City Council - Regular Meeting

Call the city council meeting for Monday, June 4th to order. Everyone please rise for 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.

Call the roll, please.

Council Member Wilson?

Here.

Council Member Cordes is absent. Mayor Leen?

Here.

Council Member Bernatz? Here. Council Member Winchell?

Here.

Mayor Moorlachal, any changes to the agenda? None. Seeing none, look for a motion to approve the agenda.

Motion to approve.

Second. Motion by Holly, second by Steve. All in favor say aye. Aye. Next to our consent agenda, look for a motion to approve.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Motion by Holly, second by Phil. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. And right on to item 11, Chief Price.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. This evening, I have placed in here the resolution authorizing the submittal of the SAFER or the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant Program. Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, also known as the SAFER grant, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, also known as FEMA, aims to bolster the fire department's staffing to meet community needs and is providing up to $324 million to support fire departments in hiring firefighters and enhancing their recruitment and retention. This program aims to help departments meet staffing standards, improve emergency responses, and supports firefighter health and safety, particularly within volunteer and combination fire departments. The core mission of the SAFER grant program is to provide direct funding to fire departments and volunteer firefighter organizations to increase or maintain the number of trained frontline firefighters available for their communities. This program is designed to ensure that fire departments can operate at a minimum industrial standard, therefore by safeguarding communities and reducing risk from fire and related emergencies. Part of the discussion is last year it introduced a cost sharing component for the hiring activity for years one and two. FEMA covers up to 75%. Year three it covers up to the 35%. So this year it maintains that same level of cost sharing. Last year, they allocated the $324 million, again with mandates that at least 10% support recruiting and retention, and at least 10% is reserved for volunteer or mostly volunteer departments under the hiring activity. This year, it supports both career and volunteer firefighter. Funds can be used for hiring career firefighters, recruiting and retention of volunteer, and implementing retention strategies. Last year expanded eligibility for expenses to include initial and annual physical exams, job-related immunizations, behavioral health services, cancer screenings programs aligned with the NFPA 1582 standards. And again, this year it maintains these same expenses. So again, this program goals aims to help fire departments meet industrial minimum staffing standards to ensure 24-hour staffing is provided adequate fire protection and fully transitional missions of the fire department. The hiring activity offers this grant to support applications for new hires, additional firefighters, or to change the status of part-time or paid on-call firefighters to full-time firefighters. On the budget impact, this three-year grant program requires a match of 25% of the cost for years one and two. And then for year three, it requires a match of 65%. So the department's estimated cost of hiring six full-time staff is approximately $875,000. Staff recommends applying for the grant, which would mean the city would provide approximately $220,000 for years one and two. And for year three, the city would need to provide approximately $569,000. So this evening, we're asking to adopt the resolution 2026-054, authorizing to act as legal sponsor and authorization for the staffing for adequate fire and emergency response, also known as a safer grant program, application for hiring six full-time staffing, and approve the matching funds at 25% for years one and two, and for year three at 65%. And for that, I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you. Nope.

Nope. I'm very familiar with the program. It's a great program. It's certainly a way to get people here full-time and to maintain the adequate level of service that we provide, and I think it's a great opportunity, and I look forward to it. Thank you. All right.

No questions. We've made the decision already that staffing was a requirement. It was a change that needed to happen, so this is an opportunity for us to be able to cost share an expense, and I don't see the downside to this. Grants are one of the many ways that we can look at funding mechanisms for different things that we may need or want within the city, and this just seems like a no-brainer to me. Happy it's happening.

Thank you. Steve.

Yeah, Matt, I do have a couple of questions. So we're pointing to fiscal year 24 and 25. So is the program essentially recognizing the actual start year? So it's funding would go essentially backwards to year one. Is that correct?

Correct. It seems a little odd when you look at 24, 25, that's just the way FEMA has it set up.

Okay, perfect. And then really with the funding, anybody can answer this. Um, the reality is we're already providing the funding. So isn't it more of a formality or are we providing additional funding over and above? Because we're supporting and council has rightly made a decision to go ahead with full-time fire. So essentially we're funding this already, are we not? I mean, is this actual new money? So this is for an additional six.

We hired the six. We did not get the safer grant with that one. We're applying for the safer grant for an additional six firefighters.

Okay. Got it. All right. That's all I have.

And I don't need to repeat their questions. They did a good job covering it. So let me see what we got here. We're going to look for a motion to adopt resolution 2026-054, authorizing to act as legal sponsor and authorization for staffing for adequate fire and emergency response, the safer grant program application for hiring six full-time fire department staffing and approve the matching funds of 25% for years one and two and for year three at 65%. Motion to approve.

Second.

Motion by Steve, second by Holly. Call to roll, please.

Council Member Wilson?

Yes.

Mayor Lien? Yes. Council Member Bernatz? Yes. Council Member Winchell?

Yes.

Perfect.

Thank you, Chief. Thank you.

Citizen comments. Comments are at time for anyone to address the city council on matters not on the agenda. Comments from speakers must be informational in nature and may not exceed five minutes. The city council will not engage in discussion or debate in those five minutes, but will take the information and issue a response to those requiring one by the next council meeting. When you come up to the podium, state the city or township that you live in. As part of the protocol, it is unacceptable for any speaker to slander or engage in character assassination or discuss personnel complaints at a public council meeting. As such, speakers will not be allowed to identify city employees either by name or position or to identify any other person by name during the public comment period. If one does, their comments will be deemed done. Please address your comments to the council as a whole. If decorum cannot be maintained during speaker's time, the council will recess to allow decorum to be restored. Upon return from recess, citizen comments will resume, provided order can be maintained. If order cannot be restored, the meeting may be adjourned. Is there anyone who would like to speak tonight?

David Pritzloff, 20255 Aiken Road. I want to make a couple comments from the meeting two weeks ago. I think it's pertinent that you guys start a dialogue with people at this podium. I and a couple other people were speaking at the last meeting, and I'll point one out in Pacific. Nate was speaking about the moratorium, and then I spoke about the data center and also about the Lennar project. that you guys were taking action on. And at the end of the meeting, both mayor and the city attorney decided to, in my words, cowardly act, respond to us in round table. And I think that's just, he either skated out on the dialogue and the communication with people at the podium here. And then also, Nick, you said that when it came up to the moratorium, whether they're trying to stop the project or not, and you said you're in favor of the project. Specifically, you said, I am in favor of this project. well, I doesn't represent the majority of the people out here. And so I think you should look at, you know, the people that you're representing rather than just yourself and say, hey, this project, you know, and do it a little bit differently. As far as, you know, the comments of, you know, well, in our project, I mean, if you don't, you know, in my words, don't want to use common sense and lead everybody down a road where you got to say yes, yes, yes, and then try to say no afterwards. I mean, that's my... opinion and right to do, but you had to respond to that too at the roundtable. I just think it's a cowardly act that you guys want to get the last word in on somebody here at the podium rather than having a dialogue and getting questions answered to the people that are here. And that brings me up that, you know, however you want to work this, whether you want to do a dialogue on it or you want to have the city research this and give me an answer, I happened to drive around the golf course within the last couple weeks, and now that that's city property and it's in the city and it's recorded with the county, I kind of felt bad as I drove around on the backside of it on 225th Street, I'm like, I just thought, man, all these people that live adjacent to the golf course, if I had my yard looking like that, I think you'd be out threatening me with a letter of getting my grass cut and or the city's going to cut it. So what are you going to do with everybody out there with all the tall grass, the weeds and everything out there so they don't cringe on the neighbors that live up to it now? We have an ordinance, you gotta keep your property mowed. I mean, I just can't believe those people out there would have to, I mean, they should be here asking for it, but it's like, city should be looking out for those people and saying, hey, we're gonna put restrictions on, they need to go out and mow it, whether they mow the whole property or whether they mow so many feet, their 250, 500 feet buffer that they wanna use, whatever. I'd like to have an answer on that, and I'm sure everybody else out there would like to know the answer on that. So you want to do a dialogue on it, or if you want to have city staff research and get back to me and everybody in the meeting at the next meeting, we'll go that route. It's up to you, what you want to do. Manny? Do you wanna answer that? Are you gonna do a dialogue now or are you gonna have city staff? I'll sit down if you're gonna say city staff will research and get back to me, but I'm just, I'm asking you the question and you're giving me the deer in the head.

I read you a sheet that said I'm not going to answer you, so we're not going to answer you. You can keep asking for that every week, but I've read the sheet numerous times. We're not going to answer you from here.

Okay, well you certainly did a heck of a job last weekend round table, so... You know, do your words and abide by them. You don't need to respond to me in the round table and get the last word in if that's your goal.

Thank you.

Nancy Arsted, Castle Rock Township. Tonight, I'm giving you a petition. The petition is asking you, the city, to go back to tract and find out what kind of cooling system they are intending to use now and to tell us. It is asking you for an EIS to protect us from any new impacts, but at minimum, an amended AUAR with a public hearing. In a two-week span, we have 674 signatures. I'm going to leave this here. I will email it to all of you as well. So just a few weeks ago, you said, great news, now Tract is only going to use 50 million gallons of water a year. So we naturally came back and said, okay, they aren't going to use a water-cooled system like the AUAR says. What are they going to use? We get no answer. It's a very reasonable and honest question. The heat has to be discharged somehow and somewhere. Your staff sent us a note. The city remains confident that the AUAR process followed for the Olson and school district property was appropriate and adhered to all necessary guidelines. As a result of ongoing litigation, the city will not provide further comments at this time. What does that answer mean? You don't have to tell us or you won't go back and ask. What about the potential chemicals storage? How much? Where is heat discharged on a hot summer day? Are you refusing our request to find out? You are public servants. You ran for those spots promising to serve the public. 674 people are asking you what tract is bringing to their neighborhoods into Farmington. Are we really at that point in Farmington where you won't go back to the developer and ask reasonable questions to protect us? and get real answers for your people. Your attorney stated on May 18th that the AUER is based on hypothetical scenarios. To me, that seems to make the AUER itself hypothetical, doesn't it? If the scenarios are hypothetical in your view, then the AUER seems to have little to no value. But it does have value. Call the Minnesota EQB. Anyone can. They will tell you that the AUAR is not hypothetical. They will tell you that the project must be consistent with the assumptions in the AUAR. You have an AUAR that assumes they will need hundreds of millions of gallons of domestic wastewater discharge, water needed for bathrooms and sinks, assuming office use. It's not for industrial cooling. Now you say they only need 50 million gallons of water input in an entire year. You don't see a need to get an explanation for that big discrepancy? You don't think you need to do that as a city that has approved one of the largest and furthest along data center projects in the state of Minnesota? So on one hand, the city states that the AUAR is based on hypothetical scenarios. Yet the city is simultaneously using that same document to justify moving this project forward. You can't have it both ways. Is the AUAR real or is it not real? Is it accurate or it doesn't need to be accurate? Yes, you are in a lawsuit. That is not an excuse to do nothing. If tract is allowed to keep moving forward, then you are obligated to keep protecting us. The lawsuit doesn't stop that obligation. Would you want to know if chemicals were going to be stored on that land if you live 250 feet from it, 500 feet from it? Would you want to know how and where the heat was going to be discharged? So what do you tell these 674 people? Please take the time to read their names and their comments. Do you ignore them? Use excuses about lawsuits? Please remember that you direct staff. They may advise you, but they do not direct you, nor do they govern the city. You do. You five. We ask that you please reply to this petition, all five of you. Thank you very much.

Hi, I am Carolyn Kiefer. I live in Castle Rock Township. I'm about almost 1.5 miles east of your proposed data center. I am a research scientist. I've worked in many research labs. I've taught high school biology and looked at a lot of data over my time. And I did, thank you, Mayor did take time to talk to me the other day. I appreciate him taking his time to do that. And I have a few comments. One, I was told that data centers have been around for 50 years. That's a true statement, but it's a very misleading statement because a data center, what is the definition of a data center? A data center is a building with computers in it. It's what you're building here has not been around. I don't even know if there's one in the United States that is functional right now. I know there's one in the Texas panhandle in Childress, Texas that was built in 2025, but the last I read, it's only operating at 350 megawatts and it's not scaled up. Look at the satellite image. There are no houses by it. I was told the DNR is okay with it. I did talk the DNR for quite some time. I appreciate the comments they had. They're not okay with it. It's not that they're not, again, they're not, they don't have a judgment on it. They're not okay with it. They're not, they just do testing. So they're not okay with it. And he was very adamant to say, we are not okay with it. Don't say we're okay with it. That doesn't mean they're against it. It just means we gotta be careful what we say. I asked him about the concerns with the well. And what he told me about my well is more about the drop line. The drop line is how far down my pump is. He said it may be that you have to change and pay to change your drop line. And I said, do you think that I need to pay for that? Would the big data company need to pay for that with Farmington pay for that? Who was liable and I would like to answer that question. I know you can't answer me right now, but and it might take you time to get an answer, but I would like a question is if that does affect the drop line on my well DNR will do some testing, but if it does, am I responsible for those charges? Um? I've been talking to quite a lot of people since I talked to you. I stopped by the Rosemont facility. I want to hear for myself, what kind of noise is this thing making? Is this a real problem? How big of an issue is that? First thing I notice is there are no houses sharing a fence line with that property. When I look at it, it's like using half the electricity that the proposed one here in Farmington was. And we came in. The workers were leaving. Somebody was there. I stopped and I talked to them. And I just said, is this thing functional? Is it operational? My response was, I don't know if I can answer that question. Why is that a secret? Why these workers have been told not to tell us anything? Why is there so much secret? If it's all OK, why is it such a big secret? Then he told me there's a closed loop system there in Rosemont. Well, it can't be a closed loop system because there's evaporation and stuff. But he also told me they pump ethylene glycol into it and periodically change it out. But he doesn't know where the wastewater goes. So that's all a big red flag to me. I talked to a power company lineman working in the top 30 years, never seen anything like a data company. When you're working with a data company, everything is a secret. He's never seen that in his 30 years of work. Why is it such a big secret? I don't know. I talked to people who have worked on small data centers and low frequency sound waves were a big issue. The city of Eagan has required people, the companies to put it in a small one. These are computers in a room, nothing like what's been built there. And it was a big expense to them, but they had to put in protection for the people. Low frequency sound waves, you can't hear them, but you can feel them. They're below the audible sound. They cause a lot of anxiety. They travel a long distances. They cause headaches. They go up to a couple miles. Some people say two, some say three. Farmington Elementary is one mile from your proposed site. They'll be exposed to these, and the first thing you've got to watch for if you put this in is headaches. That's the first thing you notice. You don't hear them, but you kind of feel them, and they need to be monitored. I tried to check into who monitors that. I looked on the EPA website. You guys do. You guys. Local. And from all I can tell, you don't know anything about them. So we need to find out what the issue is there, because it's not the federal. It's maybe the state or local, but they're the ones who... Deal with these low frequency waves. I don't really think our kids should be guinea pigs and it feels to me like they are because you don't even know. How can you monitor something you don't know? You need to find out. There's a big cost here. There's several stories. There's some history stories about times where people have been told, yes, this is great for you. This is a really good thing. But at what cost? What cost does this come to us? We have to consider the cost in human lives in the environment. This is no small thing. And I think I'm out of time.

Hello, Terry Pearson, 2475 225th Street West. This past week, the clubhouse on the golf course was taken down and also the metal machinery building that is 50 feet from my property line. And I wanted to share with you, just a minute, I wanted to share with you a preview of what I'm going to be hearing and the people all around there. This is one building. This only went on for the afternoon. So imagine construction, whatever goes on over there, all week long. I just question who's going to be monitoring that. I mean, is somebody going to be sitting on a chair on the sidelines saying, OK, you're too loud. You know, the people have had enough. And then what do you do if it is? And this is real. This is very real. It's going to affect us and a lot more people. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else tonight?

Jenny Groudon, 7th and Elm. um i would just like to ask um nancy said nobody's responded um to her questions what happened to we the people you guys were elected 674 people are wanting some answers um and you brought up the low frequency thing that is a very real thing and and the secrecy thing that's I don't know what to say. I just want to ask what happened to we, the people who elected you guys? Thanks.

Thank you. Anybody else? Steven? All right. All right.

Before we move to roundtable, I actually, if it's okay, I would like to talk a little bit, actually even before tonight, with the petition. I've had a few thoughts that I've been hanging on to for a bit, so are we good with that?

Mm-hmm.

Okay. So it was actually almost a year ago that I talked a little bit more extensively about my opinions on the data center. I realize that this proposed project has generated strong emotions and real concerns within the community. I also understand that there are a lot of residents who are trying to sort through an overwhelming amount of information. Much of it is conflicting. Some of it is emotional. Some of it is speculative. But nonetheless, it's high volume. And it is not my responsibility to dismiss concerns, nor is it to promote a project. My responsibility really is to evaluate information carefully and to continue to follow the appropriate legal and environmental process, ask the questions, and then make decisions that consider both our immediate and our long-term needs as far as the community is concerned. One of the questions that has come up and I wanted to talk a little bit about was the AUAR. not in response necessarily to any particular comment tonight, so it may sound that way, it may not, it may answer something, it may not. And Amy, if I, I'm not a lawyer, so if I say something and it's incomplete, or if it needs to be corrected, please. Why did we do an AUAR? the alternative urban area-wide review in 2024. Why did we do that instead of doing an environmental impact statement? The answer is actually pretty straightforward, and it's because AUAs are designed for situations where we are planning, and it's an environmental review tool that's used when a community is evaluating how land may potentially be used in the future. IT HAPPENS BEFORE A FINAL SITE PLAN. IT HAPPENS BEFORE AN END USER OR A DETAILED ENGINEERING PLAN. SO AT THE TIME THE AUAR FOR TRACT APPLICATION WAS CONDUCTED, THERE WASN'T A FINALIZED PROJECT. THERE WAS NO COMPLETED BUILDING DESIGN. THERE WERE NO FINAL OPERATION DETAILS. THERE'S NO IDENTIFIED END USER. WHAT EXISTED THEN AND ACTUALLY WHAT STILL EXISTS RIGHT NOW IN THIS MOMENT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT INTEREST. And what happens with that is Minnesota state law recognizes that communities need to have a way to evaluate possible future impacts before we have every detail. So that's what we would use an AUAR for. it's actually in and i think it was referenced here i'm going to read it because i i don't have this um on my mom my brain completely it's stated in the quick reference from the minnesota environmental quality board that an auar is a planning tool to understand how different development scenarios will affect the environment of their community before development occurs the process is designed to look at the cumulative impacts of anticipated development scenarios within a given geographic area and is used to inform local planning and zoning so The AUAR in this instance allows the city to proactively study a broad category of potential impact, like traffic, wastewater, water use, electrical infrastructure, stormwater management, and it does this with maximum or worst case scenario impact in mind. It doesn't examine all the potential impacts of a possible development. For example, it doesn't do stationary air source emissions. It doesn't do heat generation or dust or odor or noise. The AUAR tells us what we might need to be prepared for should the development move forward. It's not an approval for a specific project. It's an early stage planning tool intended to help us understand what could reasonably occur on a property and what infrastructure or safeguards might be necessary if development moves forward. So now move to an EIS. It serves a different purpose, and EIS is much more detailed. It's project specific. It's an environmental review process that requires way more defined information. In order to conduct a meaningful EIS, we have to have a clearly identified project with the detailed engineering, operational plans, infrastructure designs, measurable impacts that can be specifically analyzed. We are not there yet. It's been a long time. It's been like in our minds, it has been a long time and I get that, but the project is not there yet. And so at this stage, we don't have the finalized end user. I know that that's something that it's hard to believe from the outside looking in, but I swear to you, I do not know who the end user in this project is. We do not have finalized operational details. We don't have a completed site plan. So conducting an EIS without that information, it's just speculative anyway. We're going in with assumptions. And that's not measurable analysis. That's not responsible environmental review. So being transparent and responsible actually does also mean using the correct process at the correct stage of development. That doesn't mean that additional review is not ever going to occur. It means that the review follows a sequence. So the AUAR was at that time and still in this moment is the appropriate tool for the planning stage we're in. IF THE FUTURE PROJECT DETAILS TRIGGER AN ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENT UNDER MINNESOTA STATE LAW, THOSE REQUIREMENTS WILL STILL APPLY AND THEY'LL STILL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE ANY OTHER APPROVALS MOVE FORWARD. WE'RE JUST NOT THERE. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE IMPORTANCE TO ACKNOWLEDGE I THINK THE MOST UNCOMFORTABLE PART ABOUT THIS WHICH IS THE USE OF DATA CENTERS OVERALL. There's no major advancement in modern society that has ever come without environmental impact. Most of these are things that we would not trade back. We've accepted the environmental impact, but we're not giving back electricity. It's changed our world. It's changed the environment. We're not giving back our paved roads or automobiles or rail systems or airports or manufacturing. We're not giving back plastics. We're not giving back smartphones and the internet. They all have created impacts alongside benefits. The question has never been whether or not the development has any impact. The question is whether the impacts are understood, measured, mitigated where they're possible, balanced against the needs and the realities of the community. I know there's concern about visual impact and the location. Those concerns are understandable, but as I said last July when I spoke on this, moving the project slightly from one area to another doesn't eliminate environmental impact. Large-scale infrastructure projects require access to utilities, transportation corridors, fiber connectivity, power infrastructure. The projects don't get randomly placed in isolated areas simply because people prefer to not see them. Development occurs where infrastructure and access exist, or they can be reasonably expanded. And nearly all of us rely on the technologies and the facilities that data centers support every day. Our hospitals are using them, emergency services, banking services and systems, manufacturing, agriculture, education, I could go on, cloud storage, search engines, streaming services, every single app that's on our phone. We're using the digital infrastructure. The reality is the demand is not going to disappear. The infrastructure required to support them is going to continue to be built somewhere. And that's where the big question comes in, and it's the question that communities across the country are grappling with. If we choose to not participate in developing the infrastructure, does the demand disappear? Are we going to stop using it? Is every single person in the room concerned about the environment willing to absolutely stop? Probably not, right? And I won't speak for every person, but if the demand doesn't disappear, then we're asking for the development to occur somewhere else. And we keep using those same technologies every day. If the projects move elsewhere, the environmental impact doesn't go away, it just gets shifted. So does, though, the opportunity. They are simply being transferred to another community or another state or another country. And while we're in this space, we also have the possibility of losing the economic opportunities or the infrastructure investment or the tax-based diversification that comes with them. And so, I know the question continues to loom, And I, again, I'm not gonna speak for my peers, like where does the support come from? And it is the growing community question. We need a healthy balance in our city. We have to consider how to responsibly grow our commercial and industrial tax base alongside our residential. We have to be able to support roads and parks and public safety in utilities and city services over time. None of this means that your concerns should be ignored. It doesn't mean that we aren't being transparent or accountable or thoughtful. It just means in this moment, I think we are coming at it from very different places, and we disagree. And responsible leadership also means not reacting purely out of fear. It means not assuming every possible worst-case scenario is inevitable. I have to be able to separate facts from speculation, evaluate risks, understand impacts and opportunities. Reasonable people are going to disagree on the project, and I respect that. But we're not bypassing environmental review. We're not ignoring concerns. I do not believe that I'm acting recklessly. We are following the process that's established underneath Minnesota law. We're evaluating information as it becomes available. We're trying to make thoughtful. informed decisions in a rapidly changing world where communities everywhere are being asked to do the same thing, balance your growth, understand your infrastructure needs, make sure that you're acting with environmental responsibility, and make sure that you're doing it with economic sustainability. And I don't know that that answers specific questions, but hopefully it at least gives my layman's understanding after the last two years of where we were with the AUAR, why we used it,

where we're at now with the project and the reality of some of the overarching concerns that continue to come up week after week so thank you thank you mayor and council i need to respond to that i am if i am very process orientated towards everything we do here and that comment while very eloquent very well stated as far as i can Determine factual it was completely out of order To have a separate outside as councilmember Burnett's pointed out outside of roundtable a separate comment About an item that she wanted to express That is not anywhere in this agenda. I'm sorry. It's just not that would be a completely appropriate comment and germane to our roundtable and But I believe not only did we modify the agenda without approval, but we also went against what Council Member Pritzhoff pointed out in his opening comments where he started to respond to comments. And we as a council, the five of us have agreed that we are going to have an appropriate channel of response to residents. And I'm trying not to sound a little bit more agitated than I am, but that was, I'm sorry, that was out of order.

I appreciate that, Steve. In truth and in fairness, I have been sitting on this information for several months. I had decided that I was going to share it tonight, my initial intent. was to share it during round table, but given Mr. Pritzof's comments, I felt that that was being disrespectful toward him. And I will admit fully, the hardest transition for me personally in the move from citizen comments to the beginning to the end of our meeting has been the transition between comments and roundtable. It's just been a really difficult way to make a move after hearing where our citizens are coming from and then moving into, and wasn't that a great week that we've had? And so admittedly, I've struggled with that. I was the one that made the call to move it out of roundtable. I apologize that it's caused frustration on your end. It would have probably been better served to stay where it was.

Yeah, and Mayor and Council Member Burnett, I appreciate that comment. I mean, I could go in 10 different directions about this, but in my opinion, in fact, you know what, I'm not going to go there. I just think it's really, really important that if we are going to have, for example, something that I that could be productive or it could be not productive would be to just simply have a community dialogue about the topic. You know, that could be productive or it could be admittedly out of control if it didn't have some guardrails around it. But I do agree with you completely. The transition from citizen comments to roundtable has been uncomfortable for, a good year to year and a half at this point. And it will continue to be that way, I think. My, you know, as maybe a constructive response for the good of the body would be maybe we find a opportunity in a work session to discuss, is there other avenues? Because as you point out, there's very limited comments we can make. There's no development in I think I can more than safely say this as a person who is opposed to the project. We have absolutely no development to comment on. We have absolutely nothing. We have a concept plan that's been approved by this body, preliminary and final plat, but beyond that we have really nothing to comment on. But I think if we do want to change our citizen comment, not our citizen comment structure, but our engagement with the public, that would be a good work session topic to discuss if we wanna do that or if we don't wanna do that. I guess that would be my only thought. I mean, that being said, your comments were, as far as my understanding, very accurate, so I don't have a specific concern about the content. It's more the insertion into the agenda.

There. I should have held them for roundtable.

Okay. So with that, we are in roundtable. Amy, if you'd like to comment.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. I think the only thing I would make a note about is the petition that was presented tonight. I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on the content of it, but I would just note that based on the description of it, I would just observe for the Council that it's not a statutory situation that requires a response from the council. Obviously you're free to respond as elected officials. It's an expression, perhaps strong expression of public opinion or some opinion, an opinion from some members of the public. So I just would note that there's no legal response required to a petition in this context. And if you have any questions about that, I'd be happy to answer them.

Thank you. That was on the night. Thank you.

May I count your time as your own table time? Thank you. Steve?

I do want to acknowledge a couple things.

On our consent agenda, we did pass a fire relief association resolution.

I'm really happy that the council and the relief association were to come to a really good place with regard to their pension, so I'm excited about that. I also do want to acknowledge the veteran organizations in our community, and we did approve. And, in fact, I know I think almost everybody from the council could be there, and I know Nick, you did a nice job at the veteran program, that there's a new bench that was donated, a really nice bench, which adds a very attractive addition to the veterans park that we have out there. And just want to thank the VFW for that donation and thank all the veteran organizations who had a big part in last Monday's celebrations.

Thank you, Steve. Lynn?

I'd like to congratulate Jake and Bridget Cordes on their birth of their new baby girl and congratulations to them.

Melissa?

Nothing tonight.

I think we have to go to John next. Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. Willow Street between 5th and 8th Streets will be reconstructed this summer. First activity occurred out there today with tree removal, and you'll see additional activity coming along in the coming weeks. Thank you. Kelly?

Good evening, Mayor and Council. In addition to the veterans organizations with the bench donation, there was a number of resolutions on the Council agenda for tonight, and We've always said we live in a very giving community, so just want to thank Happy Harry's, Marlene Swantecht, Imperial Family Chiropractic, Quick Trip, TC Running Company, Minnesota Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, American Legion Post 189 in Farmington, VFW Post 7662 for their donations. Parks and Recreation wouldn't be what it is without all the kind people we have in this community. And then want to make a comment that on Saturday is the Helmet Heroes. It's a joint collaboration with the police department and Parks and Recreation. We'll be at Farmington Lutheran Church on Saturday from 9 to 11 a.m. There will be bike fitting or helmet fittings, some bike safety, a bike rodeo. Please stop by if you're available. If you want to register, you can do that on our website, farmingtonmn.gov, but we hope to see everybody on Saturday.

Tim?

Nothing tonight.

Chief? Chief?

I had something, but now I was trying to figure out what I could do. As Council Member Wilson was saying, we did come to an agreement for our Relief Association for their retirement, and that's pretty much what I was going to say. Well, thanks.

Captain.

And nothing from the Police Department.

Oh, man. Yeah, I mean, I wanted to say thank you to all the donations that were on our consent tonight, too, right? There's a lot of them on there, and I want to tie that to thank you to General Beal and all the people who did help with Monday. It was a lot of planning. I know at one point they were even trying to shut down 50, and we didn't need to do that, thankfully. It wasn't quite that crowded, but it was still a great ceremony. A lot of organizers, a lot of contributors. For those who weren't there, the Sons of the American Revolution actually came and fired some muskets, so that was pretty cool, and They got that new bench down there that everyone should go see because it's got some pretty cool engravings on the side of it. But it's a nice, very nice addition to that memorial down there. So congratulations, Jake. I know you're watching at home if you're still managing to stay awake right now with the newborn. And congrats to the class of 2026. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to even say anything. I'm not gonna have dialogue from up here, like you said, to your point. I'm there twice a week. I've asked for dialogue in there. I haven't seen all but one of you in there to come talk to me at it. So I'm trying to have dialogue, and I will have dialogue with you right there. It doesn't need to happen right here. That's all I'm gonna say tonight. Looking for a motion to adjourn.

Motion. Second.

Motion by Steve, second by Holly. All in favor say aye. Aye. We're adjourned at 7.47.

Thank you.