Okay. Um, would you want me to answer or address some of the questions brought up in the public comment piece? I think I I can certainly Yeah, if you would like to. I know a lot of the audience members left, but this will be on YouTube and we also will have the work session on Thursday if you
would like to. I think yeah there's some there's definitely some concerns of our ability to respond. I know in the planning commission meeting a lot of questions were asked um the way that those things played out like we weren't able to answer them. Um what we're alluded to on Thursday is our joint work session that we have again with the
planning commission which is a public meeting. Um but thisformational only know actions decisions that are at that time but our chance for us as council and the planning commission to ask a lot more questions of the developer and the and the application they have and we
will have more defined terms from the development agreement that we'll be able to share at that time. So that is a big part of the questions that were were that came up and why you know we don't have we haven't presented because that development agreement wasn't in a phase
that I felt was we've reached tentative agreements um or in in a position where we have that after a meeting today um I think I feel like we're a lot closer um to a point where we can talk about the terms in which we have agreements there
are things yet to be finalized so um primarily going focus on Anna's questions because they were succinct and um you know direct. So one water use um as we've discussed in what we've presented in our in our studies there is
a cap within the the um development agreement for water and and sewer. So water distribution sewer uh collections. So on the water distribution side the the requested amount is at the end point of development. So this is a 10-year
development plan. At the end year, end of 10 years, 43 million gallons per year is the is the cap of which water that they can they can draw from the city. Um just as an I think it's it's interesting um the circumstances that are aligned to
this. So the property that they are intending on purchasing has an irrigation well on it that has an appropriation for 41 million gallons per year. So that well as part of our annexation agreement cannot be used for
their purposes unless the city has a organ an emergency use in which we cannot provide them water for a period of time. We'd have to notify them. There would have to be a lot of things in place. They in addition to that they have to get approval from the DNR to amend that permit so that they can use
water from that well in order to to use it for this purpose because it's changing use. going from agricultural irrigation to something different. So they got to get permission from the DNR as well as there has to be very specific emergency only circumstances in which they can draw out of that water. So in
effect that well goes away our allocation you know fills up 43 million over a 10-year period. So there there is a cap on terms of use on the sewer side within the the most recent request. The end um distri
collection amount on an average is 50,000 gallons a day. So a lot more water on the usage side but a lot less coming back to us on a per day basis. Back again to the studies that we we conducted. This was a very important reason why we did the study so was to
understand what our systems can use that is well within the capacity of our existing sewer treatment plant for how much water we can take on and be able to treat from them. So in terms of how that water is actually used, what it's you know the cooling purpose, the systems that they they have, a lot of those
things are way past our ability today to to predict or determine what they're going to be. But in terms of setting a cap for water and sewer, those have been set within the development agreement at this point for our purposes from the staff side because I know council you
have not been a part of that. Not to say that you can't have input. You should have input and you should, you know, if you have concerns about that, that should be addressed on Thursday because we have time to change them. Um those those are the amounts that we're at for
water and sewer. Uh shy bond. This is probably the thing that we have been at the table and most um in back and forth discussions and is not yet to the to the final stage of completion. But what we want to ensure is that within this uh
pro project there are infrastructure needs for the developer to be delivered to the site. So one is infra is the main the water sewer means to get to the site on at the site we have been discussing having a water tower constructed. So
they would dedicate land for us city to then construct a water tower on on the property. Additionally, we have a new user that would likely be what we call a significant industrial user coming onto the system. They would accommodate that even though it's still 50,000 gallons
per day, that's still going to be a lot a high level user for us. And what we've talked about is instead of them being charged a higher rate than everybody else because they're coming into our system, if we can get a forward contribution to that, that would, you
know, offset any need for us to build them more. So what we would be asking them to do is what we call a capital improvement charge. So paying us in advance for the improvements that we're going to have to make at the at the sewer plant just because of its age. It's 25 years old. On the tower side,
what we're asking for is a specific dollar amount that's paid. What we're at right now is when that is going to be paid specifically and then what guarantees are there assurityity um about the pro the the payment of that amount when the project gets approved.
So those things are still on the table being discussed and where we're trying to trying to get finalized. John, will those numbers be public by Thursday? Yes. Okay. So we can't share them now, but you can share them on Thursday. Uh yes, perfect. What's going on on Thursday? We're having that joint session work
with track 6:30 right here as well. So um not again it's a work session is a public meeting so the public is will able to attend but it's not necessarily what yeah we won't have a public input session. We don't want a public hearing. It's primarily information for the council and planning commission members
to ask questions of the developer. Uh the infrastructure for using it purpose. Yes. is the answer. So if the infrastructure is there to serve the site, it can be utilized for for purpose. The the pipe in the ground is not specialized the case. It's it's
crafted in a way or designed in a way to handle um you know high levels of flows and and then some um but is not you know it's not specifically built for data centers. It can be used for many other things. So if this doesn't work and the land stays within the city, um it is
right now it it's in the process of being zoned towards industrial, it is in our compland as as a planned area for industrial expansion. It's adjacent to our industrial park. Um like likely that would be a style of use um that could potentially be out there if this project
doesn't move forward. the noise pollution um as part of our agreements and the and track has agreed to these and these are in the process of the land use decisions that are still at the planning commission stage. Uh noise pollution any noise is governed by uh
MPCA. Uh as we talked about recently with um an IUP for a local person operating out of their garage um creating noise. be that the MPCA actually on this instance is something that they would respond to if there's complaints they would study it and they
would address it. So there would be mechanisms in in which if they are generating noise that are exceeds the levels allowable from the MPCA into various zones residential. So if it crosses from this industrial into the residential and it exceeds the
thresholds that MPCA and the state have established then there are repercussions. they do have to do mitigation measures to um alleviate that noise pollution. So they cannot do that. That is MPCA governs that that law. We do have noise standards of our own. Um
however ours are more vehicle related than they are an industrial related purpose and ours are above right now the MPCA thresholds in which this situation would govern are actually more strict
than what our standards are. So we would you know defer to them to uh to manage that. However we can support them in the enforcement of it and it's part of our agreement. If they don't meet those or if they exceed those and they violate that and they don't have mitigation strategies then we can revoke their
conditional use taxable income. Um, as this project has gone on from prior to my start, there has been no discussion ask for, well, maybe there was an ask, but it never has come up in my time here of a tiff
district, tax financing, tax payment, no tax dollars from the city going to subsidize this project. Track has never asked for that. they have mentioned that they, you know, may um leave that to the end user to be able to ask for things,
but I have clearly and 100% every single time that's been brought up retract said this council at this time has never been in support of tax dollars going to incentivize this project. None. They have also um discussed in it uh a
contribution for a park dedication fee based on our our current plan which is a $494,000 um onetime park dedication fee based on our code and within this development agreement there is a uh dedicated
contribution to the school district. Will that number be able to be shared on Thursday or Saturday? you want to talk with the school district before we we say what that is. Um that was what we committed to to being able to um so that and I if
they're you know I have to predict the future which I don't like to do. I don't think the appetite for this council or future councils are going to be a big large scale end user coming in to work in this data center that they're going to offer or accept or you know entertain
any sort of tax increment. that is a big portion of what we've looked at and where these funds have come from. Um that is some additional information that I'll share. Track has done a um they have done their uh presented from Ernston Young a u tax a
taxable market values uh impact study. Um I reviewed that Laura and I re uh saw the presentation discussed making sure that hey are all the assumptions that are going into this correct because Minnesota is very complicated and I feel pretty confident in what I saw and that
what they've listed that those are correct. I've done then compared that to my own analysis for what you know I can project. Obviously this is very um you know future future based. These are things we don't exactly know. Um it's it's kind of at some points it's just
like throwing darts at the wall while you're spinning around in a circle with a blindfold on. Um but to my best knowledge I would say that they're pretty accurate in terms of we so that's something I've I've shared with council and we can talk about more on Thursday.
The last two items that she brought up are the energy costs and the financial aid for utilities. Um uh so in terms of the energy costs we heard from Dakota Electric and Great River Energy that their strategy working with developers like this is that they also pay their
way for the infrastructure that they are they're the ones contributing to this cost so that it does not impact the rates of future users. Now that one thrown back in my face anytime I talk about it but that is what they were told. That's what we are told from the people that would be providing the
energy, the ones that are, you know, setting the rates for them. We set the rates on the water and sewer, they set the rates on the electrical side. John, can I add to that? Yes. So, I actually I called Dakota Electric and got in touch with their engineering division. And I was told by them that all costs will be upfront paid for by
tra um with upgrades uh in respect to request to whatever the system is. And they're paying for transmission distribution. And that's what I was told by Dakota Electric. So echoing what you just said. So in terms of if that's the case then
back to our water side and our uh development agreements and why these these funds and and you know things are there to pay for this work is so that we are not pushing this cost back onto our users in the system that they're paying
their way for these improvements that we can then take their consumption at the limit limitations that we are establishing on it plan for that to be incorporated within our existing system and plan for that within our capacity to
expand the system um naturally whatever growth we do have that was part of this you know efforts of the study that we conducted back earlier this year so that we still have existing capacity so we are not jeopardizing future users we're
not jeopardizing existing users from being able to receive water from us and send their you know sewer back to us for treatment That has been a very important element in every conversation that we started with and I will say I will give track a
lot of credit on they've heard that and they've incorporated that into these allocations in the press and this is all really quick and just not only the cost like with electricity isn't it also true that um use of that electricity the
residents are priority over industrial So it's not not even the money. We're not going to have an outage just because they're using too much power. We have priority over industrial use. And that's Yes. And that is governed by the public utilities commission and the
other regulatory agencies over that. And we also address those. We any state regulatory agency that has uh in influence over track in the data center in the project they have to meet those. If we are not satisfied that they are
not meeting those standards and guidelines, we can revoke the CUP. We can take this this away. If they are not doing that, that is that can be that is part of the the agreements. That is what tract is asking. So to Laura's point, I mean I I believe we asked the code electric when they
were sitting here, you know, what about blackouts? What do you think or is this going to happen? And they said they would not overcommit to the system. This is their and when I talked to them, they said this is their first one on their system. They and they and they have standards that they have to meet in the plan of of increasing and providing this
that they they have to again they cannot just add to more power because this is a high-end user at the sacrifice of they have regulations they have to so the financial aid uh for the utilities is not something that we
however I feel that based on this plan if accepted and approved that is something that will put us in a position in which our rates are absolutely not going to go up. Understandably, this development is going to take a long time. So, there are going to be there's
going to be a lot of time before, you know, the users are are coming into full full fruition. Their a lotments are, you know, expected and to be in phases. So, they're not asking for the full 43 million gallons in the first year. They have caps in which the first couple years are lower.
So we will see be able to anticipate and plan for where those rates need to be. The way our current system is and with the kind of excess capacity that we have both on the water side and the sewer side, it is in theory very possible that
by them coming onto the system and staying within these limitations that they are that they're not they're re the revenue we would receive from those water consumptions and sewer distribution back to us are higher than
the cost of the operations. which they're going to, you know, it's going to take to serve that. So therefore, back to that that chart that Clinton showed, you know, inflation outpacing uh revenues, it's the opposite. Revenues
outpacing operating costs. If that is the case, that is absolutely something we can look at and explore and build into our rate structure, you know, and if nothing else changes, if everything stayed status quo of today and we add that into the system, I would say in
confidence that you could lower your your water and sewer rates. How much? I don't know. That's not the answer. benefit. In theory, if you're budgeting for that and then these you have now new revenues that are outpacing your expenses, in theory, you can lower.
Say question for Thursday. Are we and maybe you already covered this and apologies if you did, but you know, one of the questions that I've seen a lot is like are they going to be held to like obviously you said they're going to be capped at X number of million gallons. if they go over is that that's in the stipulations and and the agreement and
all. Those things aren't yet in the agreement. Those are things that we would have to determine like what are the circumstances in which you penalties if you but those are something we brought up. Yeah. we brought up with them
and we're discussing because track's position is that you know not I guess not they're the developer not the end user it's like you know so maybe housing development selling homes to to somebody else like they those are things that you know likely we would put into the significant
industrial user agreements that we would have um with whoever that that final user is of the of the park. So, we may not I I will say I'll admit this one, we may not have that final answer, but that's something that absolutely is on our on our radar. It's not something
that will be forgotten. Any other questions for John? I just wanted to make a couple other points too is that, you know, this this site will be served by Dakota Electric where a majority of the city is actually served by Excel. We have a small sliver
of um like the northern part of town where residents are served by Takakota Electric, but a majority of Canon Falls is actually served by Excel. Um so if that helps um satisfy some of the questions with the brownouts or you know
people worried about that type of a thing. So I wanted to make sure that that was cleared up. Um the other thing um as far as some of the other costs or um concerns that maybe um maybe it was I know that it was addressed very early on
when we were um when this project was coming out into the public and now that it's gotten more attention maybe it hasn't been um resurfaced. But you know there's also the escro agreement too where you know our attorneys that have been you know working on this um our
engineers that have been putting time into this you know any other consultants that have been engaged have also been you know covered under an escro agreement too. So you know the city is you know the the time that's been put into that too has been covered. Um so it's it's not on the city. So, I think
that that's another important thing that um is is put out into the public as well. Thank Thank you for pointing that out. Yeah. Thanks, Laura. And thank you, John, for all the your work that you've put into this project. It's been what, 10 months going on now.