Based on the provided context of the Farmington municipality and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the speaker-identified version of the town hall meeting from November 4, 2024. **Note on Names:** The provided context mentions a 2026 council roster (Lien as Mayor). However, the transcript from 2024 explicitly records **Joshua Hoyt** as Mayor and **Nick Lien** as a Councilmember during the roll call. To maintain the integrity of the dialogue, I have used the names as they were identified during the meeting's roll call. [0:00] [Music] [0:47] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** We'll call the City Council regular meeting to order for Monday, November 4th, 2024. Would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? [1:01] **All:** 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. [1:11] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Call the roll, please. [1:13] **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Mayor Hoyt? **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Here. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Councilmember Bernatz? **Councilmember Holly Bernatz:** Here. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Councilmember Lien? **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Here. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Councilmember Wilson? **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Here. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Councilmember Burnham? **Councilmember Katie Burnham:** Here. [1:25] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** All right. Any changes to the agenda? None? Lien, Nick, Holly, Katie, Steve? [1:32] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Yeah, Mayor and Council, I would like to propose one change to our agenda. And that is to make—I would like to make a motion to move all items under 12.2; to move those to a future date. I think what makes sense about doing that is we have completed the AUAR and, as I learned from Deanna today, that actually starts the approval timeframe from essentially our approval date forward. I think that'll allow a more, I guess, essentially comprehensive and open dialogue about this critical item. So I think moving this to a future date, possibly to align with our comprehensive plan interim update, would make the most sense. [2:20] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** So your motion is to table all items under new business to a future date to be determined? I don't know if "table" is— [2:29] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** I guess I would suggest removal and then consideration at a future date. If tabling it and then essentially lifting it off the table at a future date—I guess it would serve the same purpose. [2:43] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Okay, so there's a motion on the table to remove items 12.1 and 12.2 from the agenda? [2:50] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Nope, just 12.2. [2:52] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Just 12.2. So, motion on the table is to remove items 12.2 from the agenda. Is there a second? [Pause] Is there a second? The motion doesn't pass. Any other proposed changes to the agenda? Lien? Anyone from staff? All right, seeing no other proposed changes, I'd seek a motion to approve the agenda. [3:32] **Councilmember Katie Burnham:** Motion to approve. [3:34] **Councilmember Holly Bernatz:** Second. [3:36] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Motion by Katie, second by Holly. All in favor say "Aye." **Councilmembers:** Aye. **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Those opposed? **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Aye. **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Let the record reflect a "no," a "nay" vote. Our next item on the agenda is Citizen Comments. This time is reserved for citizen comments. Anyone wishing to speak can come up at this time. Citizen comments are a time for anyone to address the City Council on items not on the agenda. Those speaking should state their name and address and limit their comments to five minutes. The Council will not engage in discussion on the topic, but those requiring a response will be responded to before the next official City Council meeting. Go ahead. [4:15] **Ali A. (Citizen):** My name is Ali A. I live on 22232 Cambry Inn Way in Farmington. I mean, I have a bunch of houses around the neighborhood, too. I mean, why are we going through this? I mean, you see all these people paying taxes and here you are sitting there let these people come and take our houses and make noises all over the place. Would you like something behind your house? No, you don't. There's other people here don't like this. I don't know why you don't listen to us, but like my dad always said, we always have the little cockroaches because money talks and the little ones just sit behind because this is all about money. It's not about the people here. That's what it all comes down to: money, greed. Because if there was no money, this would never happen. I mean, we live there—I've lived there like eight years. All people live there their whole life. Why you have to come and destroy it? Because they're paying more money? I mean, watch what we did for the community. I mean, we pay taxes. I mean, all of us pay taxes. Why don't you listen to us? Why do we have to keep dragging it to here? I mean, is it fair? Would you like your kid to play where there's all this data center going on, the noise? No. So why don't you for once listen to the people here? I mean, everybody is crying about this. But you don't care because it comes down to what? The money. That's all it comes down to. Nothing else. Because if you care about us, you will vote no today. That's all there is. Thank you. [Applause] [5:58] **Nate Ryan (Citizen):** This is a non-agenda item. I would like the City Council to consider for a future time updating the city code to include the term "Technology Park." That's not something that's in the city code today, so I would highly suggest that the City Council considers adding the term Technology Park and defining what it is. I'd also like to just also opine a little bit on the Bengal Project. The Bengal Project is a potential data center that's going in to Farmington. It's not on the agenda tonight... I'm just very much concerned and want everyone to understand that the Bengal Project is coming. It is a major industrial use. You can tell that it's an industrial project because of the amount of power, the amount of water that's going to be required... [Continues discussing energy grid impacts, Excel Energy, and coal plant closures]. I really think it would be a good time in the city's very near future to define exactly what a data center is, to truly understand about how much power is going to be used and operated from the Bengal Project... how many water towers and infrastructure costs it's going to be. And I would highly encourage before the city considers another data project... that we really ask ourselves: is this the way that we want to grow? ... Again, my name is Nate Ryan. I'm over there on Cambry Inn Way, a little house with a beautiful wife and two kids, and kind of happy that I don't live right next door to the Bengal Project, but you know that's okay, somebody's gotta bear the burden. Unfortunately, those folks who do live right off Flagstaff will have to bear that burden of the Bengal Project. Thank you for your time. [Applause] [12:44] **Dave Aken (Citizen):** Hello again. My name is Dave Aken. I live at 22390 Beaumont Avenue, Farmington/Castle Rock. I guess I can't talk about tonight, so I too will talk about the Bengal Project. I really think we need to push this back and tap the brakes. We're talking about people, neighborhood, and process. This should be sent back to Planning... I personally in no way think that these are light industrial. They're hyperscale data centers. It's about as far from light industrial as you could possibly come. I don't even know how we could zone it like that with a straight face... I really appreciate the fact that Steve tried to step forward and tap the brakes on this, which is what really needs to be done. But the silence of the other four members was deafening. It sent a significant message. You still have the chance to vote your conscience, to do the right thing. We should have tapped the brakes. We didn't. Maybe we can tap the brakes on the Bengal Project. Please vote for your citizens. The room is packed. Thank you for your time. [Applause] [15:40] **Unnamed Male Citizen:** I worked at North High School in Lakeville. You guys probably all know the building. I ran the building. It burnt 1,400 gallons per year to cool that building on little cooling towers. I know on Cambry Inn Way, I can only water my grass every other day because we got a water ban. Where are we going to get this magical water from? They're going to go pound wells in deeper than we got. So guess what? To the taxpayers, we're going to have to drill deeper wells so we can get more water. You guys need to think of this—where we're going to get the water, where we're going to get the electricity that we don't have to pay for it? ... I moved to Farmington because it was a small community. I don't—we don't need this. It's crazy. You guys are the ones that we elected for you to run the city of Farmington. No, you need to run it tonight and show us what you're going to do for us. Thank you. [Applause] [17:10] **Drew Ro (Citizen):** My name is Drew Ro and I'll speak on something that I didn't really want to have to bring up, but I guess I will. As somebody who's running for office, who's talked to more voters and more constituents in Farmington than anybody in this room the last 75 days, I know how these people feel... I want to thank Steve for stepping up and trying to do the right thing. I want to thank Holly for the other night with her candor and acknowledging that if this was going to be in her backyard, that she wouldn't like it. I also want to bring it to the attention that I had a city staff member who tried to intimidate me from showing up to the Planning Commission and speaking out against this project. So my question is: why are we rushing this? What is the rush? I think Steve had a very good motion on the table tonight. I would have loved to see somebody else make a second and do the right thing. Hopefully you guys will continue to do the right thing and vote no. I know I'm not supposed to talk about that tonight, but you know what? That's why we're all here. It's the elephant in the room. Do the right thing. Thank you. [Applause] [18:46] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Anyone else? Last call. All right, we'll move on to Item 7, which is our Consent Agenda. I'd seek a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. [19:10] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Motion to approve. [19:12] **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Second. [19:16] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Motion by Steve, second by Nick. All in favor say "Aye." **Councilmembers:** Aye. **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** All right, we'll move on to New Business Item 12.1, which is Resolution 2024-97 adopting the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (the AUAR) for the Farmington Technology Park. Deanna? [19:36] **Deanna Kuennen (Community & Economic Development Director):** Thank you, Mayor and Council. Tonight, as the Mayor mentioned, what is in front of you is Resolution 2024-97... This is a planning tool. It looks at development scenarios, maximizes those scenarios, and then identifies mitigation that would need to take place through all the various state agencies... Tonight, we have Allison Harwood with us. She's the Director of Natural Resources at WSB. The city had hired WSB to help us through this process. So with that, I'll turn it over to Allison and she'll walk through the rest of the presentation. [21:40] **Allison Harwood (WSB Consultant):** Good evening, Council. Thank you, Ms. Kuennen... An AUAR is a State Environmental Review document. It's a hybrid of an EAW and an EIS... It's important to note that AUARs do not approve or deny a project; they are simply a planning tool... [Explains the process, review periods, and mitigation measures including noise, water, and traffic]. The Draft AUAR was sent out for review and there were several comments received... Agencies who commented included Dakota County, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Metropolitan Council, and the Vermillion Watershed JPO... No objections were received. [29:50] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Thank you. Just as a point of clarity... what they're doing is they're coming up with the mitigation strategy. So they're saying if you do this, these things need to be done, right? If there is objection to water usage... this is where they say it? [30:26] **Allison Harwood:** Correct. The objection period would be where they would say that... ultimately it is on the RGU (the local government unit) that has to take that information and work with the developer through performance standards and contracts. [31:11] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Thank you. Can local governments circumvent an environmental review? ... What oversight is there? [31:25] **Allison Harwood:** The oversight would be in the regulatory agencies themselves. For many of the impacts, there are regulatory programs in place that would require review by other agencies. [31:54] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** I do have a question... I kind of felt like the DNR portion was almost a regional realization... Do you feel like the Met Council and the DNR has a real good handle on kind of what's going on within our regional communities? [32:55] **Allison Harwood:** I do. And I think that's where some of those comments are coming from... Much of the DNR's comment was a restating of what their water appropriations permit process is and what the city would be required to commit to. [33:26] **Councilmember Katie Burnham:** I have none. [33:28] **Councilmember Holly Bernatz:** I don't. [33:31] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** And just to add on to that concept, right? That is true regardless of the development scenario... If you start building high-rise apartments, for instance, you're going to run into that wall and they're telling you to address it now rather than later, right? [33:48] **Allison Harwood:** Correct. That was a statement for both scenarios. [34:10] **Councilmember Katie Burnham:** Actually, I do have a question. Obviously with an AUAR we're studying a particular parcel of land... Shifting that space, moving it a half-mile to the east or west—is that likely to affect what the DNR is most concerned about? [34:40] **Allison Harwood:** Generally speaking, when they're looking at groundwater impacts, it's going to be at more of a regional scale based on the aquifer... Moving it a half-mile wouldn't necessarily change the scope of their review. [35:40] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** I appreciate it. Thank you. I don't have any additional comments... I would seek a motion to approve Resolution 2024-97. [36:00] **Councilmember Katie Burnham:** Motion to approve. [36:02] **Councilmember Holly Bernatz:** Second. [36:06] **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** Councilmember Bernatz? (Yes) Councilmember Lien? (Yes) Councilmember Wilson? (Yes) Councilmember Burnham? (Yes) Mayor Hoyt? (Yes). [36:13] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Thank you. All right, next action item under New Business is Item 12.2. Now, 12.2 has three different items within it... [Lists Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezoning to MUCI, and Preliminary Plat/PUD for Farmington Technology Park]. All three of these items will be presented as one and then separate motions will be made. Correct, Tony? [37:00] **Tony Wippler (Planning Staff):** Thank you, Mayor, Councilmembers. The requests this evening as Mayor Hoyt mentioned include three items... [Provides historical context of Fountain Valley Golf Course annexation in 2006, the 2013 CapX line installation, and the 2024 annexation of the Angus property]. Data centers are permitted uses in the MUCI zoning district... [Explains site plan details: 340 acres, potential for 12 data center buildings, 250-foot setbacks from residential uses, 40-foot natural buffers, and 10-foot berms]. The Planning Commission recommended approval of these items. [1:00:15] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Let’s back up here real quick because there’s a lot there. I want to make sure we address them with questions and/or statements by piece... What is the timeline going forward? [1:02:18] **Tony Wippler:** If this does get approved this evening, they will have to go and get a final plat approved through the Planning Commission and City Council along with a development contract and final PUD... In theory, they would like to have all of their entitlements approved by the end of the year. [1:03:52] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Mayor, the way you outlined the process sounds reasonable. My question is, Tony, based on what you presented, this sounds like this fits into Number 3 of our three-part discussion? [1:04:18] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Correct. We won't take any action until we've gone through all three. Do you have any questions regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment? [1:04:54] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** [Gives a personal statement about his father's health]. The reason I wanted the Council to consider moving the comprehensive plan is... we have that interim plan in process. To me, it is relevant because we are talking about a significant change... I cannot support a comprehensive plan with this type of use so adjacent and so close to our neighborhoods. I think a data center needs "room to breathe." Tract is doing their job, but it's our job as a Council to say we appreciate you, but we don't think this site makes sense. [1:13:08] **Councilmember Katie Burnham:** I have nothing. [1:13:10] **Councilmember Holly Bernatz:** I’d like to start by asking a question... How are a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning connected, and how are they separate? [1:13:45] **Tony Wippler:** Generally speaking, your Comprehensive Plan would be a higher level... the 40,000-foot view. Rezoning gets into the things like height, setbacks, and uses. You want the two things to be in concert with each other. [1:14:38] **Deanna Kuennen:** It's important that these items are coming together because the zoning needs to be supported by the comp plan and vice-versa. [1:14:55] **Councilmember Holly Bernatz:** I appreciate that... My responsibility is in making decisions that maximize the overall well-being of the greatest number of people, but that doesn't mean the impact gets to be disproportionate... I am of the opinion that I do see this as reasonable. I look at what is along Highway 50, seeing that there is industrial use there, and I realize it's not something that's exciting, but it also doesn't step outside the scope of what is reasonable with proper mitigation. [1:18:58] **Councilmember Nick Lien:** I would say in a similar way... people have said there's plenty of land in Farmington. Tony made a comment showing there is a surprisingly limited amount of commercial land available... someone will be impacted by a change this big. This is the best opportunity in front of us. [1:19:54] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** [Discusses the 2006 annexation history and the impact of staff changes and the AUAR on the timing of the comp plan update]. We as elected officials have to make decisions for all of the residents of Farmington... we have to allow it to go through the process. To stand up and say "no" six months ago devoid of the opportunity to go through and see if the project is even viable—that's not what an elected body should do. [Moves to rezoning discussion]. [1:26:00] **Councilmember Nick Lien:** I've heard the "spot zoning" claim. I do want to go on public record saying I do not find grounds for this. You can make a fairly reasonable argument that as you drive out of town on 50, the entire south side of 50 is already commercial today. [1:26:50] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Hang on. We're going to maintain decorum... Go ahead, Nick. [1:27:00] **Councilmember Nick Lien:** That was actually all I wanted to say on that particular spot zoning topic. [1:27:10] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Private property rights are tremendously important. The distinction here, though, is the landowner has entered into an agreement contingent upon these approvals. The rezoning needs to occur to effectuate this change. [1:28:44] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** We'll move on to the third item: the Preliminary Plat and PUD. Nick? [1:28:55] **Councilmember Nick Lien:** No comment. [1:28:57] **Councilmember Katie Burnham:** Nothing. [1:29:05] **Councilmember Holly Bernatz:** This is where I have lots of comments. I have listened to every comment that has been made. I have read every article... one of the things that was really important to me was scratching Item G—the idea that generators or mechanical equipment were exempt from building setback requirements. Seeing that line G was scratched was incredibly important to me. [Discusses berms and fencing]. I'm wondering if security fencing could fall to the inside rather than the outside of the perimeter? [1:33:31] **Kristen Dean (Track Developer):** I’m Kristen Dean with Track. Holly, you did bring up a very good point. We have added in additional PUD standards that commit the developer to work with property owners... security fencing is intended to be closer into the site, truly around the building... so you would have security fencing interior to the site and then the natural buffer. We can add language that distinguishes between security and perimeter fencing. [1:36:55] **Leah Koch (City Attorney):** We can do as directed... with the motion to approve the resolution, you can say "with language separating security fence from a residential fence." [1:37:50] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Tony, do you have any problems with that? [1:37:53] **Tony Wippler:** No, that would be fine. [1:39:06] **Councilmember Holly Bernatz:** One of the other things I was looking at... under Principal Building Facades, I would like to add the possibility of faux windows. This was something I discussed with Mr. Turner out in Loudoun County... just from a visual aesthetic standpoint. [1:40:15] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Are we designing standards on the fly? We've got a body of experts called the Planning Commission... I would be very uncomfortable saying "missed that one" or "missed this one." That's my broadest concern. [1:41:55] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** We would treat this like a residential development... we don't want to get into the weeds, however, if there are concerns, we provide direction to our team and they go back and work with the Planning Commission. [1:43:18] **Councilmember Holly Bernatz:** One of the things I wanted to clear up, Kristen—and I know we've discussed it, but it's important for residents—is noise mitigation. My understanding is that the EPA/MPCA limitations (60-65 dB daytime, 50-55 dB nighttime) are regardless of size and scale? If I have 12 buildings, that doesn't change the number at the lot line? [1:45:25] **Kristen Dean:** Yes. Regardless of use and scale, that is the ceiling. [1:46:18] **John Berer (Dakota Electric):** Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. John Berer, VP of Energy and Member Services for Dakota Electric. Anytime you build any project, we have to study the grid. We have completed a system impact study looking at the 345 line... the grid is stable, we can handle this. Dakota Electric is not-for-profit; there is not a windfall for the utility. This can be a good thing for the rate-payers because the developer will pay their own way for the infrastructure... we will be collecting more margins which will help us have stable rates. [1:53:50] **Councilmember Katie Burnham:** I would say my ability to sit here tonight and be silent and listen is because of the faith that I've put in our city staff and our Planning Commission... It doesn't matter the questions that we ask... if we don't vote against this, it's not going to win any of you over in this room. [1:54:55] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** Tony and Deanna, you do an A-1 job... I'm probably not going to agree with your recommendation, but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate you. But regarding the Preliminary Plat, I really think we'd be wise to at least hold on for more careful analysis... I get very uncomfortable with how this development is going to be situated nearby a number of homes. [1:59:15] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Kristen, setbacks—how did we arrive at 250 feet? [1:59:30] **Kristen Dean:** We looked at the Farmington code for MUCI and realized that wasn't adequate. We've looked at how data center growth has occurred in Virginia... we really feel that natural vegetation is an important way to mitigate impact. 250 feet helps raise the bar. [2:01:45] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** If I'm standing there, I have a property line. You go in 250 feet. Inside that is the buffer, the berm, and then a secondary fence? The big ugly fence with the razor wire is the one as far in as possible so as not to see it? [2:02:25] **Kristen Dean:** Correct. The existing fence is not actually on the property line; it's further into the golf course. It will be relocated to the property line... and that becomes the residential backyard fence. [2:03:08] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** What I would ask then is that this goes back to the Planning Commission to re-engage the community... Can we—if the security fence is behind the berm—does that perimeter fence even need to be there? I want you guys to go back and figure that out. [2:06:20] **Kristen Dean:** We are definitely happy to re-engage on that topic. [2:06:35] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** One more question: Building Heights. I don't understand principal structure at a maximum height of 80 feet when what we've seen is the fit plan... Under no circumstances can it happen that we are shown this, then come back in months and it's a bunch of 80-foot buildings at 310 feet. We can't be running blind with this project. [2:11:35] **Kristen Dean:** I hear you and we want to respond to that with graphics. This is building a framework; it isn't the site plan. There are a myriad of different layouts that could occur. [2:14:58] **Councilmember Steve Wilson:** I really just feel very passionately about the fact that I'm worried that if we approve it, that line of sight you're talking about is going to be lost. [2:17:20] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** For decades this community has been screaming "Economic Development." The difference is this time it's in your backyard, but we can't make the decision based on whose backyard it's in... if it's approved, it's still going to go back to the Planning Commission to refine. [Calls for motion on Item 12.2.1]. [2:19:36] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** I seek a motion for approval to adopt Resolution 2024-98 adopting the Comprehensive Plan Amendments... **Councilmember Katie Burnham:** Motion to approve. **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Second. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** [Calls Roll] Bernatz (Yes), Lien (Yes), Wilson (No), Burnham (Yes), Hoyt (Yes). [2:20:12] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Second item: I'd seek a motion to adopt Ordinance 2024-11 rezoning the properties... **Councilmember Holly Bernatz:** Motion to approve. **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Second. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** [Calls Roll] Bernatz (Yes), Lien (Yes), Wilson (No), Burnham (Yes), Hoyt (Yes). [2:20:55] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Third action item: I'd seek a motion to adopt Resolution 2024-99 approving the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD... directing staff to further address the items of fencing, faux windows, buffer, and height as a condition of the final plat and PUD. **Councilmember Katie Burnham:** Motion to approve. **Councilmember Holly Bernatz:** Second. **City Clerk Shirley Buecksler:** [Calls Roll] Bernatz (Yes), Lien (Yes), Wilson (No), Burnham (Yes), Hoyt (Yes). [2:22:00] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** Anything for Round Table? Seeing none, I'd seek a motion to adjourn. **Councilmember Katie Burnham:** Motion to adjourn. **Councilmember Nick Lien:** Second. [2:22:15] **Unnamed Male Citizen (Shouting):** You come pack my daughter up! Why don't we get to vote on this? It's unbelievable! [2:22:50] **Mayor Joshua Hoyt:** We're adjourned at 9:22. [Music]