, telecommunications node, fiber, power lines, the things that make civilization civilized have to be protected from fire, accidents, etc. The primary hazards in Rosemount today continue to be building fires, emergency medical calls. So, modest hazardous materials, spills on the highway, and the rail lines have to be prepared for your service demand. Uh the blue is EMS. [28:24] Stuart Garry: Uh this is calls for service over the last three years. Fire is a small amount. We've done a very good job with fire prevention, controlling fire in America. There's still more to be done. There's too much of it. EMS is the dominant fire first responder mission today in most communities. The volume on this bar, however, is half the citywide EMS volume because your fire department being part-time and coming from not in the station leaves first responder EMS still to the local beat cop and the ambulance that even responds without a fire crew at all to low acute emergencies. Your fire department's going to acute emergencies where life and death matters and auto trauma, auto accidents, that kind of response. [29:09] Stuart Garry: The number of incidents by day of the week are relatively static year-over-year. And all this picture says is I need fire services and first responder EMS seven days a week, 12 months of the year. In this chart, midnight's on the left and to the right is midnight and 24 hours over three years. This is by time of day when your demand for service is the greatest. And right when your volunteers, some of them are leaving the city for employment elsewhere at about 8:00 a.m. through about 9:00 p.m. at night is that plateau where human activity is the highest and calls for service the highest. But you still have fires at 0200. And by the way, most deadly house fires in the United States. Most tragic house fires occur during sleeping hours. So you need that ready force to go anytime, but you also work them harder during daylight hours for other things such as EMS. The incident types, we just gave data in the report about the quantity of calls, the breakdown by EMS call, vehicle accidents. What I want to draw attention to on this slide is the last row about per year 25 building fires give or take two a month. So if if we were in business saying, "Well, we're going to spend money on when we have to use it." Two house fires a month isn't a large quantity except to the people involved. [30:34] Stuart Garry: So fire protection is like fire insurance. You're buying an expensive, yes, standby force to protect your community from fire, EMS, and other perils. and you may not use them often enough, which is good news, but you've got that sunk cost to buy the community insurance in the form of your fire department. Your response time performance, the bottom two rows are important in that total response time is from 911 saying hello to wheels stop or the first neighborhood unit on scene. You're getting to 90% of the responses in just under 11 minutes. In an urban suburban area, best practice would be seven and a half minutes for the first responder to get in time to begin to stop a serious fire with one unit and to begin to intervene in life and death EMS events. Time matters. The clock runs if we're not oxygenating our brains, regardless of the medical reason. And a fire, a building fire doubles every minute of freeburn. Every minute of free burn in a compartment that's open flame, not smoldering, the fire is doubling in size and it's been doubling in size since it was noticed and first called to 911. So coincidentally, the EMS race against time and the fire race against the fire leaving the first room of origin both become catastrophic at about minute 9 or 10 in very serious emergencies. That's why we want the neighborhood first responder there in less than 10 minutes. Multiple responders to serious fires should arrive in 11 to 12 minutes. Here you're at 19 minutes because by time you get three engine crews in from home dressed and rolling back out to the emergency, it just takes a little too long and some of those incidents are outside of the core of the city. Also, if we look at travel time coverage, this is population density. The darker is the more people per square mile. Certainly the two fire stations are historically located where population density and zoning is the most intense in your community. The computer gives us five minute travel time coverage. So the computer crawls the road network and says how far can I go from two stations in five travel minutes which is best practice four to five minutes. And you see green is good here. Now the green doesn't go clear to the eastern city limits. The city's just too big for that. But the prior slide said most of your population and calls are in where the population is the highest. [33:06] Stuart Garry: If we look at multiple unit coverage, we want all the units on scene in 8 minutes driving time and from two fire stations if they were staffed to drive immediately. You can get three crews in 8 minutes driving time to majority of the populated areas in 8 minutes drive time. The good news is your historic station locations are well placed for the existing largest populated areas. Table here lot of data in green just to summarize from your two stations to the most populated road networks in the city which more than 151 people per square mile. So not zero but north of 150 people per square mile which is not very many. Your two stations reach 99% of the road network in five minutes. You are covering the population base today from two locations. That's why I'm saying someday you may grow into an eastern need for a third station to maintain that level of first response excellence. You're not there today. need a whole lot more growth and souls at risk uh to drive that. Your department staffing, your paid on call dedication is robust. You give or take 40 uh plus on the roster. They're engaged. Their training hours are high. That's a little bit atypical in some Minnesota communities where the pressures on a two-income commuter-based society are even straining the volunteers to get enough mandatory training and certification hours done in a year. Yours are committed. they're trained. The question is when you need them quickly and need more than two or three of them, are there enough immediately available? [35:36] Stuart Garry: So if we look at individual responses per person on the left scale, we just look at how many times per year each individual responded, your workforce individually is somewhere between 200 and 300 responses per year per individual. They are coming in. This is a good news graph. I can show you a graph from other clients in Minnesota that are the flip of this graph. Five or 10 people, typical volunteerism in America, we say right, 10% do 90% of the work. Well, that's true many times in volunteer fire call out from home or business. They're coming. But you're only getting, as we look at the data, if you need three people, you get three people. If you need 15 people on a serious incident, you're largely getting nine to 12 on a good day. So that's back to time of day, day of the week. If I really need all hands, how quickly can I get everybody back to staff every piece of equipment I need? [35:51] Stuart Garry: So your deployment in summary uh the department shifted to how it dispatched the volunteers by station area to try to lower the stress on some of them uh and how many calls per day. As your call volume grows annually with EMS and other things. Think about it. Uh if I'm a 20-year veteran volunteer, when I started here, I probably went to a call a week. You ratchet that up to two pages a day. Guess what? my family or my employer starting to stress me over. Hey, wait a minute, Dad or mom. This isn't what we signed up for. The normal transition for departments of your size, cities of your size, is to start what's affectionately called a duty crew model. And either through part-time employment or a limited number of full-time career firefighters and your part-timers on stipend, you staff one or two stations at least during daylight hours. And it's all it's cash flow. And once you can get that up and running, then expand to 24 hours a day with a minimum number of career people because you need three people on a fire engine and two of them have to be highly credentialed. There has to be a captain, a leader who's tactically trained and isn't going to let anybody get hurt, make the right decisions. You need a driver pump operator. You're not going to drive uh with an undertrained operator, a big expensive fire truck through civilian traffic or red lights and siren, and not be really well trained at doing it. And you've got to operate the pump and provide water to attack lines when you get there. There's math and physics, and there's training involved in that. AI hasn't replaced somebody operating the apparatus yet. It will someday, but not my career arc. So, the third person, fourth crew members are the firefighters. They're dragging the hose, placing the nozzle, placing the ladder, doing things. And why do we need 15 people on a building fire? Well, it's like football. I've got to do multiple things simultaneously to keep the problem small. I have to start fire attack. I have to get water to the pump. I have to search for victims. I may have to do smoke a ventilation removal. I've got to turn the utilities off. And we go into great detail in a couple pages in the report on all the tasks that have to occur simultaneously to stop a house fire. [38:10] Stuart Garry: So think about it in football terms. If I show up with six versus 11, who's going to win? The 11. I'm just overpowered. And fighting a fire is still a race against time until you stop as forward doubling in size. Uh, so day a daytime duty crew here would be prudent between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. at night. You started a pilot duty crew program two months ago. Kudos for that. You have enough people to give you possibly two two and a half people a day, but only about half the month. So, if you actually take 12-hour days, 30 days in a year, and divide the hours into only 40 people, there's just not enough of them. And I have Minnesota clients that have had 90 on the roster have been unable to field with part-time alone, two to four people on duty 24/7. So, that's where we get to the term a combination department or a blended department. The captain and the driver operator specialized certified their full-time career. The firefighters come from the paid call force, but they're in the building. They're in the building with the crew. They're sleeping over with the crew. It's just a blended staffing model. And you'll need to make modest improvements to station one and two to accommodate that. So overall we uh in the report give you response time performance measures to consider adopting as for council policy over four phases several fiscal years add a small number of career people to support three-person part-time staffing at both stations and to eventually provide six personnel 24/7 days a week in two stations in the city limits. Now, to do the quick math before I get to the table on a rotating crew schedule, if I say one, I'm saying hire three because while one works, two are off, and they have to rotate through a reproducible pattern. [40:11] Stuart Garry: So, when we say six people per day, that's 18 full-time employees to run 24/7 365. as fire crew reliable immediate staffing increases take the EMS first responder off of law. Now law will still go to knife, gun, auto trauma, don't get me wrong, but if it's just chest pain, they're still breathing. They're not CPR involved or it's Johnny fell off the skateboard, maybe broke his wrist, fire can take that, leave the beat cop to do beat cop work. Don't spread the beat cops so thin with every single EMS call uh that comes in. As funds permit, develop the crew space at station one and two for overnight. Terms of headquarter services, we talked about it. You had existing needs. You had one career person, the fire chief, and your volunteer fire chiefs up against the wall behind me. They're volunteers, too. And they're providing the entire management services of a full-service fire department. And we've told our clients anywhere for decades now, even a one-station fire department needs a minimum of five chief officers and an office admin support. You need a fire chief, a department head to do business like all the other department heads in the city. You need three chiefs for 24/7 instant command. And those three chiefs handle bureaucratic themes, fleet maintenance, repair of the buildings, training, certifications, EMS quality oversight. very fire service and EMS care today is heavily regulated with mandatory quality of care oversight. It takes staff to do that work and right now your staff work was coming from any uh all your volunteers except for the one career chief. So to add an administrative battalion chief, then eventually in the short term, you've added an administrative assistant and a second fire prevention officer to keep up with the pace of not just growth, but getting commensurate back to the pace of ongoing building inspections. High-risk occupancies need to be inspected annually under the fire code. public assemblies, large restaurants, auditoriums, theaters, things that are hazardous to large numbers of people need an annual fire inspection to be sure they are being operated per the code. So, the recommendations again are plan uh for improved staffing as you remodel the stations. You're very fortunate as a city. You've required large parcels. They really don't have any training aids or props at the stations today or a separate training center. you could start to build some small neighborhood friendly props for outdoor training into those two sites. The phasing plan then becomes to reduce the dependency for immediate paid on call staffing for everything. Continue to use them as I've stated. Uh initially it looks like the remodeling work is underway to engineer at least what fire station 2 might look like. You could start daytime staffing there as you've done. You could transition that back and forth to station one depending on the pace and cost of remodel, but eventually get both stations able to house two crews 24/7 365. [43:33] Stuart Garry: That added personnel stepwise that's in the report. I I I won't go through the math tonight, but this table is the number of on-duty personnel per day. So eventually, you can see there in the gray row, you've got a full-time chief officer, incident command, not coming from home or other work, but in the station commanding uh the the force daily with a captain and emergency vehicle operator and then up you see the part-time firefighter. So your first baby staffing step is four people per day, three career, one is a part-timer and then you grow that over time. And this is what the growth over time looks like. Uh you've already basically done phase one uh this fiscal year with the deputy fire marshal and the admin assistant. Phase two would add nine uh firefighters bringing the total career to 12. And then a later phase would add six more for the second crew at the other station. Then you're up to 18 full-time firefighters. and you're still maintaining, equipping, and training 40 part-time volunteer community residents who who want to give as much as they they can give. But as calls for service, I'll just close with this. You're not an outlier. You're sadly the norm in America. the the pressures on society, the increase in training and standards and the fire department being the Swiss Army knife to go to anything and everything all the time. The daily call volume is just too high uh for a cadre of volunteers to support. Now, I say that from the heart. I started as a volunteer. I've been in this business 55 years. When I started, the the hardware store owner, the rental yard owner left their business and joined the high school volunteers to staff the truck. I'm sorry, those days are gone. Current society and employment just no longer satisfies communities heart and other economic drivers freezing in motion while everybody runs to the fire. You got to do a blend of both. And you're just on the arc. You've got a strong force. Yours hasn't decayed yet. Others have. In this state, in the metro region, you're all kind of running your own slightly different community timeline to how long can we hang on to always instantly available full staffing when we need it. With that, thank you very much. I'd be privileged to take any questions and the chief's here also to support. [46:09] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Okay, the floor is open to council question. [46:11] Council Member Freski: I I have a a question and clarification. So, for those of you in the audience or watching from home, we got this presentation at our public workstation earlier. So, there was a lot of dialogue and Q&A back and forth. One thing I want to point out, and you mentioned it a couple times, we did just start this pilot duty crew, I think January, early February. So, if you go back to slide 17, and you show the response times, those response times are not reflective of the implementation of that new pilot. And so I think what we discussed for the 10 minute 47 second um space there, we believe by implementing that pilot program, we've already covered that gap of the 3 minutes to get us to the average. [46:55] Stuart Garry: You're on the way to substantially decrease it depending on the day of the week. [46:57] Council Member Freski: Yeah. [46:59] Stuart Garry: So when I say day of the week, how many days a year can you maintain in-building staffing? And that's what the pilot program is asking and stretching the workforce to step into. And we also discussed that their new data systems are in place to exquisitely track time and volume after January 1st. So the chief will be able to come in monthly first full month of so they they did volunteer daytime staffing then they went to a mandatory minimum per person plan a month ago. uh started in April. [47:38] Stuart Garry: This month. [47:38] Council Member Freski: Yeah. This month. Yeah. [47:40] Stuart Garry: So, give them a couple of months to see what the minimum per person plan translates to to days in a month. And then look at the response time difference is there. It'll it will be there. The response time with a with a staffed engine is going to be materially faster than coming from anywhere other than the fire station. But you'll see those numbers creep up in this next quarter. [48:04] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Okay. Other questions? [48:06] Council Member Esler: I was just going to add one of the things that, you know, we had this in our work session and one of the things that was really clear is that, you know, recently we hired a full-time chief and and now um some staff to go along with that to help uh offset this. But one of the things that was really recognizable is the work that this team of volunteers has done in the past. And I just wanted to say thank you to everybody. Just recently, um, we had a a fire, a house fire in our neighborhood, and I saw them live in action, and it was it was just nothing but impressive just the the time and effort that goes into, you know, everything that you guys do. The calls, that one that one slide that we had where it showed all the different calls. I mean, the person with the least amount of calls is still what, like over 300. Um, so I just wanted to I know we celebrated, you know, Chief um, Thomas and and that transition. And I just wanted to take this time and say thank you because you guys are all doing this on volunteer time. You guys are very busy lives. You got families and everything else going on. So just want to say thanks for everything you're doing and I like the direction that we're going with your insight. Thanks too. [49:06] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Okay. [49:14] Council Member Tyson: And just really quickly as as next steps as we're looking through kind of this phased planning. Um, Chief Springer, can you talk a little bit about the safer grant program that we talked about with potentially how to mitigate this for us uh taxpayers because uh at the end of the day, I mean um it's it's a lot of new staff. So, how does a grant program like that help? [49:25] Chief Kip Springer: Yeah, absolutely. Um adding nine full-time staff has a significant impact um on a budget um especially on a starting out as a smaller department like this. Uh a safer grant is a federally funded grant program um and we have already worked with a grant writer um to help us write a grant proposal u to bring on some additional staffing through what is called a safer grant. no guarantee. Uh but I believe based off of, you know, we're one of the fastest growing cities in Minnesota. Um we have already made a significant investment in the growth of our fire department. Um and to get us to that next step is where we really need some help. Um I think we have all of the pieces in place uh to make a really strong case uh to get approved for a safer grant. Uh I think they open shortly. Uh we'll get one filled out and submitted and and uh we'll see where that goes. But yeah, hopefully that will help us to offset that. It's a three-year grant program. It's it's a, you know, a stepped approach to help offset the cost over three years. Um, so it might cover, you know, 75% year 1, 50% year two, 25% year three, at least to help ease some of the burden on the taxpayer. [50:47] Stuart Garry: Also, the chief didn't say for clarity at home, he used the acronym. Don't care what the acronym is. It's actually one of the few beneficial United States Congress funded programs subject to renewal. But over the last 20 years, Congress has funded staffing grants to all 50 states. So, it's competitive. It's based on size and need. It's not the biggest, not the littlest. They try to be fair to everybody based on need, but it's understand when he says submit a grant, he's competing in a federal basket, not a state of Minnesota basket. [51:25] Council Member Kimple: Yeah. I think it's important too for uh those in the in the room and who's wa who who are watching online, if this is new information to you that we're looking at uh moving towards a more fully staffed um department. I think the slide that's showing up Oh, go back to the slide that was just there. Uh I think the slide obviously um councilwoman Freski made the point of the 7:37 obviously there's a there's a big disconnect and obviously the reason people would shift to more of a full-time staffing model would be to reduce the time. Um obviously look at best practice versus where we're at right now. That's that's the reason to do it. uh because you can start start right at the at the at the at the department as as opposed to coming from their house or or place of employment. Um but I think the next slide is also important to point out um because if you look at the travel the one that showed the five minutes uh basically the message is I think one more slide there was a message there that uh that one right there. So basically 98% of our um residents and businesses can be arrived from the from either the two fire stations within 5 minutes. [52:41] Stuart Garry: Yes. [52:41] Council Member Kimple: So that's actually better than what the best practices are based on the locations of our our two fire stations and and getting to all the locations. So I think that's a real plus for us in Rosemount is that we have that benefit of beating the best practice because we can get everywhere in five minutes. [52:58] Stuart Garry: And I'll go a step further. That's the best urban coverage I've seen probably in the last half decade. And I have larger suburban and metropolitan clients who struggle who struggle to get out of the 70th percentile for five minute coverage. It's just too many stations expensively or it's too convoluted a road network in terms of topography and deadends and hill terrain. It can be very expensive to deliver five minute coverage to more than about 75 to 80% of a large urban area. Um the way you've grown, the way you've placed the stations, staff them, and you're done for a while. You just really that's that's it. That take the time lag out and you're good to go. [53:44] Council Member Kimple: Yep. And then the other data point I think is important too is a lot of the neighboring communities are going through the exact same transition about the same time we are as well. I mean, Farmington, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, they're all making the transition to a full-time staffing, right? [54:11] Stuart Garry: Bloomington, Woodbury, I like on and on. They're all struggling with this just at different phases on the clock, but no one that I've encountered in the metro area is immune. I'm sure the rural counties are, but but they have no plan B. they they I if the rurals can't somehow set aside business and home to protect each other there there may not be just literally the wealth base there uh to fund that and understand those issues. Um, this has been front page national news now. The decline in American volunteer fireism, late teens, pre-COVID, COVID did nothing about this. I mean, COVID maybe exacerbated a few dropping dropping out of the programs. But this this pressure cooker has been building on the volunteer fire service in America for over a decade. I mean, it reaches national news proportions. Uh it's especially critical in EMS and East Coast rescue squads where EMS delivery is still all volunteer. And what if you can't get people to volunteer to be EMTs and paramedics? [55:07] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: So Chief, um I just wanted to commend you on uh leading this charge. This is one of the tasks that you were given uh as you joined us. Could you also speak to uh not just the uh the body count that's going to be here, but uh some of the facilities that have to be adjusted and uh what that means for us too. [55:28] Chief Kip Springer: Yeah, absolutely, Mayor. Um like you mentioned in this report, in order to be able to staff a 24/7 department, we do need to make some upgrades to our fire station facilities. Um the construction is well, the size is good. It just isn't capable of housing 24/7 staffing. Um the other piece to that too is when the stations were built, you know, 20 or 30 years ago, um it was a different mindset about firefighter health and wellness, uh versus what it is today, we started to see this huge um transition to focusing on firefighter health and wellness and keeping some of the carcinogens out of certain areas of fire stations. Um so with adding onto a station to build sleeping quarters to build you know um shower facilities and locker rooms we're also building some decon areas um so that we can get trucks back cleaned wash decon gear put in separate areas uh to keep that out of the the day areas and out of the what we call our clean rooms. Um so kind of two pieces to the to that remodel. One is adding for the ability to staff overnight and then the other is is the firefighter health and wellness piece. [56:32] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: So, as we start this transition, what uh what can residents expect to see now going forward over the next several months to a year? [56:53] Chief Kip Springer: Yeah. Uh we're starting with fire station 2. Uh we chose that one because that's the fire station that's closer to the center of the city. Um and it gave us some capacity to be able to do I I believe a pretty easy um remodel. Uh hopefully this fall we will start some construction on that. Um during that time frame, we'll probably transition our duty crew over to fire station one. Um during that remodel, uh the station will still remain operational. Um it'll just be a little bit more limited. We'll probably just have one truck um that'll respond out of that station while we're remodeling. Uh we won't diminish any service. It'll just kind of shift where we staff a duty crew and then where the trucks are located for a while. Um that's kind of that part of phase two planning to prepare to staff one of our stations 24/7. And then phase three would then be to remodel fire station one u to do a very similar type of remodel adding you know dorm rooms, day room, decon shower facilities um to be able to staff station one and that's you know probably the following year year after. [57:41] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Any other questions, comments? [57:43] Council Member Kimple: And in addition they'll get to see a much faster response time too as we make the transition. [58:02] Chief Kip Springer: So yes. Yeah. And I again, we don't have the numbers to be able to share concrete data, but I can absolutely tell you that having a staff station will decrease easily three, four minutes of our response times. Just think of the time it takes, you know, if you're sitting at home watching the game and the pager goes off to get up, get your shoes on, find your keys, get out to your car, drive to the fire station, get in, put your gear on, um, and get ready to go. You're easily knocking three, four minutes off of that time. [58:12] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: All right. All right. Thank you very much. Pleasure. Thank you. [58:24] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Back to council here. Uh the recommended action is a motion to accept the fire staffing report as presented. Anyone like to move that motion? [58:32] Council Member Kimple: I'll move to accept the fire staffing report as presented. [58:36] Council Member Esler: Second. [58:37] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: I have a motion by Kimple, second by Esler. Roll, please. [58:40] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Esler. [58:41] Council Member Esler: I. [58:43] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Kimple. [58:44] Council Member Kimple: I. [58:46] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Weisensel. [58:46] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: I. [58:47] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Tyson. [58:47] Council Member Tyson: I. [58:48] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Freski. [58:48] Council Member Freski: I. [58:51] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: And that completes item 3B50. Motion to accept passes. All right. The next item up on our agenda this evening is item 3C. This is the Wyland National Mayor's Challenge for Water Conservation. Mr. Schultz. [59:12] Jason Schultz (Parks and Natural Resources Director): Good evening, mayor and council. Uh before you is a proclamation uh that uh is something that we have been doing on an annual basis regarding uh the national mayor's water challenge for water conservation. Um this is a request for our residents to go online to mywaterpledge.com and uh work towards reducing their impact on the environment. Um some of the things that we're looking at um are to do things in a small phase personally. This is not for um you know large businesses or or you know schools or things like that, but this is what people can do at home and something we can actually work with the young people in our community to do. And so some of those things are like you know at home someone might fix a leaky faucet. They might look at uh you know doing only full loads of laundry. Uh in the daily life for someone they might use a refillable water bottle or a reusable coffee cup. um you know in someone's yard uh they might do things like turn off their sprinklers when it rains or they might get a water sensor uh for when they have uh an irrigation system. And another thing that they would do is looking at their community um in large is they would dispose of their pharmaceuticals in a safe manner and don't flush those um you know in the toilet. Uh we do have a a collection location at the Rosemount Police Department where people can drop those off. And so again, this is a program that we will be uh publicizing both on the city's website and social media following the adoption and the reading of the proclamation. Um again, this is a way for people to explore ways to manage residential consumption. Um, and so this is something that we hope people will share with their kids. Um, you know, we ask schools to get involved and things like that, sharing this information. And so with that, I can definitely stand for any questions that you might have. [1:01:25] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Okay. Any questions? [1:01:28] Council Members: No. Nope. [1:01:42] Jason Schultz (Parks and Natural Resources Director): Yep. [1:01:43] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Um I think this was an outgrowth of our um uh environmental and sustainability group which is now part of the natural sciences and parks group. Um the name Wyland actually is an artist. Uh for those of you that have gone to the zoo, there is a uh a mural there of a I think of a whale that was done by that artist some years back. And uh this is all kind of part of that viewing on water conservation. So we'll go ahead and read the proclamation and then we'll take the motion to uh accept it. [1:02:11] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Whereas the city of Rosemount continues to explore ways to manage residential consumption of water and power and to inspire its residents to care for our natural resources. And whereas cities can engage in efforts to inspire their own communities as well as their neighboring cities to become better environmental stewards. And whereas the 16th annual national mayor's challenge for water conservation presented by the Wyland Foundation and Toyota with support from the US EPA water sense, the Toro company, National League of Cities and Zeni is a nonprofit challenge to residents to encourage pollution reduction and smart water use. And whereas with encouragement of their mayors, residents may register their participation in their city's challenge online by making simple pledges to decrease their water use and to reduce pollution for the period of one year, thereby assisting their cities to apply state and federal water conservation strategies and to market to target uh mandated reductions. And whereas from April 1 to 30, 2026, the city of Rosemount wishes to inspire its residents and its neighboring communities to take the Wyland Mayor's Challenge for water conservation by making a series of online pledges at mywaterpledge.com to reduce their impact on the environment and to see immediate savings in their water, trash, and electricity bills. Residents will further be provided with tools to take specific measurable actions throughout the year to improve the sustainable use of natural resources. [1:03:41] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Now therefore, I Jeffrey D. Weisensel, mayor of Rosemount, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim that the city of Rosemount agrees and supports the Wyland mayor's challenge for water conservation. Emphasis from April 1st to the 30th, 2026 through a series of communication and outreach strategies, whether new or existing, to encourage Rosemount residents to take the conservation challenge dated the 7th day of April, 2026. Signed, Jeffrey D. Weisensel. And with that, I will move the motion to accept the uh to accept and issue the proclamation. Uh hereby presented. Is there a second? [1:04:38] Council Member Esler: Second. [1:04:40] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: A motion by Weisensel, second by Esler. Roll. [1:04:45] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Kimple. [1:04:46] Council Member Kimple: I. [1:04:47] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Weisensel. [1:04:47] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: I. [1:04:48] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Tyson. [1:04:48] Council Member Tyson: I. [1:04:49] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Freski. [1:04:49] Council Member Freski: I. [1:04:50] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Esler. [1:04:50] Council Member Esler: I. [1:04:52] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: And that passes 50 and completes item 5C. We'll move on to response to public comment. Item number four, look to staff. The followup from our meeting three weeks ago. [1:05:05] Logan Martin (City Administrator): Yeah. Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Uh we would probably bucketize our response to public comment tonight into two buckets. Uh an update on some of the water um water contamination challenges that we're working through and then the data center conversation. So maybe Nick, you want to start with the water side of things? [1:05:16] Nick Edgar (Public Works Director): Sure. And I'll speak specifically to a couple of the questions that were brought up at uh public comment on March 17th. One of them had to do with the 90-day timeline that we're on to submit our work plan to the Department of Health for how we're tackling the gross alpha matter. Uh we are on track to submit that here in the next week. And after getting clarification from the department of health on what exactly that entails, uh I I learned that it's essentially to describe the process that we're already in, which is exploring the various options that we have to resolve the issue and to uh then set a a course or a timeline by which we would complete physical improvements. And uh obviously we're we're not to the end of a decision-making process on what that will be exactly yet. However, we can report to them and it is acceptable to the Department of Health to put a range of time dependent on the the means that we choose to to resolve the issue. So again, um just recapping real quick, we have a handful of uh different infrastructure solutions that we're taking a look at in a feasibility study right now uh with outcomes for a construction timeline or a decision to implementation timeline that could range from uh one single construction season to three to four years when you consider uh the full range of different options that we have. So, more work to be done yet on that. Uh, I would anticipate we're on a path to have um recommendations and a council consideration of the issue uh yet this calendar year with ease on that. Um, so be looking to perform construction of some level possibly as early as 2027. The other item that uh was brought up, I think there was some confusion on the amount of information that we had on our website uh as it pertained to a a different matter with our well number seven. Um I I will note that we still have that same information present on the website. We reorganized some of the water quality web page when the gross alpha issue came up. And so, uh, again, I'll just point out that page is rosemount.gov/waterquality. Pretty easy to remember. That's where we're posting all of our updates on these issues. And there are multiple tabs there depending on, uh, the type of information one might be seeking. So, uh, I would encourage folks to stay tuned with that. Um, I think those were the two that I that I had that uh we needed to follow up on on that one. [1:08:19] Council Member Freski: And and just to um remind residents um if they are looking at website, they have questions, they can reach out directly. Um they don't necessarily have to come to the meeting here. They can reach out to staff. Uh and where would that be? [1:08:37] Nick Edgar (Public Works Director): Staff are welcome to call public works mainline directly. That's 651-322-2022. Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. [1:08:48] Logan Martin (City Administrator): Mayor. Yeah. And I can I can try to provide some summary responses to some of the data center conversations that was that were raised at the last meeting. Um, we heard from residents on a variety of of of issues and comments. Some comments, some questions, uh, talking about how we've, uh, been comparing the water use for data centers here in town. Um, how the water gets treated downstream, how our partners at other agencies are prepared for, uh, the construction of the meta data center, um, things of that nature. And so, I guess a couple of responses there. And and just to clarify too, a number of folks received uh direct comments back from staff in this interim. It's been that calendar period where we've had three weeks since our last council meeting, so it feels a bit longer. Um we responded to a couple of data requests in that time. Um have have communicated with a couple of residents in that time um directly on some of their issues. I know Nick had issued a letter directly to a resident who submitted a letter as well. But for the purposes of kind of a summary response tonight, just a reminder for the community both present and at home, we have no active applications for a data center in Rosemount. We have no action on tonight's council calendar or council agenda as you can see related to a data center. We of course have the Meta project under construction at Highway 42 and Blaine. Meta owns land on the north side of Highway 42 directly across from their their currently under construction property. Um, we've had comments and questions and just so folks know, right, we we we we know these concerns. We monitor these concerns. We do our best to to see that we obviously see the emails. We try to track the social media banter um and and certainly see that. So, there's been comments raised about non-disclosure agreements. The city has has had two non-disclosure agreements. the one with Meta that expired uh a previous non-disclosure agreement um with a company that has since moved on and and is not a part of Rosemount uh pursuits of property any longer, doesn't own property in Rosemount. So, those are those two conversations there. Um the the the comp the uh comparison to water use and equating it to restaurants and folks can easily Google and what what what what excuse me what restaurants might use for water. What we've seen is that a restaurant could use in that 10 to 12,000 gallon range. [1:11:02] Logan Martin (City Administrator): So, we've had this conversation as we've been uh communicating about the data center knowing that we've reached an agreement with with Meta that they're anticipated maximum daily use is anticipated that 100,000 gallon level. The average daily use is in that 25 to 40,000 gallon level. So, that's why we felt comfortable saying a couple of restaurants would be would equate to the metadata center use. So, two to three, right? And the reason for having that conversation is is again to challenge folks to say, would you have a response to a project in town? If we were proposing building two restaurants, would you would would you come and would you respond in a certain way? And also just to put it into into a comparison of what other projects use um in town, what other types of business uses in town actually use water. And then folks, as we just did this wildland water challenge to we'll talk about it more as as the data center conversation goes on, but that we all as homeowners have a direct lens to look upon ourselves to say this city pumps two-thirds of its water in the summertime. Two-thirds of its water in the summertime. That's not associated with a business use. That's because we all love our grass, right? And so we do have a chance to go home and have our own impact. we can we can uh you know have opinions about the water challenges or the you know water restrictions what have you but um there's a little bit of self-reflection that can happen there as well on water use. Um further would just say, um folks can certainly reach out. We've had conversation with our state partners to get a level of comfort for what this means for their for their infrastructure. Um, and and we can continue to connect folks to some state agencies that have other regulatory uh control o over that. And again, I don't know, probably said too much there, but I what I'm trying to say is is that, you know, sometimes we do this for a living. This is our passion. We care about this city deeply. and and just doing our best to educate folks. So, but appreciate the respect. Thank you. [1:13:05] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Okay, Paul. [1:13:07] Council Member Paul Kimple: Yeah, just just to follow up on that water conversation just just again kind of trying to put this in perspective and and gain make sure I have a good understanding of it. So, the agreement with the current meta site, their their agreement has an expected level of water consumption versus the agreement we have with them is a maximum. Correct? How how is that how does that math work? So they're expected is 20 to 30, but the guarantee like the most they can use is 100. Do I have that number right first? [1:13:48] Nick Edgar (Public Works Director): It it's a capacity agreement. So it means that we're we agree that we're capable of supplying up to 100,000 gallons per day. And that is structured around their expected maximum day consumption which would be a summertime. [1:14:02] Council Member Paul Kimple: Okay. So then rolling that forward again. So Apple Valley South target there's how many restaurants on the west side of Target over there in that area? Probably eight roughly eight restaurants. So in that location there's eight restaurants. If they're all using about 12,000 gallons, that area is using about 100,000 gallons, which is what basically the max that Meta would be using. So that location to the west side of is my math correct? 12,500 times 8 is 100,000 gallons. [1:14:40] Nick Edgar (Public Works Director): Yeah, sounds like your assumptions are accurate there. Yeah. [1:14:44] Council Member Paul Kimple: So, I think that's an important perspective to understand that whether it's whether it's 100,000 or or 30 or 40,000 gallons, just put it in perspective of like, well, how many gallons is that the max? It's it's the equivalent on the west side of South Target. Am I math correct? [1:15:26] Council Member Freski: Besides a restaurant, there's also a car wash there, too. So, and there's a car wash which uses how many gallons a day? More than 12,000. [1:15:51] Logan Martin (City Administrator): That summarizes it. Mayor, we can give it back to you. [1:16:01] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: This evening, uh we notice we do have a lot of people here. So, anyone wishing any resident wishing to come before council may do so at this time by stating your name, your address, your question and comment. I would ask that uh comments be limited to 3 minutes. If you uh extend to that, I will let you know. If you have written comments, you can also turn those directly into the clerk. We see all those things. We take notes on what you're asking and we've seen the ones that have been previously done. So, I'd like to keep this orderly and uh we can move forward. First up, Brian Dawson. [1:16:48] Brian Dawson: Brian Dawson, 4479 Evermore Parkway here in Rosemount. Hi, Logan. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. As you know, my family and I have been in Rosemount now for 11 years, Dakota County for about 24 years. And in this time, we've watched this city grow and change. We care deeply about your future decisions and how they're going to impact us. And I'm here to share public concerns about the development and construction of these large data centers in Rosemount. I understand the economic appeal of these and what they may offer, but that appeal comes with a real cost, especially around water use. We heard water a lot tonight. environmental impact and the strain on our electrical infrastructure are other considerations. And once these facilities are built, their footprint and impact are long term. They're not going away. They're going to affect our future generations generations and residents long after we've moved on. So given these concerns and potential unknowns, I'm respectfully asking you to pause further data center approvals. I'm asking for a moratorium. Understand what these are about. Let's see what Project Bigfoot does. Let's see what they actually use because I don't think any of you really know. You're listening to them. You think they're I don't believe it's truthful. And not so fun fact, Farmington's proposed data center will use an estimated 900 million gallons of water annually. By comparison, the city of Rosemount, the households in totality use an estimated 850 million gallons annually. That one data center will probably use more than every resident uses at their house to water their lawns. And if that's not enough, there's already a clear reason, I think, to slow down. And that's Rosemount's own 2040 comprehensive plan. In there, the Metropolitan Council master water supply review stated potential concerns for the aquifer we all use. Potential water use conflicts between the public and private wells, potential for significant declines in aquifer water levels, potential for groundwater pumping and the impact of surface water features and ecosystems, a high vulnerability for contamination, which we are currently experiencing with elevated gross alpha, PFA, and manganese levels in several city wells and testing locations. And the last but not least, they stated an uncertainty about future aquifer productivity. These concerns were well documented in your 2040 plan. You began formulating in 2018 and officially adopted in March of 2020, well before the recent surge in data center development. Since then, the scale and concentration of data centers being proposed and constructed are going to add new stresses that were not part of that 2040 plan and not fully contemplated. That's why I believe a cautious, measured approach is not only reasonable, it's necessary. So, I'm asking for two things tonight. Enact a temporary moratorium on your additional data center approvals and construction. And that this issue be placed on future council agenda for formal discussion, public input, and most importantly, transparency. Thank you very much. [1:19:58] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Yes, sir. If you want, you can turn that in your notes if you wish. Thank you. [1:20:17] Scott William Beer: Hi, my name is Scott William Beer. I live at 3160 146th Street West here in Rosemount. I grew up here my entire life. Um, I do also love all the talk about water, fire departments, and then water conservation. I'm Ojibwe, so I was born from the water, the lakes, the land of 10,000 lakes. So, what are we doing using more water? Genuinely, that that is my question. Um, AI data centers—and I got this information from Massachusetts Institute of Technology—AI data centers can consume between 1 million to 5 million gallons of water a day for their cooling systems. Just in 2023, they consumed up to 17 billion gallons of water for their cooling, which will only go up if we keep letting these data centers pop up. We are already facing the daunting reality of a water crisis and widespread shortages by 2040. Our children are seeing a horrifying future unfold with time being the only thing preventing it. A 100 watt data center facility being run continuously for one day can use up to 2400 megawatts per day. A city of 1 million people only needs 800 to 1,500 megawatts a day. One megawatt can power up to 700 homes. Natural gas is the biggest source of electricity for these data centers providing over 40% of their power. It is projected that by 2030 data centers' natural gas usage will see an increase of 3 to six billion standard cubic feet a day (BSFD). So one BSFD can produce a 100,000 megawatts of electricity. We are already seeing a ginormous increase in our gas prices. Now imagine that with even more of these data centers popping up and even more fossil fuels being used. And now with the war in Iran and the strait of Hormuz being closed, how are we going to get gas to even power these things? These data centers are also creating heat islands which raise the local temperatures around the area by up to 10° F. They also send anywhere from 33 to 80 million tons of CO2 into our atmosphere. They send out pollutants into our air such as nitrogen oxides, methane, and fine particulate matter. Fine particulate matter comes from combustion that goes into your lungs. And by 2030 is projected that 800,000 new cases of asthma and 1300 premature deaths will happen because of these data centers. Now, if we take the statistics that I've provided for you, we will see this is completely unsustainable. We are putting ourselves into an energy, water, and environmental catastrophe. One that we have already been running full speed ahead towards. It is time to make a change. Now, we need to build lasting and sustainable infrastructure for local businesses to bloom, for parks, nature, a community center, literally anything besides this terrible building that'll only cause noise, water, and air pollution. And it's going to rid the human race of our basic needs. I want to have a family. I want to have kids. And I want a promising future for them. I want a promising future for the kids that we have here now. But they aren't seeing that because we're using all the water that they're going to be drinking. With the internet being so readily available, too, our children are seeing this with a click of a button. All they have to do is open our phone and they're going to sit here and they're going to look at us and say, "Why aren't the adults doing anything? Why are they just sitting around? Why are they still proposing these terrible—we already know it's terrible—infrastructure?" It doesn't make any sense. What? So we can have a stupid video on our phone of some AI cat? I mean seriously. The drive for financial gain has caused irreversible damage to the morality of the people in this country, especially the elected officials who are meant to represent and protect us. When it comes to representation of the community and the betterment of our society, they have failed us time and time again. Meta is run by a man who monopolizes the market and pays his way through life. A man who has no care for the environmental impacts of his endeavors or the people harmed and taken advantage of by his business strategy. And he is far from the only one. I will not stand here and let you sell our souls away. I cannot sit here and watch while you rip away our children's future. I refuse to let you destroy the land I was born to protect. Please, people, do not let your morality waver in the face of injustice. It is our duty and obligation to stand against it. [1:24:26] William Zaragoza: William Zaragoza, 12930 Bengal Avenue West, Rosemount. That's a tough act to follow. Uh I do want to thank the council for their continued willingness to provide information upon request. Um as a strategy, probably not the best idea to tell us to stop watering our yards when we're talking about data centers. And in terms of restaurants versus data centers, I don't know of anybody who thinks about moving to a city and looks to see whether or not there's a data center there and goes that's the reason why I want to move there. So just strategy feedback. Um but in previous discussions surrounding water quality and cost impacts for water and power, it was explained that these data centers are actually net benefits to our infrastructure because they invest millions to reinforce it. When we raise concerns about the potential for increases in the rates residents pay for power, we're told that these companies build substations and have agreements to pay special rates without an explanation as to how this is protective of the rates citizens will pay due to increased demand. In my opinion, this does not answer the question or adjust the risks we bring up. These corporations valued at hundreds of billions of dollars have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize their profits for their stakeholders. This means that wherever they're setting up shop is a place they've determined is providing an outcome that benefits their profitability. The corporations have certainly decided those investments are worth the cost of doing business in Rosemount. Missing from this analysis is any discussion about what is being done to prevent the now widely reported negative impacts the operations of these data centers have already caused in many other communities across the country. These impacts can be devastating and this has led to restrictions on the operation of data centers in many cities. Maine has recently enacted a statewide ban on them. It is critical that there be a clearly defined mechanism in place to ensure that any data center operating in Rosemount does not join the long list of companies such as 3M, Gopher Resources and others that freely contaminate our communities and only pay some nominal fee when caught and just bake that into the cost of doing business. Residents need to know what specific mechanisms are in place to prevent damage and cost increases before they occur and what specific accountability mechanisms exist to enforce those rules. We are already experiencing water quality issues. Big topic of the night. This is ironic as I understand we've just discussed our, you know, personal pledges about water conservation. Um, we're also dealing with the alpha radiation level contaminations and city residents are already dissatisfied with the city's response. In previous discussions and email communications, we were told that the meta data center would use 100,000 gallons per day and that this is equivalent to two sit-down restaurants. as we just discussed that's off by a factor of eight and looks like it's a lot of restaurants I think folks would rather have as opposed to a data center. Um and since you've answered that question I have to sort of skip ahead here. Data centers with closed loop cooling systems like the meta data center in our community recycles water which eventually gathers contaminants such as metals, coolants, salts, antimicrobials, and treatment chemicals. This water eventually becomes too contaminated to use and must be discharged in what is called a blowdown discharge. Even if this water is discharged correctly into a municipal water treatment plant, that water will require more treatment than typical residential discharge. This will obviously result in more strain on the municipal water treatment plants. We still have not been told how the data centers owners will pay for those extra costs both in terms of treatment and infrastructure wear and tear. [1:27:55] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Finalize your comments, please. [1:28:02] William Zaragoza: Say again? [1:28:04] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Finalize your comments. You're over three minutes. [1:28:06] William Zaragoza: Okay. Um I can My wife finished the other half if that would help. [1:28:10] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: You can take your notes and— [1:28:12] William Zaragoza: And um you want me to stop now? [1:28:14] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Yes. [1:28:16] William Zaragoza: Yeah. Okay. [1:28:22] Kathy Pritchard: Hi, my name is Kathy Pritchard. I'm at 15703 Crystal Path and I just want to let you know that I know that you do the water conservation every year. I know it's not anything new, but when it comes to urging residents on water conservation efforts, it is concerning for me because the city is also doing a water system impact study regarding a 4 million square foot data center with the purpose to check to see if the city's comprehensive water system plan for the area is sufficient enough to meet the data center's project water demands. I think the study is great. The more up-to-date studies are, the better. Especially with all this rapid development here. I just feel that if residents start conserving water now, it could affect the water impact study that you are currently working on. I don't know how long it'll take for you to finish that water study, but if you are trying to establish a baseline of normal water usage to determine if the city has enough water for the data center water demands, then asking residents for water conservation during the same time frame of the study that would be a form of managed demand that can lead to misleading results. This creates artificial data. This artificially lowers the demand data making it appear that the city has more water capacity than it actually does have under normal conditions. It skews the results if the goal is to see if the new data center development could drain the water supply using data from a period when residents are actively conserving water. This will paint an inaccurate false picture and defeats the whole purpose of the water system study and could make the study invalid. Can you hold off on the water conservation proclamation but only until after the water system study is completed so that it does not change the variables of the current study? Going forward with this proclamation during the current water study would appear to me to be somewhat unethical. I know that you do it every year. I'm just asking that you would hold it off because I don't want to see the results being falsified in the study. Thank you. [1:31:01] Cassidy Schuler: Good evening. My name is Cassidy Schuler. I live at 3938 156th Street West in Rosemount, Minnesota. Um, I'm here to put a human element to the facts presented before me. Um, they did a a lovely job, um, laying out some of the more detrimental long-term effects of what data centers can bring. But I just want to tell you, um, I'm a lifetime resident of Minnesota, and for the past six years, my fiance, my three kids, and I have called Rosemount home. The reason I'm speaking to you all today is because I care deeply about our community, our resources, and most of all, our beautiful environment. When I moved to Rosemount, I was so excited to be able to provide a safe space for my children to play, experience nature, and have a safe space to call home. Now, because of the actions of our city council, that way of life is under attack. This might seem hyperbolic, but we have allowed large corporations to take advantage of our valuable and finite resources. The most recent betrayal of our sacred resources began with an NDA and secret blueprints that paved the way for Project Bigfoot. Now, we know that our city council sold us out for 280 acres, an $800 million data center deal with a corporation that doesn't care if its actions destroy our agriculture, dwindle and pollutes our critical water infrastructure, and damages our way of life that I know so many Rosemount residents cherish. I feel ashamed that it has taken me this long to speak up. But now is the time that our voices need to matter because there are talks of another mega data center site slated for Rosemount again. And I know we discussed that um there is no talks of that right now, but don't NDAs—isn't that the very point of an NDA? The worst part of all, our city council is remaining silent about it. Again, unfortunately, right now, Minnesota law does not protect its citizens against shady practices like the one our own city council has participated in, and they are denying us the right to transparency. That said, I urge our residents to remember the actions of our city council before us when elections come back around and demand accountability from our leaders. I want to leave you with this. We are stewards of this land, not the other way around. Thank you. [1:33:35] Resident (Unnamed): Mr. Mayor, before you start, I spoke to Aaron on the 24th of March at 2:35 and asked her if I could have a representative that doesn't live here speak, and she said it would be okay for him to do three minutes of speaking. [1:33:51] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: I'm asking for all residents to speak before. Okay. Thank you. Any other residents? [1:34:02] Anita Friedland: My name is Anita Friedland at 15643 Chestnut Way. And I wasn't planning on speaking tonight, but I do want to um basically give a response into the dialogue that was occurring up there by several of you comparing eight restaurants to the meta data center. You compared eight restaurants taking the same amount of water as the the data center. How many jobs would eight restaurants bring to Rosemount? I'm willing to bet that if you were to ask the residents if they would rather have eight restaurants or this meta center, they would choose the restaurants that would provide uh several hundreds of jobs. And not to mention the fact that are these restaurants if if these so-called restaurants, do they pay their own electric bills? Would they impact our electric bills as these data center will? Um, so that's my response to that. I thought it was personally really ignorant and insulting to compare eight restaurants to this data center. My other response in that is because those homes that have to live by these data centers, the noise pollution, the the light pollution, I mean, that's personal to them. I personally am not going to be exposed to having to look at the data centers in our community. I thank God for that. But I do have compassion for my residents that have built homes and are living in those areas that have put money into these homes and their lives into these homes and are now going to be exposed to these data centers. And so to compare that to restaurants, I'm sure our residents and community would prefer restaurants over this data centers, any of them, any day of the week. Um, so that's my response to comparing eight restaurants to a data center. [1:36:02] Tom Thielen: Tom Thielen, uh, 15175 December Court, Rosemount, Minnesota. Resident since 1996. We built our house here. Um, since then, uh, I was still in the Navy when I moved here. I recruited here my last four years of my 20-year career. Uh, and uh, then I worked for Excel Energy for 23 years. So, I know a little bit about energy, but I did a little research and I'm kind of surprised that the city council has apparently not done the same research and put this out, but the data center, and a lot of people don't realize this, the data center is not going to use water 90% of the time. The data center uses air for cooling. When it gets up to 87 degrees above out there, which we don't get that often there, they start cutting in water for cooling into something called like a swamp cooler. Many of you might remember those from the good old days when you were trying to air condition your home with water. Now, they hit that 100,000 gallon per day maybe 20 days out of the year and not full-time. So, I'm not making any friends here. I can see that. But, um the water usage is that's why they're up here. We've got the climate that can support cooling without use of water. Also, the CEO of Excel Energy has said that they have researched it and they can support it. It's going to slow down their approach to zero carbon emission, which when I was at Excel Energy, that was one of their biggest things that they were working on is zero carbon emission. Those three nuclear power plants we have, two at Prairie Island, one up at Monticello. I worked at the Prairie Island plant are the baseline to that zero carbon emission and the rest is wind and solar and hydro. We actually have some little hydro plants around but they said that they can support it and based on the way they're planning it. I'm not sure I believe this part, but he said that they can actually potentially lower costs overall. By the way, they do the infrastructure. Now, the noise pollution, I'm kind of curious to see what that's going to be because I've worked in computers all my life and I'm not sure where the noise is going to come from. Uh, so I'm kind of looking at that light pollution. I can understand we've got uh coke refinery over there. That's major light pollution. Nobody lives close to the air except for Coates. But, uh, just want to let you know that it'd be nice if you did some research and put out some facts. [1:39:20] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Sir, since you've already done some that research, uh, you certainly would feel free to send it to our clerk. [1:39:32] Tom Thielen: I can do. Thank you. [1:39:35] Kathy Yangaser: Good evening. I'm Kathy Yangaser and I live at 13675 Applewood Trail here in Rosemount. Um December of 2022, my husband and I were so excited to move into our one-level living for retirement and we thought this was great. Um we had been longtime residents of Eagan. We knew Rosemount, thought it was great. um we move in and because there was NDAs in the works and everything absolutely had no idea that we were going to have a data center for a nearby neighbor. We are one of the people that that woman mentioned who is going to be impacted by everything about a data center. We did not know that when we bought our home. Um and we are extremely disappointed. We are extremely concerned about the water usage, the electricity usage, the increase in rates that you know it's lovely when Meta and everybody stands in front of the president and says yeah yeah you know we'll pay our fair share but they wouldn't sign an agreement—they signed a little yeah I think we might do that we'll take that into consideration so we have no guarantee and so I feel um betrayed by my realtors yes but um not a fan of the city council for having it, you know, under an NDA and and for even considering to have one here. Um if other communities can say no, we can as well. And I haven't seen the—I don't see the advantages outweighing the cons to this. So anyway, thanks for listening. [1:41:20] Vanessa Demouth: Mayor and Council, I'm Vanessa Demouth. I live at 13466 Daniel Lane. I am a longtime Rosemount area resident and Rosemount High School graduate and I applaud all the people who spoke here tonight and everyone who showed up in support. I'm going to change topics a bit. Um I'm a licensed professional geologist, a water well inspector, a registered environmental health sanitarian, a ground and drinking water professional. I'm here tonight representing myself and making comments on my behalf. In 2009, I was appointed by council to the planning commission where I had to fight to add protections for our drinking water aquifer from the gravel mining to occur below the water table in our city's drinking water supply management area. In 2012, I was elected to city council and I began attending every utility commission meeting and I also started the environmental commission. In 2016, I told the city that the manganese levels in my house in the water at my house exceeded the secondary maximum contaminant level. Manganese is a neurotoxin. It can affect learning and behavior problems, affect memory, attention and motor skills. In 2017, I was no longer on council and I was appointed to utility commission. We had a joint meeting with city council to discuss manganese and I recommended that we provide all households with infants a pour-through carbon water filter until a decision was made on a water treatment plant. I learned at last week's utility commission meeting that if a large-scale water treatment plant is not pursued, they will offer filtration pitchers to households with infants. This is nine years after I proposed this option. So, here is my ask: We should offer the free water filters starting now to households with infants 12 months of age or younger until a treatment system is online. I was also told last month by the city administrator that the city council did not reappoint me to the utility commission because I was adversarial with staff. By not reappointing me to the utility commission, I think this sends a message that this council and staff do not welcome questions, new ideas, common sense solutions, and they don't want someone who knows more than them on some topics to be involved in on their commissions. Because the environmental commission was gutted and rolled into the parks commission and I have started a group and people can reach out to me on Facebook. It's called Rosemount Advocates. I hope that we can work with the city to do better and be better as a community. We are rapidly growing community and there are folks who want to be part of a city that is thriving in a sustainable way and I hope that we can work together to make that happen. [1:44:02] Ann Eert: My name is Ann Eert. I live at 13622 Atwood Avenue. Um I was also not planning on talking tonight, but just hearing everyone else talk. I just wanted to add my voice to the mix. I just wanted to add my voice to the mix. So you all sit up there and tell us that you're residents of Rosemount. You care about Rosemount. This is your passion. you're on this—you represent our city because you want to be here. This is a choice you made. But hearing you say that and then going against your citizens, it's heartbreaking. We elected you to represent our interests, what we want. We're telling you what we want. We don't want more data centers. We want a pause on them. We want to be presented with data, not your best guesses, not your math that you made up on how much they're going to use. I mean, we can all make up numbers, but why not pause? Why not put a moratorium on it for one, two, five years? Let the current data center operate. Let it show you the real facts. Let us let it tell you what's going to happen. Don't estimate. Don't tell us what you think is going to happen. Prove it with facts. Prove it with data. Back it up with real information before you put more data centers in our city. You don't know what it's going to do. None of you can sit up there and tell me how much electricity it's going to use, how much water, the PFAS and forever chemicals it's going to put in our water, the chemicals that our city will see. None of you know. Nobody here knows. Don't tell us that it's going to be fine, that it's going to be like restaurants or anything else we've seen in this community, because it's not going to be. It's going to be different. Put a pause on this. Let it play out. Get the information. Provide us with real facts. And listen to your constituents. You're up there to represent what we want. We've elected you. Listen to people. Don't put your interests first. Don't put what you think people want. Ask us. Listen to us. We're showing up here tonight because we care. We care as much as you do. No, we're not sitting up there, but your job is to do what we ask, what we tell you we want as residents. We are Rosemount. Represent us. Put our interest at first. Take care of my children, all of their children, the children to come here. I mean, just put a pause on it. Why are you rushing into these things? That is my question. Why do we need to keep moving forward with these when you haven't proven benefits of these? You haven't proven anything that good that will come out of these except for very short-term financial impacts that are very short-term. So, I don't I don't see the need to continue to build these without data and information that we can all rely on and see and agree on. [1:47:12] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: You forgot your phone up there. Excuse me Miss. Your phone. Sorry. Just didn't want you to forget it. Have all Rosemount residents spoken that need to speak this evening? All right, proceed. [1:47:33] Mo Fashami: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. Uh my name is Mo Fashami and I'm a Farmington resident, but I do have friends in Rosemount and I do some of my shopping here because of some of the mom and pop shops that exist in the area right on highway 3. Um my professional background is in telecommunication and data center network design. Um over 25 years I have been in that business and even longer in the IT. So I know a thing or two about how data centers operate, what goes into them. Myself, I live in a close proximity of the Farmington data center that which has been put in smack in the middle of residential neighborhoods and it's in the early development stage. Uh you may ask what am I doing here? Um I am here because with these hyperscale data centers what happens in Farmington doesn't stay in Farmington. It impacts adjacent communities and what happens here in Rosemount. It'll also impact other communities like me in Farmington. And I'll elaborate on what that is. According to the contract that city of Farmington signed with the developer, um they allowed the data center developer use up to three million gallons of water during summer. So that's the capacity that we have committed to the city. Um that will happen right in the middle of summer heat where we tell everybody else to conserve water. We are all on the same aquifer. It will impact you. It will impact Apple Valley. It would impact Empire. Um, some of the hyperscale data centers use a bit more advanced technologies that uses less water but it uses more electricity and the water used to generate that electricity is significantly higher almost worse if they use regular water. So the council member asked about that 100,000 gallons per day maximum. That is possible. That's what's in the AUA. There is no public disclosure of the amount of water data centers use. They claim that's secret. So we wouldn't know if it's true or not. So when the residents here ask give it time to see—if you don't have that reporting you wouldn't be able to see if it's actually a 100,000 or not. But if it is even if it is a 100,000, the electricity that is used to power the advanced cooling somewhere else in a power generating station uses significantly more water to generate that power. If that power generation station is in your district, well, you pay for it anyway. It'll impact your aquifer, groundwater. If it's somewhere else, then good luck to them. Um, another point is job creation. Um there is a lot of virtualization and automation that has happened since the early days of data centers legacy data centers they don't need that many people on site anymore. Most of the work my experience we saw significant reduction in the number of people because of automation of our own staff. Most of the work can be done remotely somewhere in India. So the number of local jobs are not that many. If I'm out of time, I will be glad to answer any questions. [1:51:38] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: If you want, you can turn in your notes to— [1:51:41] Mo Fashami: I will email. [1:51:43] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Thank you. [1:51:50] Kathy Johnson: I'm Kathy Johnson. I live in 22280 Bearing Avenue in Castle Rock Township. I had a 32-year career in district 196 and my grandchildren and son live in this town. So Rosemount's near and dear to me too. I just want to share an observation. I drive a lot down to Rochester or over to Hastings and I see all these high voltage power lines maybe for the last 10 or so years have been coming in. The rate payers have paid for those. That's our infrastructure. So in comes AI and all of a sudden the data centers want to come in and use the infrastructure that we have paid for for their own private enterprise. These are not government companies, they're private companies in the legislature last year HF16 extended the tax abatement for everything except the cost of the electrical power to data centers. They don't pay any sales tax. Now the sales tax ratio compared to the property tax ratio is 18.5 to 1. If you take out the electricity—and I don't know what percentage of the sales tax that is let's just say it's 9 to 1. So for every $9 that the state is giving away or the data center is receiving from our state coffers, we're only getting $1 in property tax. That's called bankruptcy. Granted, those dollars may be concentrated here in Rosemount. Two examples in Farmington: Last year, the state legislature had a tough year, a deficit. I'm a friend of a director at our five-star nursing home, Trinity Care campus. They had to cut $700,000 out of their budget because of state deficit. I know firsthand what high quality education is here and how much special ed is supported here in district 196. That's largely supported by state tax dollars, not the local. And those are things that are going to be—where are we going to make up this giveaway that we're giving to the richest corporations in human history? The state of Georgia is far ahead of Minnesota in tax data center development. Last year its controller reported that they estimate $2.5 billion of tax giveaway out of the state coffers in Georgia to the richest companies in human history. That is the road that Minnesota will be taking if we continue subsidizing data centers. Data center developers say we're going to pay for our own infrastructure if we need more power brought in or whatever. Well, they sure as heck better because they can do it from the tax dollars that we've given them through abatement. Um, and when the state has decreased funds for their normal agencies and so forth, how are they going to pay regulators to come and see that the data centers are actually obeying the environmental laws that they're supposed to? I think the moratorium is essential. I think we need—you need to really look holistically at the problem here of data centers. I'll be happy to email my notes if you want them. [1:55:09] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Appreciate that. Thank you. [1:55:21] Jeff Schatler: Mayor, council staff, thanks for letting some non-residents speak tonight. My name is Jeff Schatler. I live at 22420 Calico Court, Farmington, Minnesota. I graduated from Rosemount in 1996. My dad taught at Dakota County VOTE for 23 years. He was president of the teachers union there. Um, I have a lot of pride in Rosemount. I appreciate where you guys located the initial meta. Um, you did it in a responsible place away from people. You have one now though. Put a moratorium one year from the day of operation on them and set a standard for the rest of the cities in the state. Be a leader like you guys are trying to be and attempting to be. Put a moratorium on them until they're up and operational and demand an EIS. If that EIS is expensive, have them pay for it. They've already purchased the land. They've made a commitment to be here and be a steward of your community. Make them prove it. Um, take some time, see what the true impacts are of this. They're looking to build something four times the size of what they already have built. And they're asking to do it and push the process before the first one is up and functional. It's important to pay attention to those details and see what's actually going to happen, what their water use will be, what the impact on the power strain will be if things change. Are they going to try to self-generate power on site? Because the same companies that have guaranteed them power have guaranteed every other data center development that has been applied in every other city around here. Those same companies have guaranteed them all that they have the power. Does—do they have the power to power all of them? Their next step is self-generating. Most of them by 2030 will self-generate power on site. That's a scary thing. To self-generate power on site, you're now inviting a nuclear plant, a small nuclear plant or turbine generators running 24/7. These are things that need to be understood before you let these go any farther. Get them up and upfront. Get all the details up front. You guys are up here to represent the voice of your people. They don't necessarily feel represented. I think you have ways to get back to them and to work with them and let them feel represented and respect their concerns. Thank you. [1:57:47] Chris Aiken: Hi, my name is Chris Aiken. Uh 22390 Bulmont Avenue, Farmington. I love Rosemount. I um used to work for Rosemount Town Pages when the newspaper was in the area. And years and years ago, I went on a Blandin leadership training. It was like a five-day thing. I went with 10 Rosemount people, 10 Northfield people, and 10 Farmington people. I got to meet all them and learn more about Rosemount. So tonight here, I'm representing the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development. Our community in Farmington was unexpectedly drawn into a major development proposal with long-term impacts on our neighborhoods and natural resources in the spring of 2024. This development was revealed to be a hyperscale data center much larger than the current meta data center in Rosemount. As details emerged, neighbors organized quickly. We acknowledge the rights of private landowners and the growing need for data center infrastructure. But we also saw the pressure tactics and promises used to influence city leaders. In response, we formed the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development to advocate for responsible planning and to protect our water energy resources, wildlife, and the environment. With support from neighbors, friends, and family, we established both the 501c4 and a 501c3 organization. We soon found ourselves learning more and more about AI, big tech, lobbying, water conservation, the electrical grid, sound pollution, and air pollution. We created a website and Facebook page and started sharing our research. Our outreach included public meetings in various locations in Dakota County, speaking engagements, interviews with local, state, and national media outlets. In the last two years, we have seen data center discussions explode nationwide. We started getting contacted by environmental groups, professional and college research teams, and they've connected with us to offer support. We're currently partnering with over 20 state and nationwide organizations to help bring awareness and education about data centers to everyone. Everyone, including elected officials and residents, everyone communities in Virginia, Georgia, and Texas have reached out and have shared their experiences regarding the impacts of hyperscale data centers. We soon found ourselves advising other communities facing similar challenges. We have an email on our website, so we get a lot of emails. Um, but we're here tonight to show support for our neighbors in Rosemount to enact a moratorium so that all community members, including their leaders like you, can research, review, and study the impacts of hyperscale data centers. A hyperscale data center is not a minor development. It reshapes land use, water, and energy demands, and long-term community character. It requires the highest level of public engagement. As elected leaders, we invite you to review the research and articles on our website. We have two URLs for it. The first one is www.nodatacenter.com. We also realize that data centers can be done responsibly. So, um the other URL is uh datacenterresponsibility.com. But we invite you to go look at it. [2:02:01] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Thank you very much. All right, with that, I'm going to close the public hearing. I appreciate everyone's ability to interact here. I really do not want a Farmington incident here. So, appreciate Rosemount residents. Again, if you have anything that you feel that you want to additionally send, you can email it to the city clerk. It'll get to staff and council. So with that, we'll complete item number five, and we'll move on for the rest of our business this evening. Next item up is the consent agenda. We have items 6 A through H. We have bill listings, minutes for the March 17, 2026 regular meeting minutes, donation acceptance from my credit union for the Easter egg hunt, the temporary on-sale liquor license VFW for a special event on June 20th, donation acceptance from Dakota Electric, $500 for our Arbor Day tree giveaway, which is coming up on May 2nd, the Leprechaun Days service agreement with the Leprechaun Days Committee, the approval of an easement agreement with XL Energy at Blaine Avenue, and a request for an easement encroachment agreement at 13800 Clear Downs Way. Would anyone wish to pull any item for further consideration? [2:04:52] Council Member Esler: Uh, I need to pull uh item 6H. Since that property is mine and I need to recuse myself from any discussion. [2:05:04] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Okay. Item 6H is removed. Would anyone like to move the consent agenda items A through G? [2:05:10] Council Member Freski: So moved. [2:05:12] Council Member Tyson: Second. [2:05:15] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: All right. So I'll go with Freski with the motion and Tyson for the second. Roll please. [2:05:20] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Weisensel. [2:05:20] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: I. [2:05:21] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Tyson. [2:05:21] Council Member Tyson: I. [2:05:22] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Freski. [2:05:22] Council Member Freski: I. [2:05:23] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Esler. [2:05:23] Council Member Esler: I. [2:05:24] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Kimple. [2:05:24] Council Member Kimple: I. [2:05:31] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Consent agenda is approved 5-0 with the exception of H which will bring up now—item 6H. Am I looking to community development Mr. Klingsberger? [2:05:39] Community Development Director (Klingsberger): Thank you Mr. Mayor, city council. As Mr. Esler has chosen to pull this one I can provide a bit of a brief overview. Um just maybe a a clarification on the front end, you know, and this is not a very common occurrence where we have one of our city and council members that's also an applicant on there. Um but just a little bit of a narrative that our city council members as residents are residents of this city and they often have needs and requests and services for the city. So just to put that clarifier in there. Um and also a note just if you read the staff report that city staff was contacted by Dave Sanka with Landscape Design Studios. The sole interaction has been with the contractor on behalf of Mr. Esler. So, just there's been some clarity on that. Um the the the motion or the issue before you this evening is that the homeowners at 13800 Claire Downs Way are looking to make repairs to their swimming pool deck fence and install a retaining wall um due to some challenges with the existing pool of plumbing leak. Came before city staff and attention was drawn to it that in order to fix that as provided by their the contractor that a retaining wall was needed within an easement of the city. Um it's also noted in here that an existing storm sewer along with the its associated easement is well away from the request for this encroachment approximately 30 ft from the rear property line. No utilities are currently located within the drainage and utility easement for the subject property. This is a fairly common type of request that we receive from residents for existing structures, pools or permanent installations in city easements. Calling to get, you know, just a couple of those facts out that there is no existing utilities within this easement. Um and then within the attached agreement that would be recommended for approval tonight. It does have language in there that provides for provisions that if there were a need for a city to access and utilize that easement for future utility purposes that that cost would be borne by the homeowners of the property. So, I can certainly take any other questions on there, but the recommended action is to approve the encroachment agreement and authorize the mayor and city clerk to enter into that agreement. [2:08:20] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Any questions from council? have we had anything similar like this in that neighborhood? [2:08:25] Community Development Director (Klingsberger): Um, yes. It's my understanding that in August of 2019, a very similar situation with a pool and a retaining wall that was needed in a very similar circumstance. Um, so this again, it's not super common, but it's also not irregular for these types of requests to come before city council. [2:08:31] Council Member Tyson: I'll make a motion to approve the encroachment agreement and authorize the mayor and city clerk to enter into that agreement. [2:08:35] Council Member Freski: I'll second. [2:08:36] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Motion by Tyson, second by Freski. Roll, please. [2:08:39] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Tyson. [2:08:40] Council Member Tyson: I. [2:08:41] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Freski. [2:08:42] Council Member Freski: I. [2:08:43] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Esler. [2:08:44] Council Member Esler: I recuse. [2:08:46] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Kimple. [2:08:47] Council Member Kimple: I. [2:08:49] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Weisensel. [2:08:50] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: I. [2:08:52] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: 6H passed 4-0. And that completes all consent agenda items. We'll move on to 7A, amending the city code relating to rental licensing and inspections and we have Miss Kohler. [2:09:14] Liz Kohler (City Staff): All right. Thank you, mayor, council members. Um, tonight I'm going to be talking about the proposed amendments to Title 9, Chapter 1 and Chapter 8. So, as I'm sure you all know, the city of Rosemount is rapidly expanding and diversifying its housing options, which has led to a significant increase in rental units. Uh, because of this rapid growth, staff wanted to proactively address any issues that might come up. And, uh, alongside the city attorney's office, we completed a review of the rental code. Following that review, staff is proposing the following updates. So, the main change to title 9 chapter 1 is an update to state that the chapter include the most current edition of the Minnesota State Building Code. This just keeps us more up to date and helps avoid any confusion from um outdated information in the code. And there's a similar update to the applicable code section of chapter 8. um and then alongside the a handful of technical changes within chapter 8, there is also additional language in the purpose section to clarify the city's role in rental housing and the inclusion of a new section requiring a rental manager which can ensure protections for renters in matters of like maintenance and safety, that kind of thing. Um, and then as advised by the city attorney, language around licensing and inspection was updated to reflect an expectation of service that's compatible with staff's current practices and staffing as well as defines expectations for rental properties. Overall, staff and the city attorney took an anticipatory approach to address operational efficiency as the community expands. Um, staff is recommending the listed motions and I could take any questions. [2:11:15] Council Member Esler: I guess not so much a question, more of a a statement. I mean, when I've read this and kind of went into the details, one of the things I see is with the expansion and the growth that we are seeing that you alluded to earlier, there's just a way of cleaning this up. And that's ultimately what this is. It sounds like that it's cleaning up and and following in line more with the state statutes rather than some of the old stuff that we had in the writing. Is that correct? [2:11:43] Liz Kohler (City Staff): Yeah, we wanted to um you know redo some of the more vague language and make sure we were clear about what the city is going to be doing with these and um you know that kind of thing. Just making sure everybody knows their role. [2:11:46] Council Member Esler: Yeah. And and and the accountability factor as we add more rental properties and we expand into different kind of housing um that this cleans that up. That's my understanding. [2:11:58] Liz Kohler (City Staff): Correct. Yep. [2:12:00] Council Member Esler: Okay. Thank you. [2:12:02] Council Member Freski: I just want to confirm the fees are only for the property owner. There's no fees for the renter. [2:12:07] Logan Martin (City Administrator): That is correct, Mr. Mayor. Um, council member Freski. So, our rental licensing program, it's required by the owner of the property to pull that license, not the tenant. [2:12:15] Council Member Kimple: I have a question. The provision um to require a rental manager. Does that impact any existing facilities in town that don't have one or what is there for timing on that impact to existing locations? [2:12:36] Logan Martin (City Administrator): Yeah, I can take that one too, Liz. So, within that, it'll give the city um some flexibility in how it defines that. The intent behind that is to have a local accountability for management of that property. Um a designated person that the city can contact or send specific things to. Right now, the way it's currently managed, it can be vague. Um, and not just within Rosemount, but you often hear in other places that you're you're sending something into a black hole somewhere. You never get a response because what our goal, especially if we have a complaint or an issue with a tenant um about their own situation within their living unit, is that there's no contact. [2:13:20] Council Member Kimple: Okay. To follow up on that, does the city staff have a plan in place then to get that contact documented for every multi-family or rental unit in town to shore that up? [2:13:30] Logan Martin (City Administrator): Part of the evolution of this too, and I know you've heard from our now police chief Carson Thomas on this too, is a continued collaboration between code enforcement, rental, licensing, inspections, police, um to make sure that we have those types of contacts managed and in place. We we talk a lot about that with our public safety partners. Um this is just kind of really shoring that up. But yes. [2:13:56] Council Member Kimple: Okay. And then my other initial reaction um as I I looked through it was just some just possible heartburn over any like possible unintended consequences or losses of consumer protections. And I get it. We can't intervene in every rental landlord dispute. Um something like that. So um just wondering if um there's any experience with similar kind of language if um I know we've got our attorney here tonight. if there's any kind of uh real world lived experience from other other cities that have maybe adopted the same language and um just make sure that our our renters and the consumers are protected or how does this work? [2:14:33] City Attorney: Um, mayor and council member, we did when we were working with staff on the ordinance, we did do a little bit of research and found that there were there were some other cities who had a similar approach with um, you know, kind of limiting the scope of the program to kind of fit with city resources. And you know, and I would really assure the council too that there is discretion uh with the city on how far to carry the inspection program. It's discretionary. It's not a legal requirement to do it at all. Um and so it's very common, I think, for cities to develop their inspection programs consistent with their available staff, available resources. And I think what the amendments that we are proposing to the code are a reflection of some pretty thorough discussion uh with staff about what they feel they can do with what they have available to them. [2:15:34] Council Member Kimple: Okay, that answers your question. Thank you. [2:15:38] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Just as a followup uh to that is the um rental manager—is that a state requirement or that's our local requirement that we're adding in? [2:15:54] City Attorney: My understanding is that this is our discretionary requirement as a part of our program within this. That's correct. [2:16:03] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: All right. And then as a part of that, uh, we're not asking for that rental manager to be on site. I'm curious because I'm I'm wondering and certainly larger uh multi-unit type things that the rental manager may be somebody that is on site. Would—is that something that we would want to have? [2:16:13] Logan Martin (City Administrator): M Mr. Mayor, if I maybe I can kind of restate your question. So the section that um I think we're all referring to is 9-8-4: rental manager required as a part of the attachment in the packet for anybody uh especially if they're following along this meeting online here. So there are three components of that—A, B, and C—just kind of defining what that expectation is. So the code language talks about in the first section here um each rental owner—so if you're the ownership of a duplex per se—shall appoint a rental manager, i.e. their designate, upon whom the city may lawfully serve notices pertaining to the administration of this or any other chapter code state federal law service of which shall be effective as if made upon the rental owner. So, it's basically saying that if if you own a duplex, for example, and you live in Texas, you've named a designate defined in our code as the rental manager whom the city may lawfully serve or provide contact or communication with about the maintenance, upkeep, or any other instances with that piece of property. So, that's the first section. Um the second one: rental manager must be available to respond in person to any complaints or notices received by the city at the location of the rental property. So, that does not require a residency component of there, but it's kind of back to council member Kimple's point about we're not just sending something into the ether to an address or a PO box to a point unknown. This is requiring or summoning them to be personally available to address any concerns or issues that the city may have with the rental property as a part of their license. So, somebody that lives out of state may not necessarily be the best as long as they're able to get there on site and meet them on site. Or from a practical purpose, they appoint a designate who does have a local presence. Maybe it's a relative or something like that. Somebody that is local that can make an impact on the property that is within the city of Rosemount. I mean, if you're talking a duplex, I I can see where somebody does not necessarily live in the other side there forcing that, but certainly on units that are maybe over 50 or 100, there's an opportunity for a rental manager to be on site. [2:18:53] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: I just I guess I'm looking for a little more specificity to that. So if it—when we say local, what does local mean? You know, could they live over in Wisconsin and Prescott and still be able to come to Rosemount to address? I think that's possible. um but I'm just wondering how tight we want to see that. [2:19:15] Council Member Esler: I I'm comfortable with the language as you have it. I I don't I don't think we should have a requirement that they need to be living on site of any size. [2:19:25] Council Member Tyson: I would agree with that that comment and the way that this language is currently structured, it reflects the mayor's I think comment is as long as they're able or willing to get to the location to view or serve or you know whatever that is. Um the language is silent as to where they where they reside. [2:19:44] Logan Martin (City Administrator): Um and then if I may just kind of wrap up that last piece there, part C: rental owner may serve as the rental manager. So it could be an owner/manager of the property provided all requirements of the rental manager prescribed within this chapter are met by the rental owner. So be able to get there. Hopefully that answers the the questions. [2:20:00] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: All right. With that, we'll open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this topic may do so. Please come to the podium. State your name and your address and your comment. Podium's open. Anyone? All right. Seeing no one making the mad dash, uh, I'll move to close the public hearing. Is there a second? [2:20:50] Council Member Freski: Second. [2:20:51] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: All in favor say I. [2:20:52] Council Members: I. [2:20:54] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Any public hearing is closed? There's no other further discussion. Anyone wish to move the first motion? [2:21:03] Council Member Esler: I'll recommend a motion to adopt a resolution approving the summary publication and a motion to approve amending ordinance title 9 chapter 1 relating to the building code and title 9 chapter 8 of the city code relating to rental licensing and inspection as attached. [2:21:18] Council Member Freski: I'll second. [2:21:20] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Have a motion by Esler, second by Freski with both items um within the single motion. Roll please. [2:21:26] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Freski. [2:21:27] Council Member Freski: I. [2:21:28] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Esler. [2:21:28] Council Member Esler: I. [2:21:30] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Kimple. [2:21:30] Council Member Kimple: I. [2:21:31] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Weisensel. [2:21:31] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: I. [2:21:33] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Tyson. [2:21:33] Council Member Tyson: I. [2:21:34] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: That completes item 7A with 5-0 vote approved. There are no unfinished business. We'll move on to new business this evening. The first one up is a public services agreement CNH Architects. Mr. Schultz. [2:21:56] Jason Schultz (Parks and Natural Resources Director): Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Before you tonight is a request to enter into a professional services agreement with CNH Architects for the remodel of the old central garage portion of the former public works facility. And so on the screen right now is a proposed layout for the expansion and redevelopment of Central Park. That building is this area here identified as item number D. And this building is the newest of the public works former public works facility and is in pretty good shape and we feel like offers quite an opportunity to go ahead and do some remodels and make that into a community gathering space. And we are looking at trying to remodel that 6,700 square foot area into kind of a flexible open space for gatherings, events. Then in the back side of it, we're going to look at using it for community storage and some things like that. We feel like having uh, you know, upgrading that facility with with glass, overhead doors, canopies, you know, a large exterior patio—we feel like that is going to be something that is going to be heavily used in our community. I can tell you right now, our steeple center, assembly hall, and our banquet hall in the community center both have over 90% usage on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. And so we really need another community location. Um this is just a a rendering of what that space could look like. Uh this is uh you know, again, just computer-generated. Uh, but as you can tell, we could do a lot of different things in there. Uh, we feel like, you know, we talk about things, like the Octoberfest that we hold in the fall—we would think that we might be able to run that closer up to this building and then if it's really crummy weather, we can move part of it inside and have part of it outside. Um, we look at this for, you know, youth sports teams having their end of the year party. We look at this for graduation parties. um you know possibly other types of events that people might have, graduations like I mentioned, birthday parties, anniversaries, things like that. Um we have used it in the past for city special events just for city staff. We've done some community luncheons in there for our employees and that's what kind of got the idea going of this might be a space that is something that we can use in the future. Um, so the professional services agreement is in the amount of $142,500. Um, and in the proposal, the work is all broken out by project phase. Um, this is part of the the overall planning that we talked about at the council's goal setting. This is one of the projects that we looked at. And so, we would like to get rolling on this. Um, you know, in looking at the the master plan for Central Park, we will have several professional services helping us with this. We probably feel like we'll probably have seven or eight different firms at some point helping us. Right now, we're working with Barr Engineering on the demolition of old buildings. We're working with EDI on the replacement of the boilers into this building so we can tear down some older buildings. We'll be looking at working with engineers. We'll be looking at working with playground companies, splash pad companies, shelter companies, and things like that. So, we've got a lot of professional services that we'll be bringing back on this project. But, this is kind of that that first one that'll get us going and moving in the forward direction on that. So, with that, I can stand for questions if there are any. [2:26:40] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Go back to the master plan there. Yeah. So is this just specifically for D or is C and E and possibly F part of this? [2:26:49] Jason Schultz (Parks and Natural Resources Director): We will be bringing back a separate, in the near future, a separate designer for that because these guys are architects and so they will design the building itself. We will be bringing back an engineering package for the other pieces. [2:27:09] Council Member Tyson: I'll make a motion to approve the professional services agreement with CNH architects to design and oversee the remodeling of the former public works central garage facility for a contract amount of 142,500. [2:27:18] Council Member Kimple: Second. [2:27:20] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Motion by Tyson, second by Kimple. Roll please. [2:27:24] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Esler. [2:27:25] Council Member Esler: I. [2:27:26] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Kimple. [2:27:27] Council Member Kimple: I. [2:27:28] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Weisensel. [2:27:28] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: I. [2:27:29] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Tyson. [2:27:29] Council Member Tyson: I. [2:27:30] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Freski. [2:27:31] Council Member Freski: I. [2:27:32] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: That completes item 9A50 approved. We'll move on to 9B award contract for Connemara Akron roundabout project. Mr. Edgar. [2:27:40] Nick Edgar (Public Works Director): Thanks Mayor. Yeah, as you mentioned there, it's a exciting day here. This is a much anticipated project that we've been working on for the last couple of years through design and uh received five bids on March 17th and they were very very competitive. Uh the spread between the number one through number four bids was not even $20,000. So, uh that was fantastic. The low bid being submitted by Eureka Contracting was about 10% underneath our construction cost estimate for the project. So uh very good competition again and Eureka Contracting after checking around with a number of references, other similar-sized communities and projects that were far more complex than the one we have at stake here gave uh overwhelmingly positive feedback on it. So that gives staff plenty of confidence in recommending an award to Eureka Contracting. The total amount there for the contract is $2,571,979.90. Of the overall project costs and these is expected to all told—including design and project management—come in a little bit over three million. Uh the city share of that is about 1.3 million. Uh the remainder is covered by Dakota County through their cost share towards the project as well as a couple hundred thousand from Met Council for a specialty sanitary sewer structure that has to be built in conjunction with the project that they just that's passed through funds from them. So we think we're in a great position here. Uh the contract is awarded tonight. We're on a path then to begin construction in late May, early June. We haven't had a pre-construction meeting yet, so we'll get more fine details in the coming weeks. Uh lastly, we are going to hold one more open house for the public at the end of April here, primarily just to inform folks of how they'll what options they'll have for getting around that particular part of town to the businesses that are adjacent to County Road 42, as well as the neighborhoods that are in and near the area. Um traffic management plans, detour routing, those sorts of things. Uh just wanting to to bring more information to the public about that. Uh construction timeline would have us wrapping up substantial completion in late August. So, we're aiming to get it reopened before school begins again. Uh certainly probably some finishing touches, turf establishment, things that happen on the side of the road to follow thereafter, but um it's all lining up quite well. So we're excited to get on with it here and uh so for your consideration, there's a resolution awarding the contract and I'll turn it back to you, mayor. [2:31:03] Council Member Esler: And I I would just add that I I know that you wore a lot of the heavy lifting on this and and you and your staff really worked hard to get this done. So, I appreciate it because as somebody who takes it almost every morning on that roundabout, it's definitely getting busier on that side of town, which is great. So, putting in an amenity like this, I think it's just going to help with that flow and help with that public safety mission that we have here. Thanks. [2:31:25] Council Member Tyson: Is the entire intersection going to be shut down the entire time? Because I thought at one time there was going to be one-way traffic going either north or south and east and west, so it wasn't going to be completely shut down. Is it going to be completely shut down? [2:31:39] Nick Edgar (Public Works Director): Yes, for three months. Yes, it will. And that's the way that we're able to achieve that shortened timeline. You can have a moderate amount of pain spread over a longer period of time or rip the band-aid off, get it done, put it back together, and move on with life. And we chose the latter thinking that the time sensitivity was probably preeminent in everyone's mind. [2:32:02] Council Member Tyson: Okay. And then the other question is uh on the funding, the notes here say it'll be largely paid through MSA. Is that a definitive? I mean, do we know that that will be covered? [2:32:15] Nick Edgar (Public Works Director): Yes, it's not a matter of uh needing approval for that. It's there's a few minor utility related adjustments the city has that aren't eligible for municipal state aid money. it very very minimal. Like what's minimal ballpark? I think it's less than $50,000 if I recall off top of my head. [2:32:53] Council Member Kimple: Yeah, just a couple of points. One, um we hear a lot about speed issues on Connemara. Do we anticipate that a future roundabout there would likely slow some traffic down in the immediate vicinity of the intersection? No question it will. I can't speak for what happens out and away. Um and then the other thing just being obviously Akron being a county road and and you know we've had all we often have conversations with the county about traffic and infrastructure here in Rosemount. So, um, thank you for listening to us and residents and helping escalate the time frame on this because, um, you know, usually this would be something we'd ask the county to run the project and we'd probably be waiting a couple more years. And so, since you were able to find the capacity and take on the project, um, we really appreciate it. It's much needed in town. And so, thank you. I very much look forward to those, uh, public information sessions. [2:34:02] Council Member Tyson: I'll adopt a resolution to award the contract to Eureka Contracting for construction of the Connemara Trail and Akron Avenue roundabout project. [2:34:09] Council Member Freski: I'll second. [2:34:11] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Motion by Tyson, second by Freski. Roll, please. [2:34:15] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Kimple. [2:34:16] Council Member Kimple: I. [2:34:17] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Weisensel. [2:34:17] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: I. [2:34:18] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Tyson. [2:34:18] Council Member Tyson: I. [2:34:19] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Freski. [2:34:19] Council Member Freski: I. [2:34:20] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Esler. [2:34:21] Council Member Esler: I. [2:34:25] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: And the contract is awarded 5-0. Move on to 9C. Accepting a petition and authorize work at Dodd Boulevard improvement feasibility study. Mr. Edgar. [2:34:32] Nick Edgar (Public Works Director): Thanks, Mayor. This is a project that had been requested in an informal way, I guess I is the way I'd put it, by neighbors right along this section of Dodd Boulevard that's just north of McAndrews Road between McAndrew and 125th Court. being that the city had no intentions or plans within its capital improvement plan or long range outlook to do improvements on that section. Uh what we instructed the neighborhood to do was bring back a petition to formally indicate the level of interest there so we could gauge uh that and uh make specific requests as to what they were seeking in terms of improvements. Um, this stems somewhat from the subdivision agreement for the Wild Lake Estates development that was put in in the area about 10 years ago, where there was a set-aside of $195,000 from that developer towards a future yet undefined improvement on Dodd Boulevard. Um and and the neighborhood was aware of this. And so between that awareness and interest in seeing a change made to that section, we asked them to put forth a petition. We did receive that several weeks back and bringing it now to the council just to recognize and acknowledge receipt of the petition, but also to give staff direction on this. Uh so what staff is proposing is to move this into a feasibility study stage where we would do a preliminary amount of engineering and design work. Gauge the needs there from an infrastructure standpoint for not only what the residents had asked for but what is prudent based on city infrastructure standards and along with that estimate costs that would go into taking on a project. So that work will cost some money. We would have to hire a third party engineering consultant to perform the design, do surveying, come up with the draft plans and so forth. Uh we estimate that would be about $40,000 of effort and take possibly around 6 months or so to work through it. Um we proposed that the funding source of that work would be the the very deposit that was made by the development all those years ago as it would be encompassed in the overall project expenses anyhow. Uh so on the way towards furnishing a project, there's always these sunk costs, if you will, that go into preparing plans and working through the process of bringing it forward for a proposal. Uh so we're estimating around $40,000 of effort for that and completing this feasibility stage, getting that preliminary design put together. Uh but we need council to adopt a resolution to give us that direction. Um, I will note that when I when I wrote the draft resolution, I didn't mention the the source of funding in there. I I think that would be important to identify or make clear that that's the procedure that we would take. So, uh I would recommend council consider an amendment to install that within the text. [2:38:22] Council Member Freski: I'll adopt a resolution accepting a petition and authorizing a feasibility study work that the estimated $40,000 will come out of the $195,000 development fund that exists. [2:38:51] Council Member Tyson: Second. [2:38:53] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Motion by Freski, second by Tyson. Roll please. [2:38:56] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Weisensel. [2:38:57] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: I. [2:38:58] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Tyson. [2:38:58] Council Member Tyson: I. [2:38:59] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Freski. [2:38:59] Council Member Freski: I. [2:39:00] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Esler. [2:39:00] Council Member Esler: I. [2:39:01] City Clerk Aaron Fassbender: Kimple. [2:39:01] Council Member Kimple: I. [2:39:23] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: And 9C passes as amended. 5-0. All right, that completes all our new business. We're up to announcements. City staff updates, Mr. Martin. [2:39:38] Logan Martin (City Administrator): Nothing further, Mayor. [2:39:41] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: All right then for this evening. Anything from council? Any announcements? Otherwise, coming up, we have April 18th is the Rosemount Expo, 9:30 to 2:30. That's at the community center. Port Authority, April 21st from 6:00 to 7:00 and our next city council meeting, April 21st from 7 to 8:00. Both here at city hall. [2:40:08] Council Member Freski: Did we talk about inviting the Rosemount girls basketball team in? [2:40:11] Logan Martin (City Administrator): They're coming in on the 21st. We talked about it. I'll just have to follow up. [2:40:27] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: All right. Um unless there's no other business, I'll move to adjourn and reconvene at the work session in the conference room. [2:20:35] Council Member Esler: Second. [2:40:40] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Motion by Weisensel, second by Esler to adjourn and reconvene in the conference room. All in favor signify by saying I. [2:40:46] Council Members: I. [2:40:48] Mayor Jeffrey D. Weisensel: Opposed. We are adjourned. Thank you.