[0:00] [Music] [0:15] [Music] [0:38] [Music] [0:47] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Here we go, ready? I'd like to call the regular city council meeting for Tuesday, October 3rd, 2023, to order. Welcome everyone here in the audience and also online. If you would please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [1:36] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: First item up, are there any additions or corrections to the agenda? [1:37] City Staff: No, sir. [1:40] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Seeing none, I'll move the approval of the agenda. Is there a second? [1:41] Councilmember Paul Essler: Second. [1:43] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Council: Aye). Opposed? The agenda's approved. First item up—the next item up—is presentations, proclamations, and technology acknowledgments, which we have none this evening. Therefore, we'll move on to public comment. Individuals wishing to address the Council on any issues that are not part of the meeting agenda may do so at this time. Please state your name, address, your full address, and anything that you wish to speak before Council at this time. Please limit your comments to three minutes so that we can hear everyone that may want to speak this evening. The podium is open. [2:40] Michael Picarick: Hi, my name is Michael Picarick, 13572 Delwood Way, Rosemount, Minnesota. A couple requests here. First, I would ask that amendments to city code titled 10 Water Resources—that's item C on the consent agenda—and item F, amendments to city code title III business regulations, be stricken from the consent agenda. We, the people, have not had a chance to really look those over and I can't find out what the business regulations are. I've looked online and I don't see what you're changing on there, and we have a right to know what that is and what changes are being done and why they're being done. [3:26] Michael Picarick: The other comment that I have or request is that this whole Meta Data Center and the smart community over in UMore Park be postponed until we, the people, have time to go through all the documentation on it and give our stamp of approval. This is up to us. It's not up to this small group of people standing up here to make these decisions. I know there was a public hearing on it—where was that public hearing published? I saw it was on one day, December 9th. I never saw that. I would have attended, would have looked at it, made comments, probably would have canceled it then because this has been in the works for 15 years or so at least, and the public in Rosemount has been against this and we are still against it. That's all I've got right now. Thank you. [Applause] [4:12] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Anyone else? [4:44] Linda Nara: My name is Linda Nara. I live at 15039 Derby Circle in Rosemount. Each morning I read the Citizens Free Press and my eyes glanced at a heading of this article: "Socialists want to build a new American Utopia" by Jerusalem Desai. And why don't we build new cities? But new places have the same old problems. This author is writing about a developer called "California Forever." Or how about we substitute the name to be "Bigfoot" or "Gymnast" or "WMB Holdings"? This developer purchased the land in Solano County—let's change it to Dakota County. [5:31] Linda Nara: It was between San Francisco and Sacramento and this author is questioning why not develop San Francisco that really needs to be done? And I'm thinking you're right on something. Why aren't we redeveloping the burnt-out areas around Uptown? Or why aren't we doing Minneapolis, get these people back to downtown area? Why are we focusing on the Rosemount to Rochester corridor or the Rosemount to Minneapolis corridor? He talks about a top-down community with brand-new infrastructure—sound familiar?—where tens of thousands of people would live and more important, would work in place. Sketches show windmills in the background and kids playing and new schools and police stations. And he said it won't be the old suburbs as we grew up and knew about—no, this will be all about the new artificial intelligence and how to spy on people. And I thought, gee, and now in this new town that we're going to build in Rosemount, we're going to have a data center, and guess who the owner is? Meta and Facebook. And then I got to thinking about the 2020 elections and Zuckerberg did a lot of damage to this election by donating millions of dollars. And I know Dakota County was one of the beneficiaries—two printers in Burnsville, a new Dakota County van in the elections department. [7:04] Linda Nara: So I'm thinking, hmm, you know how you rub my back and I rub yours—is this what's happening here? Now let's get to the 15-minute city idea. Well, let me think about that. I heard the saying that 15-minute cities go from being real convenient—you know, you can work, you can do everything there—to "why do we need to leave the city? We got everything we need." To "we're not authorized to leave." Real quick, people do not seem to realize it. So how do we fund this city? Do the current residents see continual tax hikes? Does the school district keep having odd-year referendums like they did this year? You know, I was an election judge in this referendum. I couldn't understand why I was there, why were we having this referendum, and then in November now we're having another one. A lot of big expenses being spent by the city and the school district here. What brought me to Rosemount? I have been living south of the river since 1986. [8:21] Linda Nara: And I just love the feel of the downtown area, the old area. Love the farms and the crops and they're just people. Now I drive downtown and I don't recognize it. The farms are gone. We've got so much more development out here. Do we really need another city? You know, and then you keep hearing about—I've been reading about this town, UMore, and all the hazardous toxins in the ground. My dad owned a gas station in South Minneapolis by Lake Nokomis and when he retired and sold it off, a couple developers were going to buy it, but the EPA had such stringent rules on it that he had the old tanks in the ground. Super America across the street had a gas leak. So instead of being able to make some money on the property, he had to settle for a Caribou being there instead of having the bituminous—you know, you couldn't dig it up. So would you feel safe living in a city knowing that the toxins are underground? Or is this going to be one of the government-owned cities where they're going to own all the property and the people, as they say, will have—you'll live there and you'll own nothing but you're going to be happy? Solving the crisis doesn't require inventing new places for people to go; it requires big cities to embrace growth as they did in the past and smaller cities to accept change. I think we in Rosemount have seen enough change for a while. Minnesota is seeing a reduction in people; people are fleeing the state. We are facing higher interest rates right now; people can't even afford to buy a house, and those that have a house now are hanging on by a thread. People ask me why am I getting involved in this, why am I—I hate speaking in public—why am I getting up and doing this? It's for my grandchildren. They picked Rosemount to live in, and my children have picked Dakota County. So I thank you for your time. [10:40] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come before Council? [10:52] Jamie Tway: My name is Jamie Tway. I live at 15669 Cornell Trail. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. As we all know, we have been informed that Meta is planning to build a 700-million-dollar data center on the property that was owned by the U of M, which is—as a side note—this land has been in dispute per local Native American tribes for some time. There are many other questions and issues that the public should be aware of before being persuaded by the possibility of lower property taxes and higher internet speeds. The list of benefits ends there. A similar Facebook data storage center was built outside of Omaha and the residents' taxes actually increased after the project. This deal has been negotiated with the U of M under an alias name of Gymnast LLC for the last five years. You have all been under a non-disclosure agreement. This certainly doesn't scream transparency. Are public officials even supposed to sign non-disclosure agreements? And obviously, if a company needs to work under an alias name, they already know that there will be automatic pushback from the community. This is a company with some very questionable ethics with a history of censoring people when they speak out against the media narrative. It's only been within the last month when this deal has been brought to public attention. There are still so many unanswered questions and it seems as if this deal is already in the final stages. [12:25] Jamie Tway: There has been zero dialogue with the public besides a news article. A few questions that I have mostly pertain to environmental impacts: water usage, noise pollution, health impact, tax burden, etc. The site is a former ammunition testing site that is highly toxic. Many residents are concerned that the proper waste mitigation may not be done, with its effect of stirring up contaminated soil and what it will do to groundwater and the surrounding area, much like the issue in Minneapolis with the hazardous roof depot demolition in the East Phillips neighborhood. Data storage centers are also known to be extremely loud, and the building site is not far from neighborhoods. There have been numerous studies on the ill effects of noise pollution upon mental health. How will Meta acquire energy? Will there be a giant wind farm in the middle of the city? I cannot imagine either of those things will be good for our home values. The proposed data center will also require things from the city such as roads, sewers, water, lights, fire hydrants, signs, etc. Will the homeowners be picking up the tab while Meta gets taxed at a much lower rate—which is typical for industry—or not at all? [14:00] Jamie Tway: The main question is: why Rosemount? Why has this site attracted so much attention from national leaders lately? What type of federal money is involved and for what purpose? Why is this project so special? Do they have something else planned next after the data center is built that we are unaware of? Otherwise, it definitely would seem as though there are better sites where none of these concerns would come into question. As far as the citizens are concerned, it seems as though this is getting pushed through without much regard to the people that actually live here. Again, I ask the questions: why Rosemount and why the secrecy? As tax-paying citizens, we deserve to have better transparency from our elected officials. Thank you. [Applause] [14:46] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Anyone else? [15:09] Al Vile: Good evening Mayor, Councilmembers. Mr. Mayor, my name is Al Vile. I live at 14235 Azalea Path. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you tonight. Um, I've been to plenty of City Council meetings in which I know you, Mr. Mayor, have kind of almost had to pull teeth in order to get people to speak at the public hearing. But last couple of meetings, the chambers have been full. There's a significant interest in the ways in which Project Bigfoot has been negotiated to date, approved, and details of the project moving forward. There's a lot of question around that. Major concern of mine and others has been why were the citizens of Rosemount kept in the dark on who the ultimate customer was until it was leaked through traditional media as well as social media sources that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, was the ultimate customer here? Why was there negotiations and approvals going back to January and even before that of this year with no mention of the customer? An NDA only answers part of those questions. Meta knew there would be a negative backlash. In documents obtained by sources under section E, Confidentiality of Customer, it states—I quote—"The customer believes its parent company identity and publicization of its name in relation to these contracts could jeopardize securing the necessary land rights for its data center. As a result, the customer wishes to remain unnamed at this time." End quote. That's very disconcerting to myself and to many of us that are here tonight. [17:28] Al Vile: And that's just the start. As I have been moving about the community, talking to a lot of different citizens within Rosemount, I kind of have been fitting them into three buckets. Bucket number one: they still don't know anything about it. I talked to somebody yesterday, he's like, "Yeah, hey, about this Project Bigfoot? I don't know anything about it." Oh, let me tell you about it. And he was just as concerned as I am and everybody here when I mentioned what it was all about. The second bucket is: there are citizens out there that think it's really cool that Rosemount as a city is associated with Meta/Facebook and as part of the rally slide of the businesses that are part of Rosemount. And then that third bucket—now those are the ones that believe they were not given due diligence to question the project from the beginning because the project was kept secret from them until just recently. I think that's a lot of people in this audience right now. I was talking with a constituent just a few hours ago as a matter of fact, as I was going about Rosemount, and when I discussed Project Bigfoot with him, he had heard about it and he responded, I quote: "But that's progress, right?" End quote. And I responded with: "Progress just for the sake of progress is not necessarily progress without all the details." I think that's where a lot of people are concerned—there's no details here. [19:01] Al Vile: To add, I've been in the IT industry for over 30 years and continue to work for a Fortune 100 company to this day. That company operates 46 cloud regions globally, one to many data centers in each one of those regions. I see lots of gaps in the information disclosure over this project and I summarize some here. These are all bullet points. One: what are the financial breaks that Meta will be getting to locate here in Rosemount? Secondly: where is the study on the environmental impact to Rosemount, things like CO2 emissions, air quality? The International Energy Agency states that data centers are responsible for one percent of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions—and these are statistics that I could copy the Council on. Where's the study on the impact to our electrical grid in accordance with Governor Walz's bill moving Minnesota to 100 percent clean energy by 2040? [20:05] Al Vile: It's another question: where is the study of the impact on our water system? According to published data by Google, an average Google data center—granted, this is not a Facebook/Meta data center, but I think it's a good relevance—uses up to 450,000 gallons of water a day. Hyperscale data centers, which I believe that this data center is going to be, will consume over a million gallons of water a day. So we'd like to see that study. What are the particulars of that? Where is the study on how they will handle their electronic and toxic waste, of which the United Nations projects a global increase to 74.7 metric tons of e-waste by 2030, in which eight percent of that will end up in our landfills and/or be incinerated? Where are the details on their claim of sustainability in the future? How will they accomplish this and when? So these are just a few things I would like more details on. I realize that many of these may not be answered by the Council directly; I totally understand that. But the Council represents the people of Rosemount and should hold Gymnast and Meta accountable for all of this and more to be able to give us the details that I just summarized. In its current form, in terms of Project Bigfoot and because of the items I've stated earlier, as a candidate for City Council on November 7th, I cannot support Project Bigfoot. Thank you. [Applause] [21:56] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come before Council? [22:09] Kathy Pritchard: Hello, thank you for letting me speak. My name is Kathy Pritchard. I live at 15703 Crystal Path. I was pretty proud that we got to be in the top 50 cities in the United States—pretty big accomplishment. I remember what the Mayor said earlier this year about Rosemount; he gave us a challenge. He said he wanted to challenge every single citizen in Rosemount, and here was the challenge that he gave us—and by the way, I thought your speech was great, I loved your speech. "Let us all work together to continue to ensure that Rosemount is the best place to live, work, and do business. What that requires of each of us is a willing to connect, to be involved, and to invest in our community and its future." We are all here right now trying to connect, trying to be involved, but now you have signed the non-disclosure agreement. It completely stops us from doing your own challenge that you had given to us. How can we be connected? How can we be involved? We cannot invest in our community and its future when the future just became one big secret for all of us. [23:43] Kathy Pritchard: Back to the challenge: my husband and I have raised our family of five here and have lived here for the past 26 years. I have volunteered as a RAAA soccer coach, I volunteered on Leprechaun Days Committee. In ISD 196, I not only volunteered as a parent in the classroom, I did as a photographer to promote their charter schools, and I also taught Art Adventure classes K-5. With the help of the city, the police, and the fire department, I have coordinated block parties for the past 20 years and have rented inflatables and such for these events. I went to college in Rosemount, I currently work in Rosemount right now, and my husband runs a successful business out of Rosemount. I believe I have done my part when it comes to being connected, being involved, and investing into this community and would consider myself a valued member of this community. But I am losing that desire. I truly do believe as a city, your task is to plan carefully and grow responsibly so that Rosemount can continue to maintain that hometown feel that we are all recognized for and valued for so deeply. I no longer feel that Rosemount is on the right track or the right path to ensure that we can achieve that together for our future any longer. By signing the non-disclosure agreement and keeping all of us in the dark even further has made me wonder who you really represent here because I, for one, I did vote for you, and I just want you to represent me. The research that I have done gets me a little nervous here because I picture in my mind—I don't know what the future is going to be like—but I picture enormous wind turbine farms alongside large electrical pylons and solar panel fields, changing the layer of our land here for many generations to come. Once you approve these permits for the land you promised to Meta, this has me concerned about future eminent domain issues as well. We hope you understand that these are our homes, our businesses, in our community. Thank you. [Applause] [25:52] Raul Estrada: Good evening. My name is Raul Estrada. I live at 8302 143rd Street West. I had some things I was going to talk about—a lot of people already said a lot of things I was going to say, so I'm going to fly off the cuff here. There are a few things that have come to mind that I think a lot of people need to focus on and start asking more questions. One of the things I want to point out is that I originally relocated to the area from South Minneapolis. I moved here because my house was burned during the riots; my daughter's businesses, our family businesses, were destroyed. I was happy to find myself in an area that had a lot of people like myself—the communities were amazing, the multi-ethnic communities were very embracing. I worked with a lot of those communities in the Twin Cities and now I work with them throughout Dakota County, from Hastings to Apple Valley and everything in between. And so I know a lot of the things that are on their minds, a lot of things that they're thinking about, but they simply don't come to these meetings. And so I am—I work as a liaison between multiple communities, different political groups, bipartisan groups, whatever it happens to be. One of the things that I've noticed, though, is that I see a lot of the ethnic refugees moving. They've bought homes in the area and a lot of them are moving back home. [27:25] Raul Estrada: I want to point out that these people came from war-torn countries; they came from countries where they saw coup d'etats, they saw the destabilization of governments, and they came here as refugees to build a new life. So I have to ask: why are they moving back? Why are they going back home? Why are they sending their families home? You know, I've lived in Minnesota long enough to know that when I see deer running out of the forest, there's something bad behind them. And so I look at a lot of things that are going on within the area. I recently read some literature that suggested that Rosemount was going to do an EPA report, but they weren't going to have the federal government do it—that they were going to possibly do it on their own. Now, I'm not sure if that's true, but I'd like to ask the question: if Rosemount does their own EPA report, what is the financial gain that they're getting from Meta/Facebook, from the facility, from the U of M, and will any of that financial gain affect or sway that EPA report? Now, I ask that not because I don't trust people—well, I kind of don't. [28:57] Raul Estrada: I saw it wasn't too long ago where in South Minneapolis there was an area that was right in the zone that was being destroyed that had been a municipal dump and it had been used as a fuel dumping station. It had been used as—recently the Roof Depot. And that area was deemed toxic, undevelopable by the EPA. Funny thing is though, six months after the Mayor of Minneapolis decided they wanted to do a development there for subsidized low-income housing, suddenly the EPA report came back favorable and the whole community is up in arms. It's basically a predominantly Native American area that had been used, and they're wondering: why are you going to open up this ground and expose this toxicity that six months ago was deemed toxic to us and suddenly it's okay? And so, yeah, that's one of the questions I wanted to pose. I think those are good thinking points for residents and citizens to ponder. [30:31] Raul Estrada: One of the other things, too, though, is—again, it's been asked multiple times—why Rosemount? What is the draw? What brings so many people here? Well, I may be a little off track, but I think I'm smart enough to put two and two together. In 2019, I attended an event at the University of Minnesota that was hosted by Ilhan Omar and Bernie Sanders. In that event, they were very clear as to Tim Walz's statement about north of the Twin Cities being "rocks and columns"—there was no need for it, it held none of Minnesota's resources. But that the landscape between the south of the Metro—Southeast Metro to Rochester—held all of Minnesota's agricultural livestock resources. We've got—we can go straight from the refinery all the way to Rochester and that's just nothing but Minnesota's finances. There's tons of it, tons of resources, and that's where it all lies. [31:17] Raul Estrada: Now I want to fast forward a little bit. Last year, Bernie Sanders, the Department of Education held at the University of Minnesota—they held a "Minnesota Marxism in schools" event at the University of Minnesota. Now, again, this past weekend, Bernie Sanders was in Minnesota again doing the same. Funny thing is, I bet you a lot of people didn't know he was in Rosemount too—we paid attention. But yeah, and again the conversation is basically the land between Rosemount and Rochester—that's what the draw is. You got to ask yourself why a Senator from Vermont with no constituents here comes here. There's no business here; he wasn't elected here. The President has been here multiple times. And so those are things that a lot of people aren't really putting together, and once you start connecting the dots and asking questions like that, it brings up even more questions. Pretty soon you're down that rabbit hole and you're finding all kinds of more questions you want to ask. [32:49] Raul Estrada: Now I want to fast forward a little bit. Being that I do work with a lot of communities, I also work with homeless communities in the Twin Cities—homeless encampments, a lot of the homeless shelters. One of the things that was proposed by Ilhan Omar and Bernie Sanders was a trillion-dollar development. A lot of you people that follow me have seen the literature I've posted on it. And that trillion-dollar development entailed 12 million low-income government-subsidized housing units. Now we saw that recently—some group try to get a hold of or acquire a hotel down in Eagan, that got shot down. Well, being that I work with a lot of these groups in these homeless encampments, I'm hearing a lot that there's this need for housing because we have this rising population of homeless. So I went to the homeless shelters and I spent time talking to them. This time of year in the fall, they typically see a three-fold increase. This year it's down to half. Where are all the homeless? Well, we followed the trail; we followed the migration. Well, they've all been pushed and basically corralled into a migration that started off into Saint Paul, went into West Saint Paul, Inver Grove Heights, and it's making its way here. [34:20] Raul Estrada: Now you go back a little bit further into when the Light Rail was developed. You didn't see branches going off to Maple Grove, to Forest Lake, to Stillwater. All that Light Rail, all that transportation was coming south to Dakota County to the South Metro areas. Now, again, why such a focus? Well, then you again you drive down 42 and I did that today—I drove down 42 and I took pictures of all the developments. The majority of them are multiplex units; there's not a lot of single-family homes going up. There's thousands of multiplex units versus the population in the area—it's not adding up. And so you got to ask yourself again what's going on. And one key point before I leave: you look at the sign for the developer, Roers—that's the same developer that has a contract that's been developing low-income subsidized housing in the Twin Cities. All right, thank you. [Applause] [35:06] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come before Council at this time? [35:31] Angela Zorn: Hi, my name is Angela Zorn. I'm at 15932 Garden View Drive—Apple Valley. Thank you. As a resident of a neighboring community to Rosemount, I'm very concerned that for several years there have been dealings with Meta, also known as Facebook, regarding the UMore land owned by the University of Minnesota, which have been done in secret from the public through the use of a shell company known as Gymnast LLC and NDAs with our elected public officials, namely the Rosemount City Council. I looked up the definition in Black's Law of NDA and it states this: "the instrument used by brokers at the start of a business transaction to ensure one, that they are not bypassed, and two, the non-disclosure of the negotiation information to third parties." Why are the people being left out of the negotiations of this land? I also want to remind everyone here of Section 1 of the Minnesota Bill of Rights: "The object of government. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government, whenever required by the public good." [37:02] Angela Zorn: If the sale of this land is going to be so good for the people of Rosemount, the surrounding communities, and the state of Minnesota, why the secrecy and NDAs? Why has there been no transparency? When the government participates in business deals without being transparent with the people, the people may necessarily lose trust in those officials, especially when the business deal is with a company which is known to be suppressing the opinions of those who do not agree with the direction our government is taking our country. I do not trust Meta or Facebook, and I'm very skeptical about the city making this deal without giving the people the opportunity to ask questions and have our questions answered. Thank you. [Applause] [38:04] Julie Barner: Hello, I'm Julie Barner. I'm at 9836 Laureate Trail, Inver Grove Heights. Thank you; it's great to have this opportunity to speak to you. I wanted to say that I hope that you guys are our eyes and ears, really, of this community, and I wish actually I didn't need to be here right now. The reason I'm here is to tell you that we—the community, the people you serve—are incredibly interested and concerned about these plans going forward with UMore Park. What it appears is that you're allowing the building of a city within a city and that this has very much been something that the city has been working on with other parties and perhaps you feel there's no problem with. Now, when I looked at the U of M's update plan, I looked at "Scenario One"—the first scenario listed—and it appears that the population size of Rosemount actually more than doubles. It adds 35,000 additional people with transit going between three highly dense neighborhoods—again, a city in the middle of a city or suburbia. [39:37] Julie Barner: What strikes me are a couple of things. One, there's no integrity with the look and feel of Rosemount, almost as if the University of Minnesota, even over a decade of planning, had no intention to understand the people, community, the space, what people love out here, the shared values. Instead, their plan was to create a densely populated city—or what people are now referring to as the "15-minute city" where you don't need to go outside of your 15-minute zone for anything. The plan includes a school, commercial zone, transit again between the three highly dense neighborhoods. Another thing that struck me was the growth of Minnesota—the population grew 1.1 percent last year. This amount of space, the amount of people that you're planning to bring into Rosemount—I don't know where they're coming from because the population simply isn't growing that fast in Rosemount. [41:12] Julie Barner: When a city employee stated over the phone today when calling the city, they stated, "Well, we're in the next chapter of development." And I asked, "Well, what is that chapter? Can the community know what's the plan, what's the chapter?" and I received, unfortunately, no response to that or more definition. I'm here to tell you that as the plan stands, the people do not approve of that plan. And so I am just asking for you guys to represent us as you should. Thank you. [Applause] [41:52] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come before City Council and express their opinions? Going once... [42:06] Michael Picarick: Since you didn't use up your three minutes—yeah, I was really short. Michael Picarick, 13572 Delwood Way, Rosemount, Minnesota. You've heard from a number of people today on our concerns on this. This is a big deal to us; it might not be to you, but it is to us. We moved to Rosemount because it's a quaint little town; it's a nice small town. We like it here; we like the way it is; we like the small-town feel. Doubling the population of Rosemount with this high-density stack-and-pack "15-minute city" that you're planning on building here is not going to keep our small-town feel. You know, the First Amendment says that we have a right to association and that the government does not have a right to change that for us. We choose to associate with a community that Rosemount is currently. We don't choose to associate with a city that's high-density, a 15-minute city that the government controls and the people are beholden to the government. The government is supposed to be beholden to us, not the other way around. You guys all work for us; we pay your salaries and you are servants—you work for us. [43:36] Michael Picarick: I'm going to request again that you vote tonight to put this whole project—both the housing development and the Meta Data Center—on hold and hold more meetings with the public to inform us so we can make the decision, because obviously you guys are making decisions without our input. I don't know how many people were at that public hearing back on December 9th, but I bet it wasn't very many people—nobody knew about it. If we did, we would have been there. So again, I'm requesting that there will be a vote held to stop this project right now. I don't care how much money you spent on it; just because you spent money—like the Met Council says, "Well, we spent billions of dollars on this project, we have to keep it going"—no, you don't. You're just throwing more money at a problem instead of going for solutions. This needs to stop right now. And that's the request I'm making. Everybody here—there's a lot of people that aren't here that feel the same way we do, and this has to stop. We can't keep going like this. This is—you're railroading through this project and that's not how we do things in this country. Maybe Northern Korea and Russia and China, you do things that way—we don't work that way here. The people matter here, our opinions matter, what we want matters. And I'm also requesting to have those two items struck from the consent agenda because we don't fully understand what those are about and we don't feel comfortable with you passing that. That's all I have. Thank you. [Applause] [45:31] Robert Hendel: Good evening. My name is Robert Hendel, address is 3355 Upper 143rd Street West, Rosemount. I used to come to a lot of these meetings and I've seen a lot of things happen in this town. I've been here for 15 years; I've raised my family here, I run a small business out of here. Looking at the minutes, this is getting pushed through very fast. I've seen—from a "green town" we're going to build out there now to this. There's a lot of hidden costs. The ground's contaminated. You start moving ground, you got to move it all, you got to track it all. There's hundreds of thousands of contaminated yards of soil out there—what are they going to do with it? Who's going to pay for it to get it moved, to get rid of it? It's very expensive. We're going to build a city inside a city—there's going to be more hidden costs. My taxes have gone up in 15 years, I'd say about seven-eight hundred dollars. Now we're going to have to hire more city employees—who's going to plow the roads? Our employees are already strapped here that are doing this. Who's going to maintain the roads? Who's going to sweep the roads? Are taxes going to go up? [46:39] Robert Hendel: A few red flags: first of all, you signed a non-disclosure—red flag. Contaminated soil—red flag. Nobody knows anything that's going on—red flag. I didn't see anything on any—I read all the minutes, I never saw anything about the meeting on December 9th. Everybody here has got good ideas—I think we need to listen to them. They say they're not going to use a lot of water—what are they going to use? There's security, there's lights, the building's going to be huge. We went through this when we built this apartment building in downtown—has anyone talked to the people behind that building and see how it's affected them, the value of their homes? How is this going to affect the value of everyone's homes in Rosemount? Our schools are already crowded—26 kids per class, that's a lot. They're going to build their own school, but are they all going to fit? There's a lot of unanswered questions. I think we need to stop this. If they're not using water to cool these things, what are they using? Is it a chemical? Does the chemical have to be changed? Where is it going to go? Is it going to go back in our water system? We don't want that. Exactly why—as my fellow constituent over here—I'll be on the docket for the meeting in November to run for City Council. Thank you. [Applause] [47:55] Lisa Lyons: My name is Lisa Lyons. I live at 16213 Howland Path in Lakeville. And I'm just here because I'm not really eloquent at speaking, but I'm here in support of what all these people are saying. And I agree that this should be put on hold until there's more disclosure because I have a lot of concerns about this metadata city, whatever. So I just wanted to voice my opinion and say that I'm here to support them. [Applause] [48:35] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Anyone else wishing to come before City Council in the greater Rosemount area? Going once, twice... All right, we'll consider the public comment closed for this evening. Yes, the other mayors around here like that when I say that. [48:58] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: All right, next item up is the response to public comment this evening. And you're going to have to bear with me—there were a lot of items that were brought up two weeks ago. I'm going to be reading a long statement here, but please listen. When you talk about connecting, you need to understand some of this stuff, and I'm sorry if you've been misinformed about some things. Hopefully, the answers that I provide you will correct some of those things. I want to take the time to address questions that were raised since the last council meeting regarding Project Bigfoot and our work with Gymnast LLC, the history of its development, and the current issues in play. Because most of the issues brought forward will apply to any business inquiry and development project that comes before the city, I will answer questions through the broad lens of Community Development. First, I'll talk about the "how" and then the "why," and finally some questions specific to the land in question. Please be aware that these answers are available in writing by request; you could receive those from the City Clerk. [50:33] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: First off, regarding why cities utilize code names in developments: large companies are often sensitive to news of their location and growth plans getting out ahead of official announcements. Plans often have competitive implications for real estate negotiations, employee retention if a relocation is being considered, and potential impacts to stock prices if development plans change or are released ahead of time. The reality is that businesses typically shop around until they are fairly certain that they have found the right spot to develop. Their goal is to minimize the risk and financial investments until they have done their homework. This homework includes working with the city to analyze planning and zoning requirements, public infrastructure such as roads or energy requirements, researching real estate availability, workforce needs, and any potential conflicts—just to name a few. While confidential transactions are common in the site selection and real estate development industry, government is associated with transparency and publicly available information. Because actions taken by City Commissions and City Councils are open to the public, certain businesses are often hesitant to make applications to the city until they are well along in their own process of site selection and due diligence. So code names and NDAs are quite common in the pre-approval stage. [52:25] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Like many projects our community development teams work with, it is not about the "who." We are required to focus on the "what"—the type of business is—if, when, and how it integrates into our growth plans of the community and whether it conforms to city code. For example, if a hamburger restaurant were to develop in Rosemount and meets all the code and development requirements, they will move through the development process regardless of whether they are White Castle, Smashburger, or Outback Steakhouse. Similarly, whether it's Target, Walmart, Home Depot, Menards, or Fleet Farm—if they meet the requirements, they get an opportunity here. Developing in a smart, safe, and intentional way requires planning. The Comprehensive Guide Plan of 2040, currently in effect, guides our work and plans for the future as required by the Metropolitan Council. The 2040 Comprehensive Guide Plan is and has been on our web since it was adopted in 2020. [53:30] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: The Comprehensive Plan does not force any outcomes. For example, if land is currently zoned agriculture but guided for business development in the future, the land would not change to Business Park until the owner applies for that change via our rezoning application. At that point, it is the landowner's choice on who they sell to. The University of Minnesota, not the City of Rosemount, has requested that rezoning for their land sale. Rosemount's Comp Plan offers a future land use plan that guides development opportunities as they arise. For example, UMore land has been used for agricultural research for many years. When the University's Board of Regents decided to sell land, our land use plan allows for a change in zoning from AG to Business Park in order to align with the 2040 Comprehensive Guide Plan. That currently is the only action that City Council has taken to date. In this case, the University also has a land use plan for their real estate holdings. Per the University, in 2015, the University's Board of Regents adopted a resolution guiding the future development direction of UMore Park. The University pivoted at that time from the 2008 concept master plan that was quoted at the council meeting—and again here this evening—to a market-based approach to that land sale. Again: market-based approach. It is going to be similar to what you see currently here in Rosemount—that's what's going on right now in Amber Fields. The future development at UMore Park is guided by the City's land use plan and the AUAR, also known as the Alternative Urban Area-wide Review—a document which studies environmental impacts. Again, that property sale is by the University of Minnesota. [55:52] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Question's been asked: "Why Rosemount?" and simply, from a development perspective, why not? Development is a key goal of the City Council and city residents and has been for many years. Development brings jobs, services, and growth to Rosemount. These items are highly desired by many of our citizens as we have heard through public meetings, citizen surveys, and personal interactions since I've been on City Council for over 14 years. Development helps to increase the tax base for our city. This helps us to distribute the tax burden and allows us to offer consistent and more services. For example, the University of Minnesota has owned the UMore land for decades, going back shortly after World War II. The new land use designation of Business Park will prompt any new ownership to pay taxes on that land. As a public university, the U of M did not pay taxes on that land and still don't on most of it. This brings in more funding for amenities and services while decreasing the overall cost of services for all residents. Rosemount is highly desirable to business because we have the last remaining parcels of land available in the Twin City metro area. We have a proximity to main highways, the airport, and the river. Highway 52, the airport between Saint Paul and Minneapolis, are all amenities for the growth that are occurring in this community. [58:10] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Finally, we are able to work with the University to answer some project-specific questions regarding the land and cultural implications of this project. Some of these—and I will mention the quotations specifically from the University—per the University, in quotations: "The University has completed a remedial investigation of the UMore Park property under the supervision of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. As part of that remedial investigation, the University held public meetings in Rosemount to share the results. The complete reports can be found on the University website." In the written response, that website link is laid out for you—I understand it's fairly long for me to even try to tell you. "As a result of these investigations, the University does not believe there are any environmental issues with the 280 acres and expects that Gymnast has completed its own environment investigation of the property as well." [59:04] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Regarding water usage at the proposed site, every business has varying needs for water usage. Similar to our previous explanation on land use, our development practices guide us to make decisions and requirements based on current and future infrastructure needs throughout the entire city. As Rosemount develops to the east, we are constantly assessing the infrastructure demands that fit into our city planning. Regardless of who makes an inquiry, our planning process will be guided by the "what" of the request. Specifically, does the proposed project work within the boundaries of what our current and planned infrastructure can handle? We expect this project to utilize water resources in the same range as any other light industrial properties we currently have in Rosemount and within the parameters forecasted and permitted for the city's water use. [1:00:10] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Regarding the cultural concerns of the UMore site, per the University, this broader area of Dakota County is situated on the traditional homelands of the Dakota. This 280-acre parcel has been used for agricultural purposes for decades. The Alternative Urban Area Review determined there were no historic or archaeological sites on this parcel. Again, Council, we appreciate everyone who has come forward with questions and concerns. Hopefully, this helps to clarify that we are driven by clear guidelines and process that keeps us focused on the "what" and not the "who" in business development. By abiding by this framework as we work with business and landowners, we are supporting a free market economy, land use rights, and continued investment in a strong and successful future for Rosemount. Hopefully, this response helps to respond to some—if not most—of the questions from the previous meeting and for some of those that were expressed this night. We will advise staff to go through tonight's questions, and if any of those have not been addressed, we will address those in two weeks as well. [1:01:40] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: And so with that, I complete the public comments response to item five. The next item up is the Consent Agenda. We have items A through J. They include the bill listings, minutes of the September 19, 2023 regular meeting, the amendments to the city code Title 10 Water Resources, the declaration of surplus property, the resolution for counting write-in voters for a local elective office, amendments to the city code Title III business regulations, appointing Deputy City Clerks for election purpose, appointment of election judges for 2023 election, accept the public streets and utilities (Emerald Isle Third Addition), and donations acceptance from Xcel Energy. With that, I'll look to Council if there are any of those that they wish to pull for further consideration. [1:02:44] Councilmember Tami Klimpel: I'd like to pull item H. [1:02:48] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: All right. I will pull 6C: the amendments to the city code for Title 10 Water Resources, and 6F: amendments to city code Title III business regulations for further consideration. So with that, would anyone like to move the Consent Agenda items 6A through J with C, F, and H removed for further discussion? [1:03:13] Councilmember Paul Theisen: I make a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. [1:03:22] Councilmember Paul Essler: Second. [1:03:25] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: I have a motion by Theisen, second by Essler. Roll please. [1:03:28] City Staff: Councilmember Theisen? [1:03:29] Councilmember Paul Theisen: Aye. [1:03:30] City Staff: Councilmember Freske? [1:03:31] Councilmember Heidi Freske: Aye. [1:03:32] City Staff: Councilmember Essler? [1:03:33] Councilmember Paul Essler: Aye. [1:03:34] City Staff: Councilmember Klimpel? [1:03:35] Councilmember Tami Klimpel: Aye. [1:03:36] City Staff: Mayor Weisensel? [1:03:37] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Aye. Consent Agenda is approved. We'll bring up the first items—we'll actually go in reverse order. 6H, give that to Councilmember Klimpel. [1:03:47] Councilmember Tami Klimpel: All right. This particular item is specific to the 2023 special election for which I also am a candidate and on the ballot this fall. So, respectfully, I will wish to recuse from the vote on that item. Thank you. [1:04:09] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Unless there's no other further discussion, can I have someone move the recommended actions? [1:04:13] Councilmember Paul Theisen: I'll make a motion to approve the attached resolution appointing election judges and officials for the 2023 election. [1:04:19] Councilmember Heidi Freske: Second. [1:04:20] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Motion made and second. Roll please. [1:04:22] City Staff: Councilmember Theisen? [1:04:23] Councilmember Paul Theisen: Aye. [1:04:24] City Staff: Councilmember Freske? [1:04:25] Councilmember Heidi Freske: Aye. [1:04:26] City Staff: Councilmember Essler? [1:04:27] Councilmember Paul Essler: Aye. [1:04:28] City Staff: Councilmember Klimpel? [1:04:29] Councilmember Tami Klimpel: Present. [1:04:30] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Thank you. That completes 6H, approved 4-0. Move up—amendments to the city code Title 10 Water Resources, 6C. [1:05:05] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Okay, so I am going to read through this and try to explain. I understand there's some issues about this. We will be taking action on this as I'll explain as we go through this. We are going to be taking a motion to adopt a resolution approving summary publication of amendments to Title 10 of city code and a motion to approve Rosemount amendments to Title 10 of the city code. Title 10 of the Rosemount city code covers Water Resource regulations. Chapter 1 focuses on pollution prevention from construction sites and installation of permanent storm water control facilities such as storm water ponds. Chapter 2 focuses on preventing contaminants from entering the storm water system through spills, illegal dumping, illegal connections to the storm water system, and materials management on properties. Updates to the code are required to come into compliance with the Minnesota Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and Construction Storm Water (CSW) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). [1:06:20] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Additional updates are proposed to improve clarity and city operations. The proposed updates to the code fall into the following general categories: clarification that construction projects requiring a CSW NPDES permit will be reviewed by the city for conformance with storm water requirements; storage requirements for de-icing salts; storage requirements for certain materials to prevent water resources and storm water pollution; clarification regarding collection of project permit review administration enforcement costs; clarification of grading permit applicability; project permit stormwater review administration and enforcement efficiency updates; and some language cleanup and housekeeping. It should be noted that the city is required to have a public hearing for this. Our Stormwater Specialist, James Byron, presented this on September 5th, including the public hearing at that time. The action by City Council was to approve that public hearing. If you did not hear it or were not present, you can follow up and see it on our video website. This evening we will move forward to adopt this resolution. I will state for the record that yes, this may impact any developer—any development—that is coming forward now. So yes, this impacts Bigfoot. With that, would any Councilmember wish to move the motion? [1:07:44] Councilmember Paul Essler: I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution approving summary publication of amendments to Title 10 of city code and motion to approve Rosemount amendments to Title 10 of city code. [1:08:08] Councilmember Paul Theisen: I second. [1:08:09] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Motioned by Essler, second by Theisen. Roll please. [1:08:11] City Staff: Councilmember Theisen? [1:08:12] Councilmember Paul Theisen: Aye. [1:08:13] City Staff: Councilmember Freske? [1:08:14] Councilmember Heidi Freske: Aye. [1:08:15] City Staff: Councilmember Essler? [1:08:16] Councilmember Paul Essler: Aye. [1:08:17] City Staff: Councilmember Klimpel? [1:08:18] Councilmember Tami Klimpel: Aye. [1:08:19] City Staff: Mayor Weisensel? [1:08:20] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Aye. That completes 6C. We'll move to 6F. Amendments to the city code. We will be moving the recommended action to adopt an ordinance amending city code Title 3, Chapter 1 relating to liquor regulations. Motion to approve a resolution approving summary publication of ordinance 2023-04 relating to liquor regulations. [1:09:05] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: I will read through this as well. Under the current city code Title III, Chapter 1, Section 3-1-14 regarding liquor regulations for outdoor patios and decks, there are specific fencing requirements for all licensed establishments. Based on research of other nearby cities, our city code is more restrictive than the majority of surrounding cities and state statute requirements. Minnesota Statute 340A.410, Subdivision 7 requires a retail alcoholic beverage licensed premises to be "compact and contiguous." The state does not specify regulating how a licensee delineates their compact and contiguous additions to their licensed premises. Minnesota Rules Chapter 7515.0430, Subpart 2 defines the types of additions license holders can include as part of their licensed premises, and the rule states that the licensed premises can include physically connected attachments to the main structures such as patios, decks, and pavilions. The space would have to be owned and/or leased to have formal use permitted as a part of the business premises. The city must approve any compact or contiguous additions to the licensed premises and include such additions to the license files on documentation defining the licensed premises. Thus, licensees should provide the city with proof that their liquor liability insurance covers alcohol sales/service to their compact and contiguous expanded licensed patio space. [1:10:35] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Under current code language, the railing options—wrought iron allowed—can be expensive additions for establishments wanting to include an outdoor patio and deck. Staff supports the recommendation to remove this type of fencing requirement and instead having the area quarantined off by an appropriate fence, wall, or staff monitor as approved by City staff. Staff also recommends approval of the resolution to approve the publication notice and summary of the ordinance. City Clerk, has that publication notice and summary of notice occurred? [1:11:10] Erin Fasbender: Yes. [1:11:14] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: All right. I would like to note that this change is being done for local businesses to have them be allowed to have better access and less regulations. So with that, any questions or comments from staff? No. I'll move a motion. [1:11:34] Councilmember Paul Theisen: I'll make a motion to adopt the ordinance amending city code Title III, Chapter 1 relating to liquor regulations and a motion to approve a resolution approving summary publication of ordinance 2023-04 relating to liquor regulations. [1:11:57] Councilmember Tami Klimpel: Second. [1:11:59] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Motion's been made by Theisen, second by Klimpel. Roll please. [1:12:00] City Staff: Councilmember Freske? [1:12:01] Councilmember Heidi Freske: Aye. [1:12:02] City Staff: Councilmember Essler? [1:12:03] Councilmember Paul Essler: Aye. [1:12:04] City Staff: Councilmember Klimpel? [1:12:05] Councilmember Tami Klimpel: Aye. [1:12:06] City Staff: Mayor Weisensel? [1:12:07] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Aye. [1:12:08] City Staff: Councilmember Theisen? [1:12:09] Councilmember Paul Theisen: Aye. [1:12:10] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: That completes item 6F. Before I complete the Consent Agenda, I understand and heard the request to remove those and not take action on them. As you can see, we are transparent; those items are not related to anything other than compliance with regulations that any developer is going to have, and the last one is certainly for the benefit of our businesses. With that, that completes the Consent Agenda. We have no public hearings this evening. Item seven, we have no unfinished business. Item eight—nine, new business, we have none this evening. And we are up to 10, announcements and staff updates. Teah Malecha, please? [1:13:08] Teah Malecha: I will defer to Chief Thomas for our only update this evening. [1:13:17] Chief Carson Thomas: Pink Patch Project. As you're aware, we were the first agency in the state to start the Pink Patch Project, which I am very proud of. Specifically, Sergeant Simonson of our department led that initiative and we've quickly become the third most represented state in the country with the Pink Patch Project. So he's gotten over 60 agencies on board statewide; they've raised upwards of $220,000 since infancy in 2017. While each city donates to different related organizations, we choose to go to the American Cancer Society—that's where all of our funds go. A couple announcements coming up throughout the month: we've got some new, I guess I'll call it pink patch swag for sale. We've got a pint glass, we've got three different patches that we've worn historically—one of our first patches from the 1960s, we have a patch in the 1980s, and then our current patch. There's also a new tumbler this year and then there are challenge coins. And then a couple key dates coming up this month: October 21st, there's a second annual Pink Patch Collector Show at Rosemount Community Center. Last year was a big hit; we encouraged the public to go out there and take a look—there's stuff for sale from all kinds of agencies and collectors from around the state and the area. And then on October 28th, we will be again participating in the Making Strides Against Breast Cancer Walk at the Mall of America. So you'll see us down there and it's a great event. A lot of survivors are there to tell their stories. It's pretty touching to go down there, walk around with them and then hear how long they've been a survivor for. So just want to remind you that's Pink Patch Project, and thanks for letting me come up. [1:14:58] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Thanks, Chief. Yeah, appreciate the effort of the police for that. Any comments, questions, reports from City Council? Seeing none, that completes 10A. We'll move on to 10B, the upcoming community calendar. Anyone wishing to clean out their garages may do so—we have our Fall Cleanup coming up this Saturday, October 7th from 8 to 12 p.m. at Erickson Park. I'm curious if that's the first time we're having it along Erickson Park or do we typically have it there? [1:15:45] City Staff: Typically, that's where the fall staging has been, yeah. Larger space. [1:15:53] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Thank you. On Sunday, the Fire Safety Open House will be at Fire Station number two. It'll be held from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Come out, enjoy some food, fun, and fire safety education from our Fire Department. The City Council will hold a special meeting starting on October 17th from 4 to 6 p.m. We will have a Port Authority following from 6 to 7 p.m., and the next City Council meeting will be from 7 to 8 p.m. on October 17th. [1:16:30] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: And with that, I did have one comment that I did not indicate. I think there was a response to take some action to deny the project that everyone seems to be so interested in. The reality is we do not have a project in front of us to take action on. That'll be coming later. You'll certainly all be aware of it and you're more than welcome to attend that. It'll come before us once "Bigfoot"—whoever you want to call it—comes before us. They will submit a plan; at that point, it'll be public as far as we're concerned and the public hearing will occur at the Planning Commission. So we didn't disregard your comments tonight; we're not taking any action because we do not have anything to take action on. So with that, is there any other questions, comments? We will adjourn the meeting... oops, sorry. [1:17:33] Sharon Peterson: All right. My name is Sharon Peterson and I live at 13721 Danbury Path. I've been involved in a lot of things in Rosemount; I've lived here for 35 years. I want to thank the Rosemount City Council for listening to people. I'm here to support people to be engaged. You probably have seen that people for the first time in my life are going to school board meetings—I mean, they're going to all kinds of meetings that they never paid any attention to before. They were perfectly comfortable and now all of a sudden everybody's hair is on fire. You know, we all want answers for everything. I want more engagement, but I do want to encourage Rosemount as a city to improve communications. Rosemount is excellent at communications actually—there's a website, there's a newsletter you can sign up for all kinds of things. I particularly enjoy seeing the Police Department routine reports; there's a lot of information available. Unfortunately, especially for people that are brand new to this, they don't understand "this is the state," "this is the county," "this is the city," "this is connected to the Met Council." It is complicated. I would encourage you in your newsletters and your agendas, instead of saying "we're going to discuss Plot 14," that you put a link on there and it says "What is Plot 14?" There's a lot of jargon that's used in government, in business, anywhere. But for new people to feel that they're getting the information they need, they need a little bit more description and they need more timely notice. Because I notice in the political world, a lot of our stuff is throttled—so if it has a particular word in an email, it goes to trash or spam, it doesn't even get to the person. It looks like it's been received, but it isn't, and it depends on the carrier that you have. So we're learning the hard way in some of the areas that I work in. And I'm sure your communications people—that's a huge ask, but if you could provide a little more detail and a little bit more heads up, then maybe people could spread the news and get the information quicker and easier and understand who's involved and who's talking to who about what. But thank you for listening. [1:20:00] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Thank you, Sharon. [Applause] And I do appreciate that comment. We could always improve on what we're doing. And a lot of people don't understand that we do have a website; there's a lot of information that's available there. We do have staff that if you have a question, you can call and they'll respond to that. We will take that specific comment about maybe putting a little more specificity into our agendas to highlight some of that stuff. So with that, there's no other business to come before Council. I move to adjourn. Is there a second? [1:20:45] Councilmember Paul Essler: Second. [1:20:46] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Motion been made and seconded to adjourn this evening. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Council: Aye). Opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you. And just thank you all for attending, really. It may seem like maybe I was a little strident in my comments, but I do appreciate seeing people because sometimes we are really disappointed when nobody shows up. So again, thank you for showing up. Appreciate that. And you're welcome back. [1:21:29] [Music] [1:21:45] Mayor Jeff Weisensel: Thank you. [1:21:50] [Music]