[0:00] Staff: Mics are on. >> Oh, on the second one. [0:12] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All right, everyone. Heather, you ready? Jessica, you ready? Can we quiet down? We will call the Tuesday, April 28th, 2026 Faribault City Council meeting to order. Our first item is roll call. [0:31] Heather Slechta: Council member Barnes. [0:32] Mandy Barnes: Here. [0:33] Heather Slechta: Doumbouya. [0:34] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: Here. [0:35] Heather Slechta: Ross. [0:36] Royal Ross: Here. [0:37] Heather Slechta: Rowan. [0:38] John Rowan: Here. [0:39] Heather Slechta: van Sluis. [0:40] Peter van Sluis: Here. [0:41] Heather Slechta: Thiele. [0:42] Chuck Thiele: Here. [0:42] Heather Slechta: Mayor Spooner. [0:44] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Here. Pledge of Allegiance. [0:48] Group: 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. [1:01] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Second item is approval of the agenda, Mr. Ross. [1:01] Royal Ross: Mayor, yeah, I understand uh staff is not ready for item 6. Is that correct? [1:10] Jessica Kinser: We we would just like it pulled off the consent agenda to be discussed. [1:22] Royal Ross: Okay. So, we're just moving it from the consent agenda to the uh to the—You want it. I think we're going to wait. [1:22] Jessica Kinser: You want it? Yeah, I was going to say in the approval of the consent agenda if that's where it can be removed for further discussion. [1:30] Royal Ross: Okay. We're not going to remove it totally. Correct. [1:38] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Okay. You understand that? All right. Approval of the agenda. [1:38] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: So move. [1:38] Royal Ross: Second. [1:38] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Doumbouya, second by Ross. All those in favor of the agenda saying I. [1:45] Council: Aye. [1:45] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. The agenda is approved. Presentation, introductions, we have none tonight. Approval of the minutes of April 14, 2026 and April 14th, 2026 special meeting close session and April 14, 2026 special city council meeting also closed. [2:07] Mandy Barnes: So moved. [2:07] Peter van Sluis: Yes. Second. [2:12] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Barnes, second by van Sluis. All those in favor signify by saying I. [2:12] Council: Aye. [2:12] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. The minutes are approved. Request to be heard. Due to the fact that we've had a large number of requests to be heard the past few months, um we are now going to implement some change where we are going to hear from residents first. So tonight we actually only have one resident and then we will hear from non-residents. It's also in our bylaws that this period shall not last more than 15 minutes. Um, many of you are here on the same topic and I truly believe we all understand you are probably against. So, but would you please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. First up is Carolyn Schaefer. Please come forward. And you have three minutes. [3:09] Carolyn Schaefer: Carolyn Schaefer. I live at 211 10th Avenue Southeast. I've been a resident of uh the east side for over 59 years. I'm here to address the infrastructure. I'm not sure AI is ready for us, but we aren't ready for it. If you Google where are the data centers in the United States, the East Coast lights up like one big light bulb. Now, when you put that many companies in one location, drawing all the energy that they are drawing, I don't think our infrastructure is ready for that. Now, maybe we need some guidelines, maybe some legislation that says you cannot have uh two data centers within 500 miles of each other. Now, that's just an arbitrary number. Um, and if they are clustered together too much, then maybe they need to take out an insurance company that when the infrastructure comes down that the taxpayers aren't hooked with it, that the data centers are hooked with it. And I think that's basically all I have to say. Uh everything that I have seen. The first thing that jumps out is the amount of water and energy that these places will soak up. I just think that uh people don't know what we're getting into. And as you can tell, I am very much opposed to not to data centers, but the conglomeration where they just jump all together. I can't imagine the people on the east coast and their electric bills or their water bills. [5:14] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: You—Miranda Lamb. [5:34] Miranda Lamb: Hello, I am Miranda Lamb and I am I live at 4222 Crystal Lake Trail in Faribault. Um it's in a township so technically I am out of city limits. Um, I moved from Minneapolis actually to Faribault just over a year ago. And I don't know if any of you have lived in the cities before, but there is a hum. It is always and it lives in your bones and it lives in your blood and it is always there. Now, there are some people who thrive in that hum who love the hum. My family, my four children and I and my husband, we moved away from the city to get away from the hum and we want to live where there is no hum. Now, most data centers are located within the cities and there have not been any in rural areas at this time. And so when people say there is no hum I've visited one. There is no hum um they haven't lived with the hum all day all night forever and always. And and so um I just wanted to come here and say that I don't I know that you guys are talking about the I2 distinction at this time and that's what your discussion is on tonight. And what I'm here to say is that I think that you shouldn't even put data centers on anything having to do with Faribault. I don't want Faribault to say data center at all. Nothing data center because we don't want it here. We want to hunt. We want to fish. We want to farm. We want to shop on our streets and we want to live on our streets. We want our kids to look up in the sky and see the stars. We want our kids to look and see birds in the streets. I lived in Minneapolis, the north side of Minneapolis. And when they looked outside, they saw concrete and asphalt, and that was it. And maybe some people and they heard the hum. And now— [8:10] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: 30 seconds. [8:12] Miranda Lamb: And now I don't want that to happen here because we're in rural the greater Minnesota area and that's where I moved to. I chose to live here and bring my family here and that's where I want to be. Thank you. [8:23] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Elizabeth Wright. [8:23] Elizabeth Wright: Elizabeth Wright, 5351 Elkton Trail in Faribault, Minnesota. That's on Canon. I am in favor of a moratorium on data centers. This includes the Archer project. Highstepping through existing regulations and using rezoning to facilitate future expansion without environmental review is not acceptable. Current environmental regulations must be updated and revised in order to balance technological progress with environmental responsibility. The rapid expansion of AI infrastructure is creating significant environmental challenges. Data center investments are projected to reach three trillion by 2030, driving a massive surge in land, energy, and water consumption. Building and operating data centers consumes larger quantities of raw materials that require environmentally destructive mining. Data centers generate significant electronic waste, including hazardous materials such as mercury and lead. Carbon emissions are detrimental to ecosystems and are related to human health problems including asthma and heart disease. Current regulations are behind the curve and reigning in this technology. It is critical that outdated regulations be updated and implemented at the state level, the regional level, county and city level. When committing to these mega projects in the US, data center electricity demand is expected to reach up to 2% of total electric usage by 2028. Already, cooling requirements consume millions of gallons of water daily, causing local utility spikes and water deficits in several US states. Furthermore, carbon emissions from these centers could equal the equivalent of adding 10 million cars on US highways by 2030 due to heavy reliance on natural gas and diesel backup generators. Despite their size, data centers create relatively few permanent jobs. Faribault and adjacent communities will bear the pollution and infrastructure strain with little long-term economic benefit. Going forward, I would urge the city to amplify public discussion. Don't use NDAs because that does not amplify public discussion. And when these projects have such huge potential to affect quality of life in Faribault and adjacent communities. Thank you. [10:59] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Karen Zeller. [10:59] Karen Zeller: back again. Karen Zeller 16972 Acorn. I wore glasses so you don't recognize me. 16972 Acorn Trail. I guess I'm not totally against the concept of data centers. Obviously, we need them to keep up with the Chinese. I guess uh we can't let them get ahead of us for goodness sakes. Um, but at any rate, what I feel right now is that there's been just a rush of billionaires hopping in on this whole concept of data centers and and the technology needed to make them a win-win for the communities in which they're built and the billionaires themselves. They've jumped ahead before the technology has been perfected in order to make sure that the people of Faribault are not bearing the brunt of upgrades to the water treatment plant. Can our water treatment plant handle 3 to 5 million gallons of water a day extra? I doubt it. Who's going to pay for that? We need written contract guarantees if we're going to move forward with anything. How about the PFAS? Right now, those forever chemicals, there is no mitigation system included in these data centers to prevent that from spewing into the air, going into the ground, and returning to the water treatment plant. And right now, there isn't a water treatment plant in the USA that has a capability of siphoning out those forever chemicals. Our children, grandchildren, and future generations will be drinking that someday. They will be able to do this. They can put some of their billions of dollars into finding the technology necessary to make it a win-win for everybody. Right now, the cart is being put in front of the horse, and I don't want to see Faribault falling into the trap. I think representatives from the city council should go and talk to people in communities about the same size that have data centers built in them. Find out the impact on the residents and it's been in some cases catastrophic, very little water pressure, huge electrical bill increases. I mean, have we investigated this with other cities before we jump into this thing? I just think the technology needs to—we need written guarantees and the technology has to be advanced beyond what it is now. [13:30] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: 30 seconds. Thank you. Megan Benzinger. [14:01] Megan Benzinger: Megan Benzinger, 5785 232nd Street West, Faribault Elton Trail here. Uh, so I'm going to say the same thing, but here I'm going to come at it from a financial point of view. So this is what I have education and in multiple degrees in is accounting and finance. And we've we've talked about the pollution and they lie about that closed loop system. They lie about it because they do need to clean out the lines and the only way to do that—they can't dump it into the water. They have to let it evaporate. What is the most dangerous type of particle? Anybody here in building? Yep. Gases. And that ends up in our air. So this is important because we are polluting the air. The air we need to breathe. And I'm I'm with her. I moved out here on purpose over a decade ago. I moved out to Faribault on purpose. I built another home in Faribault on purpose. Why? Because of our land. Because of who we are, because of our town, because of our people right here, all these people who care. This is where I want to live. I want to live in a safe environment. A safe for my children. And I also want to talk about the finances. Ohio is seeing horrible effects of this. They were the first ones to start to allow mega data centers to go close to cities and inside cities. They've seen 100 to 400% increases in maintenance on their utility facilities. Guess who pays that? The data center doesn't. They paid for—Oh, they try to sweeten the deal. Let me build you this big facility. Let me cover two years of this. Why don't you give me a TIF? I'm going to give you a TIF to pollute me. Get out of here. Heck no. As somebody who has to pay their taxes, so do they. And they don't belong here. They don't belong with us. They don't belong getting TIFs. They don't belong here polluting our air. And in the effect of Ohio, the residents are now seeing on every single utility a 10 to 35% increase. People are in here all day long. We need affordable housing. We need affordable this. We need affordable that. How are we going to make these utilities affordable when the data center is eating them up and then we're stuck with the bill? There's no plan here, folks. That's our job. That's your job—is planning. Planning is important. And right now, there's no plan for these data centers. Archer couldn't even meet the 50-point test. [16:48] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All right, we're quick. We're close to the time limit, but Sodto Spring, I'll allow you to speak. Yes. Three minutes. [17:01] Sodto Spring: Sodto Spring, 16922 Cabot Avenue. My home is 2 and a half miles as the crow flies from that data center. I measured it this afternoon after seeing that all the decisions were made and there was no hope because—so I moved to the country 12 years ago out of Northfield which is a very nice town. I moved here for my health. I have chemical sensitivities and I moved here for the stars, the trees and so forth and those are going to be taken away from me and I don't even get to vote. I don't even get to help throw out the people who believe that we should all love pollution and we should love having it light and noisy all day long. I will simply add because so much good has been said here. I will add that AI is a bubble and those data centers will be empty hulks. They will be paved. Our birds will be dead. Our children will be depressed. And um there's no reason for it. We don't need it. We have lived for thousands of years without data centers and without AI. [18:26] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: That's it. We're moving on. So thank you everyone for coming. So next item, consent agenda items. Consent agenda items 6A through 6P. Would anybody like any— [18:43] Royal Ross: Yes, mayor. Uh I think uh staff would like uh item 6 pulled and move to the item eight. [18:50] Jessica Kinser: We would like you to vote on the consent agenda remaining items and then we discuss that one separately. Yep. [19:00] Royal Ross: You mean in a work session or— [19:02] Jessica Kinser: No, just following your vote on the consent agenda. [19:05] Royal Ross: All right, I'll follow along. Whatever she said. [19:08] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: I would like to entertain a motion. Anybody else? [19:10] John Rowan: I'll make a motion to approve items A through N and P. [19:16] Peter van Sluis: Second. [19:16] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: I have a motion by Rowan, second by van Sluis on 6A through 6N and P. All those in favor signify by saying I. [19:25] Council: Aye. [19:25] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. Those are passed. Now, staff would like to discuss 6O. [19:35] Jessica Kinser: Yes, thank you, uh, Mayor Spooner. Um, 6O had a contract that was in the packet that was one that hadn't been circulated back to Inspectron, Inc., the contractor that's proposed with. And so, we got some changes back from them fairly late and got another contract revised from legal at like 5:15. We didn't update the packet. Um, they're—the contractors—legal still needs to review it. The things that we're talking about are there was an incorrect name in there and a few other very small things, but the the content of the contract being everything is $125 an hour. That's the the base charge. And that there's 30 days notice on either party to terminate is is really the substance of the contract that's most important. And so, um, what I would be looking for is a motion to approve this resolution and to authorize the mayor to sign a contract, um, as negotiated and finalized with the contractor. [20:30] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Will our legal team be reviewing that, too? [20:32] Jessica Kinser: They—they have—they—they gave us comments back at 5:15, and so we just sent those to the contractor. [20:40] Scott Riggs (City Attorney): Yes, we did. We revised it. Uh, the changes requested are acceptable, but— [20:45] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Okay. So, basically this is only approved if their side accepts it and then mayor will say okay. [20:53] Royal Ross: And I'm just going to add um I've been doing quite a bit of research lately on two firms in particular that do this uh nature and Inspectron is one that was uh highly recommended in a mayor's chat room statewide within the last six weeks or so. So, I'm very much in favor. [21:19] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: 6O. [21:20] Royal Ross: Mayor Spooner, I'll make a motion to approve consent agenda item 6O, resolution 2026-132. [21:29] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: Second. [21:30] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Ross, second by Doumbouya. All those in favor by saying I. [21:36] Council: Aye. [21:36] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. That motion passes. Thank you very much for that staff. On to public hearings. Um, we only have one public hearing tonight. 2026A taxable obligation bond abatement bonds. Jessica Kinser, there are three parts to this. I'm assuming you're going to give us one presentation. [22:02] Jessica Kinser: Um, you are correct, uh, Mayor Spooner. Um, so, uh, four weeks ago at the end of March, you set a public hearing for tonight on the 2026A taxable general obligation tax abatement bond, which is a lot to say. Um, this is specifically for the second phase of Viaduct Park and is proposed at 3.710 million. We had previously discussed and in the budget had uh 3.6 million. So, the question of why is there an additional 110,000? There are costs of issuance that we have built into the bond so that we don't have to pay for those separately. And so um that is probably the amount that I will say on it and I'm going to turn it over to Tammy um Omdahl from Northland Securities to talk to you more about the specifics. [22:47] Tammy Omdahl: Mayor Council, good evening. Tammy Omdahl with Northland Securities. A public hearing is required in order to issue tax abatement bonds and tax abatement is a public finance tool um available to the city to finance certain types of improvements including park improvements. There is no abatement of taxes. That's confusing because the term tax abatement. It is really a tool that the legislature provides under chapter 469 for the city to consider the issuance and the use of city taxes to finance those qualified improvements. Tonight, the public hearing is necessary and this was properly noticed because the city needed to identify certain parcels within the city that the city tax revenue generated from those parcels is sufficient to service the proposed bonds to be issued. Those properties, those tax parcels, their tax statements will look no different than any other tax statement in the city. On your approval and the issuance of bonds that for first collection in 20—certified this year for collection 2027 would be a tax abatement levy. That levy is spread upon the city's entire tax base just like every other debt service levy in the city and the general fund. I know that term can be confusing. I have just a few points on the bonds um to cover and then I'll close my remarks. So as noted um the estimated par amount is 3,710,000. That is a preliminary number. The actual number um could be slightly less or slightly greater than that pending final pricing. The bonds are proposed to be issued as taxable. In most cases the city issues tax-exempt bonds because it carries lower interest rate. In this case, it is to the city's interest to issue these bonds as taxable because the city desires to have naming rights for um the facilities to be financed as well as potential private use by issuance of the bonds as taxable. You have that ability to enter into those. So there is an advantage to the public and the city to do so. The estimated interest rate, which is preliminary, is 4.8%. That is an estimate. We will not know that until the bonds are actually priced and sold. Um, Northland is recommending that the city seek a bond rating on these bonds um because it will result in more favorable interest rates. So, we will be working with staff and that was just scheduled today on that process. With respect to the timing on June 9th on behalf of the city, Northland will accept um proposals bids to purchase these bonds and then at your regular city council meeting will present the results of the sale. So tonight you are not selling the bonds, you are holding a public hearing. After that public hearing, there's a resolution to approve the tax abatement and a not to exceed bond amount that then gives you the authority to approve the next resolution that calls for the sale of bonds. That mayor and council, I'm going to close my remarks. Happy to answer any questions. [26:02] Royal Ross: Uh, mayor, I'm not sure if my question is for administration or the bonding company, but um, I see it has an average life of 9.4 years. At $640,000. So if the taxes go up, just say just pick a number, 700,000 in year two, do we keep that extra 60,000 increase or does it automatically go to pay off the bonds earlier or how does that work? [26:50] Tammy Omdahl: I don't know if I entirely understood the question, but I can attempt to answer and then you can tell me if I hit the mark. So, and you don't need to turn there, but there is a finance plan on page five. So, there's estimated um tax levies associated. These are estimates because these bonds have not sold. The estimated life has to do with the structuring of the maturity. That's why it's an average. The first payment would be in um 2027 and the final payment will be in 2041. These bonds will be callable as well. So if interest rates were to drop and it made financial sense for the city to refund these bonds that you would have that— [27:21] Royal Ross: So does that mean that the uh payment of $640,000 is flat for those nine years? [27:30] Tammy Omdahl: You may be referring to the next item. So for the um for these bonds, the 2026A, the current estimated total debt service payments is about $350,000 a year. [27:45] Jessica Kinser: I can look ahead and because you had so much information in your packet, you may have been looking at the next series. And so to—to build on what Tammy said, it's about 350,000, but there is the 105% levy requirement on this one. So we're looking at kind of a 370 to 374, $375,000 payment annually. And so that is what we would be putting on our tax levy. We wouldn't be requesting more than that. [28:17] Royal Ross: No. No. But as our taxes just naturally change year to year, let's assume they're going to go up, you know, for lack of a better understanding here. If they—if they go up, do our flat payment—do our payments remain flat? [28:34] Jessica Kinser: Yes. [28:34] Royal Ross: We get to keep the uh excess. Is that correct? [28:39] Jessica Kinser: Um it's—it's a predetermined schedule. So there really won't be any excess. We'll—we'll know when we sell the bonds what our debt service schedule is and finance will use that to prepare the tax levy each year with the amount that's due. So it's not an adjustable bond payment schedule. [28:57] Royal Ross: No, I know the payment schedule is not adjustable, but I'm saying the taxes are going to go up and down a little bit as we go through this 9-year period. [29:04] Jessica Kinser: Um, I—very very minimal. In the finance plan, there is the preliminary debt schedule that has that 105%. So, there will be some fluctuation of no more than $5,000 a year basically in terms of what that would look like. Um, as the tax base grows, the amount of base needed to—when you spread $370,000 over a growing tax base, it means less to each property um, moving forward. [29:32] Royal Ross: Right. Okay. That answers my question then. Okay. Thank you. [29:32] John Rowan: So, to play on his question, so my concern that I've heard from our constituents is that they're getting taxed to death. So, how does this affect the bottom line? [29:56] Jessica Kinser: This—this will be part of our tax levy. Um uh as you'll recall when we do put together our tax levy preliminary and final. We're looking at our general operations. So really our general fund and then we have other tax abatement obligations which we specifically state as well. And as Tammy said, this will appear under our tax abatement obligations. And then we also have our debt service obligations for I think three bonds that are three or four bonds that are currently outstanding that will appear in their own section. So this won't be lumped into anything. It will appear, but yes, it will be adding to our our total tax levy um as basically a payment that is due from the the taxes of the city. [30:31] John Rowan: Okay. I just wanted that made clear for transparency. [30:33] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Any other questions? Any other questions? Right. At this time, I'll entertain a motion. [30:41] Peter van Sluis: So moved. [30:41] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: Second. [30:45] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by van Sluis, second by Doumbouya to open public hearing. Signify by saying I. [30:52] Council: Aye. [30:52] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: We are in public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this matter, please—once, twice, three times. Close public hearing. [31:01] Chuck Thiele: So moved. [31:01] Royal Ross: Second. [31:04] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Thiele, second by Ross to close public hearing. I. [31:08] Council: Aye. [31:08] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Public hearing is closed. Questions, comments, anything else? I'll entertain motions at this time. [31:21] Royal Ross: Mayor Spooner. Yes. I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2026-124. [31:29] Chuck Thiele: Second. [31:31] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Ross, second by Thiele on resolution 2026-124. Signify by saying I. [31:37] Council: Aye. [31:37] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. The resolution has passed. On to the next one. [31:45] Royal Ross: Mayor Spooner. Yes. Make a motion to approve resolution 2026-125. [31:54] Mandy Barnes: Second. [31:56] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: I—seconded by Barnes. All those in favor of resolution 125 by saying I. [31:59] Council: Aye. [31:59] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. That resolution is also passed. Now on to the approval of municipal advisory services agreement for the city of Faribault and Northland Securities. [32:10] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: So move. [32:10] Peter van Sluis: Second. [32:15] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Doumbouya, seconded by van Sluis. All those in favor of that agreement. [32:19] Council: Aye. [32:19] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Items for discussion on to 8A. Ordinance 2026-06 text amendment for data centers in I2 zoning area. Harry Davis, Planning Manager. [32:42] Harry Davis: Thank you, mayor, and good evening, council. Uh so the item in front of you is uh an ordinance that we have seen before at city council and we recently talked about in a work session. Um the city is bringing this forward uh on request of city administration and the city attorney. Um and it's for us to adopt what is uh a—a definition for a data center in order to to clearly define that. And through the work session, we've made it clear that this is not an accessory sort of data server room within a building. This is a for-profit enterprise uh sort of principal use for a property. Um and then the other part of it is to make sure that we're clearly outlining where in our city a data—data center would be possible. Um and that would be within the I2 heavy industrial district. This is the definition for a data center uh which we have retooled very recently uh like state—like I said before to focus on uh it being a principal use rather than some sort of accessory. Um and then here's the land use table. So adding data centers uh as uh to be allowed within I2 as a permitted by right use. Um just to rehash this again, you know, planning commission did review this at their public hearing on uh April 6 where they did unanimously recommend approval. Uh they did strongly recommend that council adopt uh specific design standards. So something that you would find under chapter 7 within our UDO uh within a reasonable amount of time. That was a suggestion from them. Um, and just like tonight, there were a number of members of the public that spoke generally against data centers. Um, we've kind of gone back and forth about this. I won't rehash that, but we have revised the uh definition. Um, so with this revised definition and the land use table, we are recommending that city council approve ordinance 2026-06. And I'm happy to take any questions. [34:42] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Any questions for staff at this time? [34:42] John Rowan: Okay. Can you go back one slide? Uh, one more and one more. Okay. So, the question that the public presented when they were speaking earlier, and this is more for Scott, is if we don't do anything, what—what's the negative outcome? And I thought it was in one of your slides, but I don't see it now. If we do nothing tonight or move forward with some type of definition. [35:28] Scott Riggs: Yeah. If there's no definition and no—no delineation of what district this may or may not be allowed in, it leaves it open-ended and leaves it a concern that I have right now that it can go somewhere where you do not want it to go. If you go back, yeah, the one slide I say there, there have been a lot of discussion about the state needing to do something here. I heard that from audience. This is a step to make sure the city's protected until that time. I don't think we're as protected as we can. [35:54] John Rowan: Okay. And that's just the point I wanted to make. That's why we're doing this to narrowly tailor where this stuff can go. Thank you. [36:11] Royal Ross: Uh thank you. Um Harry will—um the planning commission encourages us to adopt design—specific design standards within a reasonable—I think—I think the design standards would also answer a lot of questions that the public has. Will this be coming up on a work session soon or how—how are we going to educate ourselves on the design standards? [36:53] Harry Davis: Mr. Mayor, um Council Member Ross. So that is a request or or a suggestion from the planning commission. It is up to city council as to whether or not they would like to look into this a little bit further. Um and so you know at that point— [37:05] Royal Ross: Sounds like a good—a good recommendation. It's time to look into that once you move forward here. We have to put as many protections in place without that. And—and if the state's not going to act, you have to direct staff to bring something to you. [37:13] Harry Davis: Yeah, because the design standards would state limitations on operations basically also. [37:13] Royal Ross: Okay, thank you. [37:16] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: Um, no, I just wanted to um understand if we are the first leading this. Are we the first? [37:26] Harry Davis: I—I wouldn't say by any means the first. No, not at all. Um there have been some movements with moratoriums. You certainly can suggest that type of uh development like this. Um right now we're looking at controls at a minimum at least that we get in place until—you're not—you're not the first. You're not breaking ground here by any means. [37:54] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: Um, attorney Riggs, if we were to propose a moratorium, let's say it happened today that we're—we're voting for a moratorium and we did not have this wording for the specific zoning. How would we sit? [38:09] Scott Riggs: Yeah, it's best to have a definition so we can actually deal with, you know, define what you're having a moratorium as. Without a definition, I won't say it's—it's unreasonable, but it—it's not the best position. The definition is going to help. [38:22] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: I ask this again. I asked it two weeks ago, Mr. Davis. Is anywhere in our code is the term data center in play or where it can be put or anywhere? Is it in our code? [38:39] Harry Davis: No, Mr. Mayor. [38:42] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Thank you. So, we are just legally defining it so we can talk. [38:47] Harry Davis: Correct. [38:49] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Thank you very much. This time, I'll entertain a motion for 2026-06. [38:53] Chuck Thiele: All moved. [38:53] Royal Ross: Second. [38:57] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Thiele, second by Ross on ordinance 2026-06. This is a roll call. Heather Slechta. [39:06] Heather Slechta: Council member Barnes. [39:07] Mandy Barnes: Nay. [39:07] Heather Slechta: Doumbouya. [39:08] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: Nay. [39:09] Heather Slechta: Ross. [39:10] Royal Ross: Aye. [39:10] Heather Slechta: Rowan. [39:11] John Rowan: Aye. [39:11] Heather Slechta: van Sluis. [39:12] Peter van Sluis: Aye. [39:13] Heather Slechta: Thiele. [39:14] Chuck Thiele: Aye. [39:14] Heather Slechta: Mayor Spooner. [39:14] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Aye. Motion that ordinance passes. On to be ordinance 2026-05 rezoning property of the Hill block. Once again Davis, planning. [39:30] Harry Davis: Thank you Mr. Mayor and council. Um so this is an ordinance that you've previously seen at your um preceding city council meeting. Uh nothing has significantly changed about this ordinance. So we are recommending that you approve this for its second reading. Um the addition to this is that there is a summary publication that staff is suggesting. Um this does require I believe a 5/7th vote. So at least five members of city council would have to say yes to the summary publication. [39:59] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Any questions again? [40:11] Royal Ross: Mayor Spooner. Yes. I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2026-05. [40:11] Peter van Sluis: Second. [40:17] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Ross, second by van Sluis on ordinance 2026-05. I once again this is a roll call. [40:24] Heather Slechta: Council member Barnes. [40:25] Mandy Barnes: Aye. [40:25] Heather Slechta: Ross. [40:26] Royal Ross: Aye. [40:27] Heather Slechta: Rowan. [40:28] John Rowan: Aye. [40:29] Heather Slechta: van Sluis. [40:30] Peter van Sluis: Aye. [40:31] Heather Slechta: Mayor Spooner. [40:31] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Aye. That ordinance has passed. Publication of the summary. [40:33] Royal Ross: Mayor Spooner. Yes. I'll make a motion to approve the summary publication of ordinance 2026-05. [40:41] John Rowan: I'll second. [40:43] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Ross, second by Rowan. All those in favor signify by saying I. [40:49] Council: Aye. [40:49] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. That is published. On to ordinance 2026-07, approve text amendments for child care and PI zoning districts. Once again, Harry Davis, Planning Manager. [41:01] Harry Davis: Thank you, mayor and—shorten up your title. It's all good. Um, so this is uh our second review of this ordinance to allow uh childcare centers within our PI public institutional zoning district. Uh, nothing significant has changed about this ordinance since the last time you reviewed it. Uh, and very similar to the preceding item on your agenda, there is another summary publication for this as well. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions. [41:28] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Questions for staff? Right. At this time, I'll entertain a motion. [41:35] Royal Ross: Mayor Spooner. Yes. I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2026-07. [41:35] Peter van Sluis: Second. [41:44] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: And motion by Ross. Second by van Sluis. Once again, this is an ordinance. We will have a roll. [41:47] Heather Slechta: Council member Barnes. [41:48] Mandy Barnes: Aye. [41:49] Heather Slechta: Doumbouya. [41:50] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: Aye. [41:51] Heather Slechta: Ross. [41:52] Royal Ross: Aye. [41:53] Heather Slechta: Rowan. [41:54] John Rowan: Aye. [41:55] Heather Slechta: van Sluis. [41:56] Peter van Sluis: Aye. [41:57] Heather Slechta: Thiele. [41:58] Chuck Thiele: Aye. [41:59] Heather Slechta: Mayor Spooner. [41:59] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Aye. And a publication of that. [42:06] Royal Ross: So moved. [42:06] Peter van Sluis: Second. [42:06] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Ross has got the motion. Second by van Sluis. All those in favor signify by saying I. [42:16] Council: Aye. [42:16] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. It can be published. On item D, 2026B, obligation sewer bonds. Jessica Kinser. [42:35] Jessica Kinser: Yes. Um we discussed in the budget process how in order to complete a number of very large projects uh in the sewer fund in 2026 there was going to need to be um a bond. And so that is uh what is here before you tonight. There's three different um resolutions. Uh the first one is basically providing that we can sell a sewer um revenue bond, general obligation sewer revenue bond. The second one is related to something that we have um that's available to us in the uh uh state of Minnesota with the public facilities um program uh which allows us to basically utilize um the state's credit rating for a public infrastructure project to um help assist the interest rates um that would likely be seen on this bond. And then the third one is the municipal advisory services agreement uh with the Northland Securities. Tammy is still here and so I will let her come up if there's anything more to say about that or for any questions. [43:28] Tammy Omdahl: Council, Tammy Omdahl from Northland Securities again as advisor. The only thing I would add to that the estimated um interest rate on these bonds which are proposed to be tax-exempt is 3.26%. So I just contrast that with the other because these are tax-exempt. First payment would be due in 2027 final payment in 2041. And we are also recommending that the city seek a rating on bonds and Northland will work with city staff on that process. And the sale date is June 9th. Um we will take bids that morning on the series and present results at your regular meeting that evening. Mayor, council members, happy to answer any questions. [44:09] Royal Ross: Questions? Yes, Mr. I have one, but I believe mine is more for uh administrator Kinser or maybe one of the directors, but um is the project necessary this year? [44:20] Jessica Kinser: Yes. I'll say the the big one that I think we've targeted this one on is the siphon box replacement. This was one of the things that was discovered in the floods of 2024 when we had so much extra water coming into the wastewater treatment plant. Um it's essentially the line that gets everything from the north side in under the river and to the treatment plant. Um and that—that uh needing to be replaced is very important for the continuation and ongoing operations of our wastewater system in the in the city. So that's the biggest project that's part of that. There are some other smaller things related to other um improvements uh with some sanitary sewer reconstruction projects. Um, I can't get too specific on those because they're not my projects, but Mark is available if there's anything further to add to that beyond the siphon box. [45:17] Royal Ross: You—you know, I like to follow our bond schedule. I'm just wondering, I I know we have some falling off and I believe it's 2027. And even some falling off in 2028. [45:24] Jessica Kinser: That's different. So, this one shows up when we look at our sewer um basically cash flow model um because it's not something that we add on to our tax levy. It's something that is built into the rate increases that you approved to go into effect January 1st that paying off this um principle and interest over 15 years is built into that. And I don't know the debt service schedule um for sewer off the top of my head to be able to talk about how this fits with existing sewer debt. [45:49] Royal Ross: Okay. Okay. So, okay. Yes, I did forget that that it doesn't go on the tax levy. It is financed through the uh modern sewer department. Thank you. No more questions. [46:11] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: No more questions. At this time, I'll enter— [46:11] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: I make a motion to approve resolution 2026-126. [46:20] Royal Ross: Second. [46:28] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Doumbouya, second by Ross. All those in favor signify by saying I. [46:31] Council: Aye. [46:31] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. Motion passed. [46:34] Chuck Thiele: Resolution 2026-127. [46:36] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Yes. [46:36] Chuck Thiele: I make a motion to approve resolution 2026-127. [46:42] Royal Ross: Second. [46:44] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Thiele, second by Ross. All those in favor of the resolution? [46:51] Council: Aye. [46:51] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed that resolutions passed. Approval of agreement—advisory service city of Minnesota North— [46:58] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: Okay. So move. [46:58] Mandy Barnes: Second. [47:03] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Doumbouya, second by Barnes. All those in favor signify. [47:06] Council: Aye. [47:06] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. Also passes. Me resolution 2026-129. Travis Block, you've been waiting patiently. Public Works Director. [47:18] Travis Block: Uh, thank you, Mayor Spooner, members of the council, and members of the public. Resolution 2026-129 is seeking the approval of the plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for the lead service line replacements, uh, city contract 2026-10. This slide before you just kind of depicts a general project location where these various replacements will take place. The project is going to consist of 63 lead water service line replacements. 42 of those are from the meter to the curb stop and 21 are located between the curb stop and the water main. Just also wanted to remind folks uh out there that the property owner does own the service in its entirety from meter to main. Um and for this project, the replacements will occur on upcoming pavement overlay and reconstruction streets. And the reason why you may some may ask why we are doing this as if they are a private line. Well, the money that's allocated by the state of Minnesota, the property owner is not allowed to uh pursue that. So therefore the city or water supply system which is us has to do that and we did have a very successful campaign when we did uh reach out to the folks that were putting together this proposed first kind of phase of this project. Very positive response. So very pleased with that. Uh this is just a typical section of one of the meter side replacements coming into the line coming into the house and the meter and then line continuing into the plumbing. And this uh is a typical section that just depicts the would be from the curb stop to the main. Here's just a couple pictures of examples of kind of what are the common type of replacements we're dealing with on the meter side in in some of these uh locations that we're looking at. These two are kind of a little bit of a less typical kind of more of a finished area, but the project is such the documents are put together such that there is a some allotment or an allowance to deal with these situations should they you know when we get into those. The project costs uh and funding for the project we're have 236,591 as engineering and that's Stantec consultant who as our consultant for this project is working on preparing—preparing these plans and specs and the bidding documents and then it leaves us about uh 1.138 million for construction costs and the funding for this is going to be provided uh by a Minnesota public facility authority grant in the amount of that 1,375,000. So the tentative project schedule is uh where we're at tonight seeking approval of the plans and specs and authorizing going out for bid. We have a tentative bid date set for May 21st. That is contingent currently upon Minnesota Department of Health approval of the plans. They are currently in that state. Our consultants reached out to them as recently as late last week uh to try and get a confirmation. We're unable to get that at this time. The resolution is structured as such. So the public works director is allowed to revise that bid date. Then when we get approval from the state, then we can revise that bid date and keep moving forward. So we we can stay on our—on a schedule and get these things started here this year. So then we'd be looking at awarding a contract sometime in June or July, then constructing in July or August, looking to be substantially complete with it in October of 2027 and then finally complete in 2028 there June. So, uh, with that recommendation to consider resolution 2026-129. [51:06] Royal Ross: Questions. Mayor Spooner, um, always nice to have the state pay for one of our projects. Any chance we get an administrative fee out of this? [51:16] Travis Block: Uh, unfortunately, I'm unaware that we were able to do that at this time. I think staff time and other things are one of the un—uneligible costs. [51:28] Royal Ross: Okay, nice try. [51:30] Mandy Barnes: Okay. Mr. Block, can you tell or explain if this will affect any of our uh taxpayers as far as if they are being replaced or fixed, will their water bill go up? [51:41] Travis Block: Uh there is at this time there is not anticipated to be any cost to any of the property owners for this project. That is that is going to be solely funded uh by the state of Minnesota. [51:50] Mandy Barnes: Thank you. [52:10] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: My understanding this is the first round of this. We could maybe—maybe do this the next year and the next year— [52:16] Travis Block: That—that is correct. That's—that is my goal and anticipation to align with the state's goal of removing all these by 2033. I've already submitted the one for the next round. Uh working with Director DuChene on putting you know our next overlay streets etc together, put that package together and then in the next month be moving into getting that off of the project priority list and moving that into the intended use plan phase. So you'll be seeing me doing this hopefully for a long time. [52:26] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: And then do you see the engineer costs coming down as—as the years go on? [52:30] Travis Block: Uh I—I would like to say yes uh as we become more efficient with this. This is—uh this is the first round of this. So we're—we're all learning a lot uh on this—on this project. But I I would anticipate that and that is that would be hopeful. [52:47] Mandy Barnes: Thank you. [52:54] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Any questions? [52:54] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: Mayor Spooner. Yes. I make a motion to approve 2026-129. [53:01] Mandy Barnes: Second. [53:03] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Doumbouya, second by Barnes. All those in favor of the resolution. [53:09] Council: Aye. [53:09] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. Resolution passes. Thank you. On to bids. Resolution 2026-117 bids for phase two of the Viaduct Park. Mark DuChene. [53:19] Mark DuChene: Thank you, mayor, members of the council, and the public. Uh before you tonight is the first of two bids, that being the Viaduct Park phase 2 site improvements. These bids were open last Wednesday, April 22nd, and we did receive four bids for the project. The low bid came from Pember Companies. There's a site plan showing you the proposed improvements. Um real quick, so this is for everything that's kind of colored on the map here. The big white area in the middle, that's the refrigerated ice sheet. That contract was previously awarded to Modern Mechanical Systems last fall to get going on the refrigerated ice package and chiller system. Um, everything that's included in this package is what's colored out. Uh, the other white box that's to the left of the page there, that's the utility garage to house the resurfacer and some other small miscellaneous tools. Um, but this would be the landscaping, the utilities, the concrete patio around the refrigerated ice, the second fire pit, um, and some minor electrical conduits and whatnot. So, this is that bid package. Uh, like I mentioned, we did receive four bids last Wednesday. The low bid came from Pember companies at just over 666,000. Uh, you can see this is over the engineers' estimate. Um, we found out late in the game that um the geotechnical engineer had requested some additional soil investigations. And from the time we got an estimate for the soil correction folks to the time the bids went in, um those soil borings came back and indicated that the soils in this area were um a little more subpar than we had anticipated with the borings that we had. So that increased the soil correction costs. Um there's nothing we can do about it. This is a product of decisions made long long ago before any of us were around and the fill that was placed down there. Um, so that's the primary result or the reason for the increase in the bid prices from the estimate. Um, but with that said, I again I do not anticipate there being much cost savings. We are looking uh any cost savings in rebidding the project. Um, we are working with the contractor, the low bidder and looking at some ideas for some value engineering to bring those costs down. But this is within the total project budget for Viaduct Park. So again, we are recommending approval moving forward. So asking for approval of contract tonight. Uh, this contract will start construction here pretty quickly. The—the low bid contractor, Pember Companies, is the same contractor that's down there working on the 20-inch water main replacement project. Um, they're likely going to finish that project and roll right into this project to get going. So, this one will start sooner than later. And then completion is due by September 1st. That's when we are required to deliver the refrigerated ice sheet area to Modern Mechanical so that they can get the refrigerated ice sheet done for hopefully November opening of this year. So with that, I will stand for any questions, but ask you to consider resolution 2026-117. [56:08] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: I'll entertain a motion. [56:08] Royal Ross: Mayor Spooner. Yes. I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2026-117. [56:17] Peter van Sluis: Second. [56:24] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Ross, second by van Sluis on resolution 2026-117. Signify by saying I. [56:27] Council: Aye. [56:27] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. Is passed. Once again, Director DuChene, resolution 2026-119, bids on a sewer line project. [56:41] Mark DuChene: Thank you, Mayor, council members, and the public. Uh, the second bid tonight is for our 2026 sewer lining project. Uh, this is contract 2026-08. Uh, we're looking at putting in a structural liner in numerous existing sanitary sewer mains around town, as well as a segment of storm sewer on Second Avenue Northwest. Uh this structural liner reminder, it gets rolled out into the existing pipe and it's structurally strong enough that should the existing host pipe completely deteriorate, this structural liner can hold up without the host pipe being there anymore. Uh this is an effective way to uh mitigate cracks and infiltration into our existing sewer systems without having to dig up the whole road and replace everything. Um streets that are on here are not in our near-term capital improvement plan for street improvements. So that's why we're looking at making these improvements this way. We did receive five bids last Wednesday. The low bid coming from Vortex Services Minnesota LLC at just under $658,000. Uh you can see for once we—again back to good graces here. Um we received very favorable bids. Um there was quite the range here and I think that's indicative of some of these contractors are full for the year and so this was just a well-if-we-get-it-it'd-be-nice bids. Vortex on the other hand they have indicated that they do have availability and they really want to fill out the rest of their year. That's the indication for why we got such a favorable bid on there which we're not going to complain about. So looking at funding including engineering and inspection cost the total project cost is just around $760,000. You can see a majority of this is funded out of our sanitary sewer utility fund and the remainder is out of that storm sewer utility fund for the portion of storms that's being lined. This is one of those projects that is part of that sanitary sewer bond um that you just all approved here a little bit ago. So some savings on that bond already. Pending approval tonight. We'll work with the contractor to get a construction start date. This contract has a flexible start date. Again, we were trying to be flexible to get as many favorable bids as we could, but it does have a completion date of November 31st of this year. So, with that, again, I'll stand for any questions, but ask you to consider resolution 2026-119. [58:53] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Any questions? [58:53] Chuck Thiele: All moved. [58:56] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: Second. [59:02] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Motion by Thiele, second by Doumbouya. All those in favor signify by saying I. [59:05] Council: Aye. [59:05] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: All opposed. Is passed. Boards, commission reports, projects. Anyone? [59:17] John Rowan: Um, uh, presented through the Paradise Center of the Arts and Faribault Foundation, uh, this Saturday, May 2nd, is a gala for Women Who Care. Um, so they're—they're doing a fundraiser for partnership with Paradise Faribault Foundation and Women Who Care and ask that anyone that comes to wear spring attire. [59:37] Royal Ross: Thank you, mayor. Um, I just want to bring up something that was kind of buried in the consent agenda item list. Uh, Faribault is getting a state BMX race again this summer, and that's—that's really a huge deal for the city of Faribault. It brings in about 800 people and you know families and the kids race and well the adults race too actually. So I just encourage people if you haven't checked out our BMX track it's in South Alexander Park. We have a really nice track uh here in Faribault and uh bringing this state race in is is a big deal for us. [1:00:13] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Over 800 people. Is that what I read? [1:00:16] Royal Ross: 800. Yeah. [1:00:18] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: And I read the kids that won last year. They're from all over the state. Anything else? Jessica? [1:00:29] Jessica Kinser: Nothing. [1:00:30] Mayor Thomas J. Spooner: Nothing. We do have a closed door meeting at this time. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. [1:00:46] Royal Ross: So moved. [1:00:46] Adama Youhn Doumbouya: Second.