This transcript is from the Farmington City Council meeting on October 7, 2024. Please note that while your context list reflects the city officials as of early 2026 (where Nick Lien has become Mayor), the transcript audio records the 2024 council where **Joshua Hoyt** served as Mayor and **Nick Lien** was still a Councilmember. I have used the names corresponding to their roles at the time of the recording for accuracy. [0:00] [Music] [0:07] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** We'll call the city council regular meeting to order for Monday, October 7th, 2024. Would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? [1:00] **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Call the roll please. Mayor Hoyt? **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Here. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Councilmember Lien? **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Here. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Councilmember Wilson? **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Here. [1:13] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** All right. Any changes to the agenda? Leah or Nick, Steve? **Councilmember Nick Lien:** None. **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** No. **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Anybody else? Seeing no changes, I'd seek a motion to approve the agenda. **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Motion. **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Second. **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Motion by Steve, second by Nick. All in favor say aye. **Councilmembers:** Aye. [1:46] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** We have no announcements. Let's move on to item six, which are our citizen comments. If there's anyone in attendance wishing to speak, please come up and do so at this time. Citizen comments is a time for anyone to address the city council on matters not on the agenda. Those speaking should state their name and address and limit their comment to 5 minutes. The city council will not engage in discussion on your topic, but those issues requiring response will be responded to by the next city council meeting. City council asks that anyone speaking at the meeting please be respectful, and you're up. **Nathan Ryan:** Mayor and Council, thank you for having me. My name is Nathan Ryan. I live on Cambrian Way here in the great city of Farmington. I'd like to discuss three topics with you this evening. The first one being the censure of the mayor. I've requested this on more than one occasion. I've emailed Lynn about it on more than one occasion, and I recently sent Lynn an email letting her know that the city of Lino Lakes has figured out a process—a process which Lynn says doesn't exist in the city of Farmington. Clearly, there's a process that exists for censuring city council people; there's censuring of the mayor. What I'm specifically talking about is the mayor's gestures: double middle fingers and saying that he does not give an F about the citizens of Castle Rock or what the F that they think. And you can imagine what the word F stands for. When I brought this up initially to the city council, councilperson Katie [Bernhjelm] thought that I was saying that to you all. Those are not my words. That's not what I'm saying to you all, and that's not what I'm suggesting that I think of you or any of those gestures. In fact, Katie went on to privately censure me. She said that there's no reason to be disrespectful or vulgar, which your comments, Mr. Mayor, were vulgar and disrespectful towards the mayor or any of the staff. And honestly, these are Katie's words: "Honestly, it's very off-putting and unnecessary when making your point." I found the same to be true in the situation that you found yourself in, Mr. Mayor. I'd encourage you to find Katie's words again, and I quote: "I encourage you to find a better, more productive way to articulate yourself in the future." It seems that Katie has figured out a very simple way to get her point across and be articulate and censure me—AKA slap my hand in an email—but she refuses to do that publicly, just as the city of Farmington refuses to do that to the mayor. I think during this election process, it's very important that the citizens of Farmington understand exactly what they're getting in a mayor or candidate. And I again will ask the city to censure the mayor, and I ask all of you on the city council—there is a formal process to censure a councilperson. It is not legal, right? It is a slap on the wrist, but it is a very formal and public response. It may even end up in the Star Tribune just like the councilperson of Lino Lakes had. The second thing I'd like to talk about is the rezoning of the golf course. I'd like to just mention how we got here. We got here because Tony [CEDD Staff] quietly tried to have the Planning Commission rezone the golf course property owned by the Olsens back in May of 2024 of this year. Five months later, we're here today, and why are we here today? Because he quietly tried to do it... [4:49] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Mr. Ryan? Yes, um, I do appreciate you speaking and I know that this is your time and we'll give your time back, but I would respectfully ask you to not direct comments towards our staff. We are the elected officials and staff serves us in that capacity. So I understand that you might have a personal concern with certain members of our staff. I think very highly of all of our staff, and the information that staff provides to us is based on their professional expertise. Thank you. [5:35] **Nathan Ryan:** So again, Tony quietly tried to have the Planning Commission recommend to the council the rezoning to the golf course property—the Olsens—back in 2024. Five months later, we're here today, and mostly that's because of concerned citizens. And those concerned citizens brought up things that should have been done, like updating the city code, like updating the comprehensive land use plan. Those things should have been done, and you all stated that that process was already taking place over a year and a half ago. The mayor called it a mid-cycle update which started a year and a half ago, but there has not been any transparency before the rezoning was scheduled to happen. So there's no news articles prior to this, or there's nothing—there may have been something in a city work session, I haven't read through all of them yet, but I'll get to them. But so far what I've read is there's nothing a year or 18 months ago, 16 months ago, 14 months ago that you all were talking about and being transparent about a mid-cycle update for a comp plan that was only, at the time when you allegedly restarted/tried to redo it, was allegedly less than two years old. Also, one of the reasons that we're here is that either staff or the city council told staff not to put the actual applicant on the applications—the application to rezone or the application to acquire the Castle Rock property. So that original applicant that was on there was Kimley-Horn. We all know today that is in fact Tract—was the original applicant for those. So just, that's another reason that we're here today. It's constant. When the mayor originally ran, he talked about transparency, and many of you talked about transparency as well in government. Having an applicant not be an applicant is not transparency. So based on Steve's comment, it must be you all who are telling city staff to do that since he doesn't want me to disparage city staff—so I'll disparage you all. It must be you all giving them instructions. Someone, somehow, Kimley-Horn ended up on that rezoning application, and obviously we know it's Tract today. Tract has been very good at trying to make this about a data center. That is categorically false. This rezoning application is about rezoning and nothing more and nothing less. It's not about a data center. It is specifically about rezoning the golf course property. I'm curious if you've done so much research and you're very interested—what does that mean? That means that a commercial recreational indoor business could be placed there on the golf course property. A childcare facility could be placed there, a health club could be placed there, a hotel could be placed there, offices could be placed there, a research laboratory, a restaurant, a class one traditional retail sales and service, or a warehousing facility could be placed there as well. That's what you're doing. You are not approving a data center; you are approving all of those uses that I just read. Tract—I'm going to not point directly to city staff, but a planning person who is here wants you to think that you're approving a data center, and that's just not accurate. This brings me to my third point: What are you actually basing your criteria upon for approval? Because what you're set to approve—or at least what the city planning decided that you should approve or that gave you the green light to have it be a good idea to approve this—was a PUD. And I'm curious what criteria did they use and will you be transparent in the criteria that you're using to approve this project? This is taken directly out of the city code, and this is approval criteria for a PUD. PUD number one: consistent with the comprehensive plan. The development shall be planned so that it's consistent with the Farmington comprehensive plan. We know that this is not accurate. We know that this does not meet the very first thing that it says it should meet. We know that because you're having to redo the comprehensive plan. If the comprehensive plan was already allowing of this, there would be no issue here and it would meet that criteria. That PUD would meet that criteria right away. We're batting zero right now. Compatibility with existing development: the planned unit development proposal *must* harmonize with existing development in the area surrounding the project. Architectural style of building shall not be solely based for denial or approval of a plan; however, overall appearance and compatibility of an individual building to other site elements or to surrounding development *may* be primary considerations in the review stages of the Planning Commission and Council. There's some lawyers speaking here. I really want to point out a very, very, very important word. Lawyers and people who write these comprehensive plans, excuse me, write these city codes, don't use this word very often, and that word is *must*. "The plan unit development proposal *must* harmonize with existing development." Must. Doesn't say should. It doesn't say could. It doesn't say would. It doesn't say "we would like it to." It says *must*. And if this isn't part of your criteria for approving this, look to your city attorneys. Don't look to the person who's profiting off of this for guidance; look to your city attorney. Read this to them and ask them what that word "must" means. Number three: preservation of natural amenities. The primary function of a PUD overlay is to encourage development which will preserve and enhance worthwhile natural terrain characteristics and not force intense development to utilize portions in a given site in order to arrive at the maximum density allowed. In evaluating individual proposal, the recognition of the objective will be basic consideration and granting approval or denial. Open space uses: land for private or public spaces are protected by covenants running with the land or conveyances are dedicated as the Planning Commission may specify, shall be an integral part of the plan. Such open space areas shall conform to the land area requirements of the subdivision ordinance; shall not include land developed to be streets, parking, or paved yards. So specifically talking about parks, and this goes on. I'm not going to read the next eight steps... [12:29] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Mr. Ryan, at this time, because citizen comments are limited to five minutes and I've allowed you twice the allotted time, I'm going to ask you to finish it up here. [12:38] **Nathan Ryan:** So I'm not going to read all the rest of them. But what this is basically saying is that they should have to build parks, and what the City Planning Commission said is rather than that, "we'll take money." And that's actually what the staff suggested as well, is that you would take money versus actually keeping an open park. Right now it's designed for a 7-acre park; that's the way it's zoned. You are going against what's in your code. I highly encourage you to read it and I highly encourage you to be transparent about your approval process. What criteria does this project meet or doesn't meet? And my guess is you're not going to be transparent because you haven't been so far. Thank you. [13:14] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak at this time? Yes, please. [13:17] **Denise May:** Good evening, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this evening. My name is Denise May. I live at 22265 Bearing Avenue and I want to talk about my opposition to the rezoning of the Fountain Valley Golf Course and the school district property. I visited the same three data center sites in Iowa—in Altoona, Waukee, and West Des Moines—that the council and the Planning Commission visited, and I did not see or hear the same thing that was described in the article that appeared in the Dakota County Tribune on September 20th. The buildings are huge. The buildings for the Meta Altoona site look to be 50 to 60 feet tall; about 30 feet for the Apple site; about 60 feet for the Microsoft West Des Moines site. It will take berms of a much higher, greater height than the 21-foot berms proposed in the Tract renderings to make a technology park inconspicuous and unobtrusive, as Tract has said data centers want to be, as we would want them to be. Tract added rendering number 12 to their website; this additional rendering was done for the benefit of my husband and me. It is the view from our deck. Our house is 150 feet from the property line we share with the golf course. According to Tract, it will take 5 to 10 years for the trees and landscaping to reach the heights shown in the rendering, and even then, the buildings will still be seen above the berms and not offer much for noise mitigation. In the article in the Tribune, it was mentioned how surprisingly quiet it was outside of the data centers. I could not get close enough to the buildings in order to hear if there was noise or not coming from the buildings because the setbacks are much greater than what is proposed by Tract. I could not get any closer than right next to a busy road. I could not get as close to those buildings as they would be from my house. I live on a very quiet street in a very quiet neighborhood. The maximum sound level as required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is significantly higher than what we experience every day in our neighborhood. I noticed very few homes around the data centers. The Meta site has some homes down the road and the Apple site has one home, and the homes near both sites are much farther away than the buildings would be to my house. The two homes on the gravel road next to the Microsoft site have a very significant natural buffer between them and the data center. As a result of the natural buffer, I also did not hear much noise coming from the buildings on that side of the center. But on the road between the buildings and the golf course next door, I did hear a low hum coming from the buildings. The distance the Microsoft buildings are from the road is what I believe we will experience with the proposed setbacks. I have pictures of the sites along with videos and screenshots of the sound levels from my sound level meter. Also in the article, it was mentioned that all of the land around the Iowa data centers is platted up to those boundaries of that property with residential development. I did not see any residential development at all around the data centers right now. Certainly no homes abut the data center properties. Anyone who purchases a new home in those proposed residential areas will have a choice of whether or not to live near a data center. Our neighborhood has been there for as long as the golf course has been there. If you rezone the golf course and the school district properties and they become a data center or for any other industrial purpose, you have taken away our choice. You will change the quality of life for hundreds of people living that close to a data center. It will interfere with our right to the quiet enjoyment of our home where we have lived for 38 years and for some even longer. Thank you. [17:31] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Thank you. [17:34] **Kathy Johnson:** Good evening, I'm Kathy Johnson. I live at 22280 Bearing Avenue. *Farmington Sun* this week posted in an article regarding data centers from Farmington elected officials. Several officials visited West Des Moines and Waukee, where the new data center has just one building operational, and Altoona. One official said in reference to the Microsoft site in West Des Moines they "only heard crickets." What was not mentioned is that that site was 408,000 square feet total space and the proposed Farmington site is 2.5 million square feet. The Farmington site is six times bigger than what was observed in Des Moines. The buildings appeared to be about 60 feet tall—I can't verify that, but that was an appearance by the people in our group that visited—but the site originated lower than street level. The city of Farmington is applying for a variance to local ordinance which restricts building height to 40 feet and proposing building heights of 50 to 80 feet. A berm with landscaping will not mask the view of these buildings from the long-established residences nearby, as the natural buffering does in the West Des Moines site. A 250-foot setback is very far from adequate in accomplishing the quiet which leaders of Farmington said they observed in Iowa. As a matter of fact, research reveals over and over again that the insidious hum basically cannot be masked. Kristen Dean emphasized in the late August public meeting that there would be noise but pledges to stay within state ordinance. So don't expect us to believe that it's just going to be quiet. One member of the Environmental Coalition of Farmington who also visited the Des Moines site said the noise could not be heard in the two residences next door, but ironically at the golf course abutting Microsoft, the hum in the air conditioner could be heard there. Mayor Hoyt said in the article that the plans for the data center were happening one year ago, but that does not alter the fact that this is spot zoning. He stated that west and north of Executive Estates is zoned industrial. Upon studying the comp plan, it is obvious that his statement is erroneous. The only areas zoned industrial in Farmington are on Highway 50 between Flagstaff and Denmark and two other tiny dots which appear to be the C [unclear] plant and one other I can't quite figure out what it is. But it is not north and east of Flagstaff. The mentioned areas are zoned commercial. In the open hearing regarding the data center, Dirk Rod stated that Northern Virginia home values continue to rise despite the presence of many data centers. What is omitted is that Northern Virginia is one of the most, if not the most, competitive housing markets in the United States. Being near government military and related businesses around Washington DC drives that housing market, not data centers. One way or the other, what the leaders of Farmington claim to be due diligence is in fact in need of fact-checking and is far from a comparison of similar situations—not nearly due diligence. In an article from the *Washington Post*, Montana developer [unclear] Buck, who builds higher-end houses, states that residents located near new industrial development are harder to sell. The same article also states that due to AI, companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are in a power grab for land, but also for water and electricity. They target the smaller towns because—and this is not my quote, this is from the article—"they think the people there are stupid or just need the money." I think that the people of Farmington are not stupid, and I think that revenue can be brought into town by appropriately placed data centers like the Bengal project—it's already zoned industrial—or by reaching out with generous offers to some of the 45% of Farmington land which is not developed nor near residential developments. I ask that the Council vote no to rezoning. What is being promised by the city is not what is happening in other towns and cities where data centers are built or are proposed, and there's no reason to believe that the reality is any different here in Farmington. Again, to quote the *Post* article: "Data center developers use predatory business tactics to promote the construction of centers like the one proposed in the southeast of Farmington." Open your eyes and see it. Given the proximity to the election, I would ask that the vote be postponed until after the November election. And when that vote does occur, vote no to the illegal spot zoning. The residents of Farmington are not beholden to the whims of the Mayor who tells his constituents just to move if they don't like the way the city is run. Vote no to rezoning. Thank you. [23:02] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Thank you. [23:05] **Esther Varga:** Good evening council members, everyone, Mayor. I'm Esther Varga, 3094 225th Street. I'm addressing the rezoning into industrial use of the Fountain Valley Golf Course and the school district farm properties. People decided to live here because of the location, the serenity of the neighborhoods. One of the factors people use to determine where to live is adjoining properties and potential future developments. Yes, many do look at the city's comprehensive plan and surrounding zonings. We didn't know that one day there could be a school—it did not happen—or there could be new residential developments. These are facts we accepted. More people, more sounds, sights of daily life that come with the process: kids laughing, playing, lawnmowers, four-wheelers (you know who you are), dogs barking. These sounds are part of life and transitional, not continuous like an industrial facility can be 24/7, 365 days a year. I know that the Planning Commission visited data centers they deemed not noisy. However, the fact that Tract stood right here and said the noise will be within legal limits is in fact an admission that there will be noise. If there is no noise there, it could not be "within legal limits," right? If you choose to vote to rezone these properties, how can any resident and voter ever have confidence and trust again in our local government? If you choose to vote to rezone, you are retrofitting the comp plan to fit into your schema of spot zoning, which is not legal in Minnesota. People who bought homes on the edges of Farmington should be very concerned about a similar rezoning next to them. Are you paying attention? Are you next? You could be next, having to deal with rezoning consequences. For most of us, a home is the largest investment we ever make in our lives. We all want to be assured that what was planned for a neighborhood is honored and not changed for the promise of money to the city and the school district. The tax revenue is just a promise; you cannot take it to the bank. What it comes down to is the school district wanting to make a windfall on the farm sale at the cost of spot zoning negatively impacting existing residential neighborhoods and adjoining municipalities. The City of Farmington wants the promised tax revenue at a huge cost: peace of mind, quality of life, and the future home values of several hundreds of people being smashed so that the city and the school district can reap the monetary benefit. Anyone remember how quickly technology changes? Remember reel-to-reel, floppy discs, CD-ROMs? All obsolete. Technology changes very quickly, and when it does, what will these 2.5 million square foot buildings be replaced with? Once rezoned, just about any industrial segment can replace them. What could be next in our future? Foundry? Paper mill, anyone? Metal stamping facility? Tannery? It feels like Farmington is flopping down industrial areas amongst us without any consideration for the residents living next to and around the properties. I heard many people address the Planning Commission and the city council the past several months, and no one validated any of our concerns. We were told our fear is perceived. We all moved here in good faith. None of us is opposed to progress nor to these facilities. We only oppose building them in an area right next to where people barbecue, children play, sleep... you know, just living their normal lives. Children, teenagers, parents, grandparents—none of our daily quality of life will benefit from this rezoning. Please do not vote to rezone these properties to commercial/industrial. It's a slippery slope. It allows other disruptive uses of these properties to adversely affect our lives, and once it's rezoned, it's very difficult to be undone. Thank you so much. [27:40] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak at this time? Last call. All right, seeing none, we will move on to item seven, which is our consent agenda. I'd seek a motion to approve the consent agenda. **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Motion. **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Second. **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Motion by Nick, second by Steve. All in favor say aye. **Councilmembers:** Aye. [28:18] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Next item is 12-1 under new business, which is Resolution 2024-83, adopting the final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington West Industrial project. Deanna? [28:34] **Deanna Kuennen (CED Director):** Thank you, Mayor and City Council. Tonight we're asking the City Council to consider Resolution 2024-83, which is the adoption of the final AUAR for the Farmington West Industrial project. Again, the AUAR is an environmental review process. It looks at those potential impacts of anticipated development within a geographically defined area. It's regulated by Minnesota rules and it's a planning tool. This does not approve or deny a project, but again, it's a planning tool. What I have on here is directly from Minnesota rules and it shows the process, and you can see where we are tonight. The study area included six parcels, approximately 329 acres at the northwest corner of Pilot Knob and County Road 50, and this AUAR analyzed the potential impacts associated with a technology park or other industrial uses. Tonight we've asked Allison Harwood, who is the director of Natural Resources with WSB, to walk through the final AUAR, talk about what it is, that process, some of the findings that came from it, and also how the AUAR is used. We hired WSB to be the city's consultant. The actual AUAR was completed by Kimley-Horn, and we felt it was super important for the city to have an expert working on our behalf to review all the information to make sure that the process was followed and that the information was accurate. So with that, I'll turn it over to Allison. [30:05] **Allison Harwood (WSB):** All right, thank you. Again, I'm Allison Harwood. I'm Director of Natural Resources with WSB. My team worked with the city staff as well as the consultant that developed the AUAR to, as Deanna said, make sure that it was complete and had the most accurate information available at this time. I'm going to quickly go over some terms and definitions involved in these reviews just because there's a lot of acronyms. EQB is the Environmental Quality Board—that is the state board that oversees the environmental review process and the environmental rule 4410. AUAR is the Alternative Urban Areawide Review, which is what we were talking about tonight, and it is a hybrid of two other types of environmental documents: the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), which is a form of review that many cities are very familiar with, and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is a type of review typically reserved for very large, impactful projects that don't have other processes available for evaluating impacts. Responsible Government Unit (RGU) is the City of Farmington in this case. Another term is "significant," which in this case means cannot be undone and/or addressed through other formal review or permitting processes. Again, an AUAR is a State Environmental review document. It's a hybrid of an EAW and an EIS. An EAW typically is a review of a specific development project—a 250-home residential development or a 300,000-square-foot industrial development. A very specific concept plan has been developed. An EIS is typically for very large projects—think Viking Stadium or a large mining project. The AUAR is a combination of those two and it involves studying land uses versus specific development plans. It can study the effect that different types of development scenarios or land uses may have on the environment and associated community infrastructure. Another difference is that an AUAR is updated—typically completed on a larger review area that may involve multiple types of development projects, so it's required to be updated every 5 years until development in that particular area has been completed. The purpose of it is a planning tool. It is not meant to approve or deny any projects associated with that study area; it's simply meant to help city staff and developers identify the potential for impacts and mitigation measures. It's really meant to inform not only cities and city staff but also the developers on those future permitting, planning, and zoning decisions. This is the timeline. This project also required what's called a scoping AUAR. A scoping AUAR is required for specific types of development—either study areas that have a land use proposed that exceeds 50% of the study area or has a land use proposed that exceeds an EIS criteria. That was the case with this project with the two-plus million-square-foot data center. That scoping process is meant to lay out the study area and also the different types of resources that the AUAR will evaluate. It gives the public and agencies the opportunity to provide early feedback. Those scoping documents were distributed for a 30-day comment period completed back in April and May of 2024. Following that, the city ordered the preparation of an AUAR in June. The draft AUAR was distributed for a 30-day comment period in July 2024. The final AUAR was distributed for what's referred to as a 10-day objection period for state agencies and the Metropolitan Council, completed in December [September]. Today we are at the last phase, which is AUAR adoption. Again, this process will then be repeated in five years. There were several types of resources evaluated: everything from natural resources to city infrastructure to historic properties to greenhouse gas emissions. Another important piece is the mitigation plan, developed through city staff review as well as commitments from potential developers. Some of the resources that had mitigation identified were land use and the need for rezoning of that current agricultural zoning. There was a list of required local, state, and federal permits or approvals identified. There was a commitment for geotechnical investigations, compliance with stormwater and PDS permits, and upgrading of water and sanitary infrastructure. Other types of water resource commitments were treating stormwater runoff and impact avoidance for wetlands and habitat. Other wildlife-related mitigation included using wildlife-friendly erosion control blankets, having tree-clearing restrictions surrounding bats and migratory birds, and incorporating native pollinator species into landscaping. Mitigation for potential for contamination or hazardous waste was for complying with existing MPCA requirements. There were evaluations of visual impacts, air, and noise, including lighting design that would minimize impacts to insects and wildlife, dust control during construction, and timing construction to minimize noise. Mitigation for potential climate impacts included using green infrastructure design, energy-efficient appliances, and electric vehicle-ready charging. There were various intersections evaluated in the transportation plan—some were noted for needing improvement and some for monitoring. The final AUAR was updated following receipt of comments from state agencies and local agencies like Dakota County, Vermillion River Watershed JPO, DNR, the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, and Metropolitan Council. Comments primarily focused on the potential for unidentified wells, traffic and transportation mitigation, and habitat improvement. The final AUAR was distributed for the 10-day objection period in September, and no objections were received. Objections are very uncommon; typically they only occur if there is not an additional approval or permitting process established for a particular resource yet. What follows adoption? The AUAR remains valid for 5 years for any of the development scenarios studied. Developers and the city staff review and implement mitigation measures as necessary. It must be updated every 5 years or if a proposed development comes in that differs from the land uses evaluated or is more impactful than what was studied. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. [44:02] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Yeah, I do. So let's talk about the water, the groundwater portion of it. We know that the Vermillion River is critical to this area, and even though there weren't objections, there were noted concerns. So maybe as a broad comment or question: how are concerns looked at from a developer standpoint? Are they like, "Okay, duly noted, but we're going to proceed," or what does that look like as it relates—and I'm primarily thinking about the groundwater, the water part of it? [44:48] **Allison Harwood (WSB):** Sure. So for that comment in particular, the response to those is that there would be a need for a water appropriation permit for any project that would need to take groundwater. There would be a review through both the DNR and the Department of Health for those appropriations permits that would take—and those review agencies would have a much more robust review process for potential impacts to resources like the Vermillion River. [45:25] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Sure. And then kind of more of a big-picture question as well. When you have larger developments that are going to impact groundwater and wetland areas, what tends to happen with the water? I mean, we see in like larger housing developments, for example, that we have dewatering, so we move it from the project area to a different area. Is it similar in this, and is more sensitive groundwater moved in a different way? What does that look like? [46:22] **Allison Harwood (WSB):** I don't know that I can answer the question related to groundwater—that is not my particular area of expertise. But in terms of the wetlands or any other surface waters, again, it goes through a permitting process through multiple agencies—local, state, and in some cases federal—that evaluate the need for those types of impacts. For surface waters, there's typically a mitigation process that involves providing on-site mitigation, maybe creating a wetland in a different place, or what's called purchasing credits from off-site wetland mitigation banks. But the surface water itself then goes through the stormwater management BMPs, so that's again part of the site design and city review process to make sure that whatever surface water is being removed around a site can be adequately handled before it enters any other downstream resources. [47:49] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Got it. And then one other question—this might be a question for you, Deanna. So let's say we get five and a half years down the road and project Bengal is not moving as quickly, or maybe they don't want to develop there but want to move somewhere different. Hypothetical scenario. We know that the AUAR is focused on two types of projects that were evaluated. So would a new AUAR... I mean, does a new AUAR depend on the amount of difference for a future development? Let's say, for example, there's a retail development proposed or something a little bit different—commercial for example. Does there have to be an AUAR that specifies that specific use? I mean, any use that's not identified requires a new AUAR, correct? [48:42] **Deanna Kuennen (CED Director):** Um, it would not necessarily require an entirely new AUAR. Through the update process, you can add scenarios, you can eliminate scenarios that are no longer relevant. In some cases, there may be some resources that don't need to be re-evaluated because the impact to them would be the same regardless of the development. In other cases—for example, traffic—there may be a need for an updated traffic study if the new scenario would result in a greater impact or more traffic generation from that site. For example, a housing development may have more traffic generated than what's currently proposed now. [49:27] **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Yeah, Steve touched on the water ones. I think I would just... as a general understanding of the process, I mean loosely speaking, you have these impacts and mitigations, and a lot of the language seems very common. Is it that when there is a mitigation required, the process is to wait for the appropriate body to kind of see a development plan? Is that a correct way of putting it? [50:00] **Allison Harwood (WSB):** Correct, yes. And again, especially with the AUAR, they're really intended to evaluate land uses. In terms of actual approvals or permitting, those local or state or federal agencies need to be able to see the plans before them before they can really evaluate what impacts actually will be. So often in the AUARs, the most impactful scenario is what is studied, and the actual development often is much less impactful than that. [50:41] **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Sure. I guess the way of saying it is this is just the way of putting the highlighter on what they believe the most impactful areas will be when a development plan comes along, but not actually identifying or speculating on what this actually looks like at the moment, right? **Allison Harwood (WSB):** Yep, that'd be accurate. [51:01] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** There's a lot in a 470-page document to take in, but I just appreciate our team's time to go through and getting all of the feedback and requirements from the state agencies. I didn't realize that monarch butterflies were as prevalent in that area as the report states, so it's interesting to learn some of that stuff. But no, I just I appreciate the thoroughness of it. If there's no other comments, then I would seek a motion to approve Resolution 2024-83 adopting the final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington West Industrial project. **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Motion to approve. **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Second. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Call a roll please. Councilmember Lien? **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Yes. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Councilmember Wilson? **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Yes. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Mayor Hoyt? **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Yes. Thank you, ma'am. [53:07] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Next item on the agenda is 12.2, plans and specifications and authorize the advertisement for bids for the Rambling River Center project. Kelly? [53:18] **Kelly Arnold (Parks & Rec Director):** Good evening, Mayor and Council. We are very excited to be here this evening for the next step in the Rambling River Center renovation project. Tonight with me, I have Recreation Supervisor Misty Colbeck and Rambling River Center Advisory Board Chair Mary Garlett. Thank you for being here tonight. The plans and specifications for the project are complete; thus it is time to authorize the advertisements for bids. As a reminder, an agreement with JLG Architects was approved on May 6th, 2024. Since then, the architect and engineering team—JLG Architects contracted with Paulson and Clark Engineering—have been working on schematic design development. This includes the full scope of proposed renovation work as identified in the planning study approved on January 14th, 2024. As a reminder, it will be a single-phase project. It also includes Kraus-Anderson facility condition assessments including this switchgear from 1969—I think it was—this will be replaced as part of the project. Renovations include converting part of the existing garage to the fitness room, relocating the main entry, two new gender-neutral restrooms, constructing a new outdoor patio off the banquet room, replacing the roof and all exterior doors and windows, installing new rooftop mechanical units, ductwork, and zoning, and as mentioned earlier, new switchgear. New interior finishes include flooring, painting, and ceiling tile. These are what JLG Architects used as their inspiration themes for the new paint schemes, carpet, other finishes in the building. We had a meeting with JLG's interior designer and the building maintenance staff at the end of July. We thought it was important to have staff there who were going to do the maintenance on the finishes—whether it be the tile, the carpet, the painting—to talk to the JLG team about their concerns. Two of the building maintenance staff members had some concerns with the carpet tile that JLG had picked out. If you can imagine with coffee spills—we have quite a few coffee spills at the senior center and often we don't hear about them until it's far too late. So we asked JLG if we could keep two carpet tiles. We did a coffee spill test. We took coffee and dumped three spots on one of the tiles. One of the building maintenance members cleaned it after two days, took a picture after a week, and after two weeks. It passed their test, so we are going to go with this carpet. When we told the architect, she’s like, "Love that you're giving this the full-on test and that the results have been good so far." That just talks about the staff we have and their concern for city resources. This is the finishes in the lobby, the reception area, and the coffee bar. Similar interior finishes in the fitness room. As a reminder, the fitness room will be moving to the garage and take the three most eastern stalls. We have seven project alternates; these are added if the base bid comes in where funds will allow. They are: removal of fin tube radiation (abandoned years ago), an arbor at the outdoor patio, an arbor outside the fitness room, acoustic ceiling baffles in the banquet room, replacing the acoustic wall baffles in the banquet room, ceiling fans in the banquet room, and a folding partition in the Empire Room. Here is the current project schedule. We are here tonight, October 7th, to ask for approval of the plans and specs. If approved, bidding will begin tomorrow, October 8th. October 21st, we will have a required pre-bid conference and site tour. November 5th, bids are due. November 18th, we hope to be back in front of City Council to accept the bids. March 31st, 2025: substantial completion of the project. The building official reviewed the construction documents and issued a plan review letter. The City Attorney reviewed the front-end documents several times and found them to be acceptable. The estimated total construction cost is $1,961,333. The estimated total project cost is $2,314,137. This includes construction plus design contingency of 5% and soft costs. The project will be funded by the $740,000 remaining in the Community Project Funding grant, the donation of $50,000 from Vermillion State Bank for the outdoor patio, and the tax abatement bonds of $1,758,000. Right now it's looking good for us. The alternate total costs were just over 137,000, so if we come in where it's shown, we would be able to add some alternates as long as we don't have other change orders. The action requested tonight is approve the plans and specifications and authorize the advertisement for bids. [1:01:40] **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Any questions? Just a comment first that I'm very excited for this, obviously it's been a long time coming. My one question, and I'm sorry if it's getting into the weeds about coffee spilling, but with the carpet, will there be purchase of any extra to store around in the event that you damage the carpet and can replace it? Just so we don't... I'm always afraid of the scenario five years down the road where you have to replace all the carpet because some of it's damaged. **Kelly Arnold:** Right, and they said we'll get whatever's left over. So they'll open a case or however they come and whatever's left is ours to keep. **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Okay. Other than that, I'm really happy. Are we still going to have coffee on Fridays at the fire station then? **Kelly Arnold:** We are going to have coffee at the fire station, and we might actually get some firefighters now too. [1:03:00] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Yeah, this is really exciting. And I think, you know, if we go back—and I know the Mayor has commented about this a number of times—we've done a lot of analysis of so many different components of city operations, and one of the most critical I think was going back to Kraus-Anderson and analyzing all of our facilities and what are the needs. And this building rose up to the top. The Advisory Board, Mary, and the whole team have been so instrumental in bringing us good information. I'm a member—by the way, if you're 50 and over you can become a member, it's awesome benefits. But I do have a couple questions, Kelly, going back to the alternate bid. You said the totality of those items is $137,100. Leaving these out kind of concerned me a little bit. It would be nice to figure out a way to add these in. I think about something like the partition in the Empire Room—at a minimum, you'd want to have that set up to potentially allow that as opposed to completely retrofitting if you do have enough money. **Kelly Arnold:** They're actually going to get it ready; they're going to put the steel beams in the ceiling so it's ready to go. **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Okay. I mean, is our problem with potentially adding these in the fact that we are essentially tapped out in the abatement bonds that we can reach? Kim, any comments on that? **Finance Director Kim Sommerland:** Well, right now we have $233,000 to play with. That doesn't sound like a lot, but hopefully change orders won't wipe that away. I think with selling the bonds, we're set right there. [1:06:21] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** I don't have any questions, Kelly. A huge thank you to the Advisory Board and the team over there. The Rambling River Center is a huge part of our community. It's used by park and rec and so many youth groups; Boy Scouts meet there, firearm safety classes are there. Being able to secure the 750,000 through the Congressional Directed Spending was a way for us to take something we've talked about for a long time and just say "Let's go." I'm going to echo what the council has said: let's do it once. That's why we ultimately gave the direction to do it in one phase and not break it up over five years. Fingers crossed the bids are favorable and we have it in the budget to take care of the alternate items. I would seek a motion to approve the plans and specifications and authorize the advertisements for bids for the Rambling River Center project. **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** I will make a motion to approve. **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Second. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Call the roll please. Councilmember Wilson? **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Yes. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Mayor Hoyt? **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Yes. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Councilmember Lien? **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Yes. [1:07:50] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** All right. Round table. Leah, you start? [1:07:52] **Councilmember Holly Bernatz:** Great, thank you Mayor. Just a judicial update, I suppose. Judicial elections are on the same ballot as the other elections; you might have to turn over the ballot. But for those of you that don't know that, you should go onto the Secretary of State's website, see a sample of your ballot, and take a gander. There's some contested races. Thank you. [1:08:31] **Councilmember Nick Lien:** I just got back from Colorado, so I'm going to use that as my excuse that I didn't have enough time to write a round table tonight. **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** That's fair. Steve? [1:08:39] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** All right, so couple items. First, if you have family on the East Coast or down in Florida, I just ask that you think about them and say a prayer for them regarding the severe weather. I also want to point out these pink patches for the police department. I was one of the first to get one. Many of us have been negatively impacted by breast cancer—family, loved ones, neighbors. This is an awesome campaign during the month of October. All the proceeds go to the American Cancer Society. Really appreciate the department for coordinating that. [1:10:12] **City Administrator Lynn Gorski:** Well, we have a guest in the audience tonight. Jim, I just wanted to thank you for your 25 years of service here in Farmington but also your years of service in law enforcement period. Law enforcement is a very difficult career and you've done it very well. You have passion for the community and we will not forget it. Thank you for your service above self. [1:10:55] **Deanna Kuennen (CED Director):** Thank you, Mayor and Council. Tomorrow starting at 10:30 will be the Em Open House down on the corner. This is a super exciting project and I think a great example of what progress in this community can look like. Public is welcome. [1:11:43] **John Powell (Public Works Director):** Thank you, Mayor and council members. Last week, Public Works held their snow day. We've updated all of our plow routes and checked the equipment. We also have an open house tomorrow night for the 2025 Street Improvement project from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. And something big started today: hydrant flushing did start today. It's generally a two-week process. We provide daily updates on the webpage. [1:13:15] **Kelly Arnold (Parks & Rec Director):** Since the Rambling River Center will continue to fundraise, the silent auction and breakfast fundraiser is this coming Saturday from 8:30 to 10:30. Halloween Havoc tour starts Monday—the map of houses will be out on the city website. Last year we had 16 houses; this year 25. And just want to congratulate Jimmy [Constantino] and tell you we'll miss you. I think we've got to work for the last 17 years together and it was definitely my pleasure. [1:14:48] **Finance Director Kim Sommerland:** Last month, the finance department sent out letters to property owners who had delinquent balances for services like utility billing or mowing weeds. Those amounts need to be paid by next Thursday, October 17th before 2:30 p.m. [1:15:08] **Fire Chief Matthew Price:** So this week is National Fire Prevention Week. This year's official theme is "Smoke alarms: make them work for you." Having working smoke alarms in the home reduces the risk of dying in a home fire by more than 54%. Roughly three out of five fire deaths occur in homes with no working smoke alarms. Check out our website and social media throughout the week. [1:16:20] **Police Chief Nate Siem:** Chief [Price], I have so much to say... why are you laughing at me? But I won't. If it's all the same to you, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to defer my time on the open mic here to Deputy Chief Constantino and let him address the Council. **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Absolutely. [1:16:59] **Deputy Chief Jimmy Constantino:** Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Administrator, department heads—thank you. 4, 19, 6, 3, 6, 3, 12,000, 1. Those numbers might not make much sense to you, but they do to me. In the 25 years I've been in Farmington, there have been 4 mayors, there have been 19 different council members, 6 different city administrators, 3 different HR directors, 6 different finance directors, and 3 different police chiefs. And I've had to train them all in. It's been exhausting. 12,000 signifies the approximate growth of the city during my tenure here—the population has pretty much doubled. The final one, and the most important to me, refers to my wife Lori. She has been my rock throughout my time here, and without her love and support, I wouldn't be here tonight. It's been quite a ride, especially the last four and a half bumpy years, but things have been smooth here. The support from our Council, our administration, and our citizens has been overwhelming at times, but in a good way. I'd like to thank Chief [Siem] for seeing something in me that I didn't even see in myself, making me the first Deputy Chief in Farmington Police history. I'd like to thank my co-workers who are among the best cops in the country. Thank you and God bless. [Applause] [1:19:08] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** The last six years that I've had the opportunity to really work with you, time and time again, I have only seen a true professional show up. You are steadfast, you are reliable in every way. I only get to see snippets of the things that you've done in your very distinguished career, but they say in the book *The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership*, the highest level of leadership is putting their organization in a position to succeed in their absence. There is no doubt that the men and women that you have served with over your tenure are better because of your impact. You will be dearly missed in our department and in our community. But your wife gets you back, and for that, ma’am, we thank you. Go enjoy your retirement, sir. You have earned it. With that, I'd look for a motion to adjourn. **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Motion. **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Second. **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** All in favor say aye. **Councilmembers:** Aye. **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** We're adjourned at 8:20. [Music]