The October 13, 2025 meeting of the planning commission of City of Canon Falls will come to order. Roll call. >> Johnson >> here. >> Douglas >> here. >> Here. >> Fox
>> here. >> Novak >> here. The agenda is before us unless there are any additions, subtractions. Motion to approve tonight's agenda. Don't all jump in at once.
>> Douglas move. Second. >> Second. >> Not second. All in favor? I >> I oppose. Nay. So moved. Minutes from September 8th, 2025. Motion to approve minutes.
>> Motion by Nova. >> Second by Douglas. All in favor? I >> I nay. So moved. Public input. And everybody who wanted public input had a chance to sign up.
Public input is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the planning commission. Public input will be no longer than 30 minutes in length. Each speaker will have no more than three minutes to speak. Speakers may address topics re
relevant to the governance of the city. Speakers must sign up in advance and must provide their name, address, topic they intend to address. Comments must be on topic, respectful, pertinent to city business, and adhere to the applicable
data privacy rules. Any speaker that violates these rules will be asked to sit down, and if the speaker refuses to comply, they may be removed from the hearing. Speakers shall not address topics that are the subject of a public hearing. All such comments shall be made
at public hearing. Planning Commission will not generally act on issues raised by the public input, but may choose to schedule consideration of the item on a future agenda. We have two people signed up and
hi good evening. My name is It always happens when I get up here and best check Boseer. I live at 6658 296 Street East in Canon Falls. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Uh first, I appreciate all the
many hours the planning commission and the council members and the city staff have devoted to understanding the this proposed data center. There's an endless hole, black hole of information goes on forever and ever about data centers to digest.
And we finally gotten to the point here where there's some tangible benefits for the community. And these were by presented by track at the work session that was held on October 9th. Unfortunately, these benefits only became known just weeks before the application deadline.
With such a short timeline, what engagement can citizens have to be informed of, understand, and question the benefits that were presented, and also to be able to ask and communicate their concerns and comments to the council members.
Track has been working with the city and the city council for 10 months, and they have only recently been able to put together the picture of the financial benefits. Shouldn't the citizens be given the opportunity to review these benefits? This is the time for transparency. Put
the financial benefits out there to the public in an open forum. Let's talk back and forth so questions can be asked and answered and not just answered on tracks technology park page. Let the citizens decide the trajectory
of Canon Falls. let them decide if they want a hypers scale data center in their backyard with the benefits it'll bring to their community or if they want to maintain a small small town ambiance with slower growth.
I ask you I'm asking you to recommend to put this project on hold for at least 90 days. I don't know if that's within your purview or scope but I'm just asking to get it put on hold for 90 days. Um there is no hurry on this and if if it when it
does or if it goes through it will forever change cannon falls. So the citizens need to have input. They need to decide what they want their city to look like. Oh and um do I have time left? >> About 30 seconds.
>> Okay. So I still have external concerns. Um there's no end user. attract and promise anything they want, but we still have a lot of unanswered unknowns still at this point. Uh the AUA that was completed for this project is comparable to other projects that were in North
Mano and Lakeville and they are currently in lawsuit over those because of the begged project description that meets your AUA. Also, Rosemont has a data center. Track applied to build another one. They were denied. Um, if it's so great for the community, why did
uh Rosemont have refused to have a second one? And why can't we have a town meeting? Why can't we have a town meeting? And data centers are like rabbits. One comes in, they're going to multiply. And FYI, you know, developers are going up and
down Highway 52 talking to farmers to get more land. They're getting they're going to the tractors in the harvest field. Thank you. >> We have Mike. >> I just signed up with my wife. >> Oh, boy.
>> I'll take his place. I just came in from the >> May. I'll go up with her. >> Were there any other signups though? >> That was it. >> I'm Nora Felton. my farm outside in the fat in the um flats and um my concern is
the water um wastewater treatment plant that um where it's going to the water is going to get treated and whether that water can come back to recharge our aquafer um and not get sent down the river. We don't have any delta schmelt
that we could even say that we're using the water for. So, I'm hoping that we can find a way to reuse it, get it back out into the fields. Um, and and if you don't recharge our aquifer, how much water do we know how much water it takes? Um, do we know how much steam is
coming up and how that might affect? Um, the other thing I also had a chance to look at your uh alternative ES EIS. Um, it appears that there's a lot of places in there that basically say to be determined. um when I covered the
Randolph City Council working for the Beacon, there's a lot of things I learned and one of those is that um it's very dangerous to set precedents. And if you allow a company to come in without
any specifics in its design or what you're asking for or what's required, you realize that in the future people won't have will say that you're going to have to allow them to go ahead and build whatever they want to without any
specifics as well because now you've set the precedent of allowing somebody to come in without any information about how tall, how big, how how much because all this is yet to be determined and so I would just caution you that um unless
you get more specifics about what's coming in you're opening the floodgates to whoever wants to come in in the future. Thank you. That was all uh public input. We're moving. So public input
>> over. Move on to item number six, discussion and vote. >> Item track conditional use permit plan unit development. >> Izzy is going to speak to us. >> All right. So this is just a continuence
of the planned unit development item that we talked about on September 8th. Um so again just to reiterate the planned unit development helps the city to get more stringent um par parameters on the development. So
things like setbacks, landscape buffers, landscaping, architectural design, building height, fencing, um things like that. So that's all within that uh PUD plan that you have in your packet. Just a note uh we did get it updated to the
final PUD plan. Uh and I will just note two um changes uh or the landscaping so the timing of landscaping um requiring 25% of the trees to be planted prior um
to site development. Um and then also a change regarding the solar exemption um within that PUB. So again, this is just reiterating the item from September 8th where we held the public hearing. Um, so this is a time for discussion if need be
and then a decision >> questions or John. >> Uh, nope. That was a >> okay >> pretty good summary >> questions from the planning commission. >> We had robust discussion on this a month
ago. uh developer has come back with a couple changes that I think were requested and we appreciate that. >> Is it possible? >> Go ahead, Brian. >> Is it possible for the developer or for tract, I guess, to come up and explain
this rooftop solar exemption program again? Because I I'm not sure between the chillers on top and the everything else. How much can you fit on a roof? I mean, that's
>> Yeah. And this goes back to um we had originally said that rooftop solar would not be required for any buildings because typically the chillers do go on top and and the two don't work together, but at Dian's request, she didn't want to just necessarily um make that uh
option off the table altogether. So we revised the language to say, you know, should the city and the developer determine that solar is appropriate on the rooftop, then that door is still open. So it might be that a guard gate could have solar, an administrative
building could have solar, or there could be a myriad of other reasons. So it doesn't shut the door on solar on the rooftops, uh, but it doesn't require solar on the rooftops. And this is just kind of like should the city decide at some point to have to go through a code amendment and require that all future
commercial or industrial buildings need to have rooftop solar, we need want to make sure that that's not a requirement on on this project. >> Okay. All right. >> Other comments, questions, concerns? I guess I would just want to I kind of
add um for the context for this meeting and a lot of the followup. So there were you know subsequent work session last week who went over a lot of the details. We we did go over some questions at the at a following council meeting rel related some of the concerns that were
brought up regarding the water use and and that and that you know speaking to what the the last public forum speaker said you know not having specifics is is a dangerous precedent to set and I do believe that these PUD agreements the
comp the conditional use agreement the PUD the process in which we're going through is very much setting the table about the very specific items related to this project like establishing the building heights, establishing the setbacks, establishing a landscaping
plan, upscaling the requirements for uh building design for areas that are typically built into an industrial um an industrial zoned land. So there's a lot happening in this agreement that is is providing those specifics and is setting
a a future of as a um development u moves forward. you know this is what we can consider and uh most importantly I think going into the infrastructure side of the plan it is giving us the ability to evaluate what is being proposed um
con make considerations about what they're asking for in terms of resources from the from the city and whether or not we have the feasibility to provide those resources. So that's trying to align the fit of these sorts of projects with what we have for our community and
the resources that we can we can deliver for those those uh that infrastructure so that we have the consideration of what um we need in our community for not only at the moment of the application for what we need for the future. That was a huge component of why we did our
water and wastewater studies to evaluate that that water usage and where it fits within you know our plans moving forward. So I still want to kind of emphasize or re-emphasize our position is that we do feel the infrastructure needs the water wastewater utilization
that we were discussing that are you know future part of the development agreements and I can speak more to those if there are any other questions or I intend to later in the meeting but those are those are being addressed. >> Thank you.
And and I'll I'll put a little aside also. Um I have very consistently from the beginning of this process uh expressed my opinion that I did believe a data center was in the best use of of
you know property or industrial use in our town and I consistently voted not to have data centers as a conditional use in this one you know after they apply. However, going forward, uh the majority of this board and I'm assuming the
majority of the city council board will approve this uh cup and uh and it is our job then to support the majority as go along. And so my my goal from here on in is to look at all
of these uh subsequent agreements um and make sure I think they're in the best interest of the town. And uh I you know you with the work that's been done on this PUB I am very supportive of moving forward with it. >> Any other comments, questions?
I guess I'll I'll try to keep this on topic I guess but I I think I think push back from the public I think that makes sense. I think it's an unknown. I think Canon Falls itself has not done much in the last 25 years for growth. I just
think that's kind of where where we're at and where where we've been. I think without push back, I think if we just would have said yes to track right away, I don't think we we'd be in a very good position as we are today. I think we're in a a very good position based off of our push back. I think our staff has
done a good job. I think we've gotten benefits for this community that weren't given to us right off the bat. I think we've negotiated our best or they've negotiated their best. I'm comfortable moving forward with this. That's where I was a week ago and I'm a
lot more comfortable today. So, I guess I'd have to agree with Chris. I went and I've talked with the city. I've talked with track. I've talked with a lot of people and it just seems like just to get this going
doesn't guarantee that there's going to be a data center going in. Basically, we got to get the development going to see where we can go to get this hand. So, I'm thinking we do need to think about the city future and the city future is I
don't think farming. I don't think it's going to be to for the city to maintain itself. We need to broaden our horizons a little bit. And I think based on what I've found out about data centers and I've heard the negative and I've heard the positive, but I think in this
situation we need to at least start the first step and progress and see where we need to go. >> Comments? If not, I would entertain a motion to recommend to the city council uh for approval
uh resolution 2025 09 for the PUB. >> So moved. >> Second approved. >> Moved by Noach, second by Fox. Further discussion? All in favor? I I oppos.
>> So moved. Item B, uh, variances to certain provisions of the final plan stage under section 1523 JD to defer submission of final
architectural drives until site plan review stage for each phase of development to defer submission of final engineering plans and specif specifications for streets, drainage, utilities, and other public improvements until the site plan review stage for
each phase and to extend the one-year construction commencement requirement to accommodate the long-term phased buildout of the project. So again, these are the variances from September 8th. Um, as Diane just stated, those were the three variances that
track is applying for. Again, they are being applied for due to the phase development. um that this project is so being able to align with procedural requirements of the city's development process along with the phase development. So these variances help to
align those two entities together um to create a smoother process. >> Questions I guess uh Bill perhaps or maybe John do any of these var variances put us at a disadvantage? I mean, I get why they're asking for phase construction, whatnot,
and delaying of construction past year makes sense to me. It just it doesn't put us at a disadvantage at all in your opinion? >> No disadvantage. But I think by not doing them we would be because then we would be forced to
try to we forced to either deny something or or slow the process down or stop the process where it's when we know in well in advance that these things are going to take take time. Just the lead time for equipment and and orders and the size and scope of of what this
development is just do not align with what our standards have been. um not to say that you know this is opening the door for all projects so you know have this ability to have this exception they would have to you know meet kind of muster that same level of scope for even
us to to consider this this isn't just a blanket variances are not variances are very much case by case um and this and in this case there's a lot of reasons to bring them into consideration okay thank you
>> other questions Entertain a motion to uh send resolution 2025-10 to the city council for approval. >> Motion to approve. >> How about that? Moves. >> Second. >> Second. Further discussion. All in
favor? I >> I >> oppose. Nay. >> So move. We move on to item C, preliminary plat to create two developable lots as well as an outlot that will be dedicated to the city for the construction of a water
storage tank and to facilitate the preliminary design and construction of offsite water and wastewater facilities needed to serve the site. >> Uh again, same preliminary plaque from September 8th. Um the plary plan meets
the requirements um for the city for water, off-site water, wastewater um and dimensions of the lot. So we already held the public hearing on September 8th. So we're looking for any discussion that you may have on the preliminary plant and then a decision um on this
item as well. And just uh on the I know the engineer had added a couple comments on that in terms of little things like delete proposed on the El and all that. >> Yep. There are a few conditions um from
the city engineer that are on the resolution for this and then also comments from the Dakota County Plaque Commission. So went through both of those processes to get outside um information for that plaque. So those would be conditions upon this
resolution. >> Further discussion? >> Couple things I noticed, I guess. So first off, uh the provision for the well, is there a provision in there that So it does say like, hey, in in terms of if there's an emergency, track can use the well. Is there a provision in there
that says like they can use the well until it's because they have to pull a permit with the DNR to use that well in the emergency. Is there a provision in there? basically says once that emergency is done, boom, water's shut off from the well. >> So yeah, I I believe the process would
be they'd have to get the approvals in advance with the NR just to change the use because right now it's an agricultural based uh well. So they they'd have to apply for that well in advance just to to say, hey, these are the conditions in which we would we would use the well. So there would be
parts of those elements in that decision- making that DNR would consider like okay what what are you going to use this for? How much water? What are the circumstances that happen? So if when our emergency circumstances then that the only time
they can they can use it based on our other agreements are if we cannot provide them water. Um so then once we can provide them water again the wall is no longer homes. I mean, it's not that it would be capped in perpetuity because I think there's conditions that right
over the life of this project where that might happen, but I I don't foresee us leaving it on when it's not. >> Can I kind of ask a follow up to that? Go ahead. >> Um I know we've got a limit of 43
million gallons per year. that yeah that is what's in the development agreement as >> uh but if if because at I think Thursday meeting Bill had said something about we do have the ability if they exceed that shut it off that wouldn't trigger that
emergency use of the well water would it then or what >> there would yeah so I would say speak to circumstances in which they're exceeding their our their allotted amount and we we move to to disconnect them I think there would
there. It's probably lots of circumstances going on. So likely a drought situation in which DNR is there that well use is going to be low on the priority and they would probably not be allowed to to do it. So in in terms of a hypothetical scenario where those things
could happen. Now I think if they if the end user not claiming track but if the end user were to say well we want just want to use whatever we want. we're going to push the city into a situation in which we uh you know we're we use more. That wouldn't work either because
they're limited to less than in based on our agreements with the township, they're limited to 41 million gallons a year is like the max or 40 40 point something million gallons a year is the max allocation they could even apply for. So their their commitment was to commit to using less than what's already
being pulled out of that that appropriation permit today. So it it doesn't really it wouldn't make sense I guess in terms of >> logic other than not to have to pay it but then they're putting themselves at
huge risk in terms of the DNR company saying the same thing that we would I'm like like we said in the meeting the other day that we would work through lots of ways in which we're going to get compliance and reported to not exceed the allocated amounts in terms of you
know fines and whatever but if if they're running up been using way more than we ever have. Like we have that ability to to turn it off. >> Yeah. I got one more here and stay with me, I guess. Uh in exhibit B, it says
that we're going to figure out our four street sewer upgrade by January 1st, 2030. >> But then in B4, it says we need to get all the sewage out to the or the water wastewater stuff out to them no later than August 19th, 2029. Is that Does that make sense?
>> So, yeah, >> the dates don't line up, but >> yeah, we can we can speak to that. So, there's kind of two different parts of this project. >> Okay. Two two projects. The fourth street project as a city project. Uh the other extension, the 2029 one is a uh developer-led project, I'm sorry,
developer paid for project that we will be doing as a city, meaning we will publicly bid and they will pay the city back. So, two separate projects. >> Yeah. And so, in terms of Forest Street, we're already doing that was what we talked about the last meeting, >> right? I would I'm just assuming we're going to tie into four street with this.
>> So, >> but it's okay that we're getting done with Fourth Street later then. >> We're already and we've already made the consider the plans that we're developing for Fourth Street are upsizing the pipe in order to accommodate this expansion. So, we're we're doing that now.
>> Yep. Um, and we're doing that now in not specifically on the assumption that this project was going to be done, but because the relative costs versus what we have for resources in order to pay for it made sense to do it at this time. Great. >> No, I just wanted to make sure the dates
lined up and that was that. >> Other comments, clarifications needed. Yeah, John, just checking or even the city on this new water storage tower. Is it going to be benefit people besides
just the data center area? >> Yes, that's correct. So, the Yes. So, the water storage tower will be a whole citywide part of our whole citywide distribution system. So, it will have it will be located on their site because they're dedicating the land land for it.
And that land dedication makes sense relative to where you would site a tower like this and how it would serve the surrounding community. Um, so that makes a lot of sense that it's cover kind of covers a couple couple areas for us. So, that's why it's a benefit to have the
land dedicated so we can put this tower on it. So but it will water from that tower will flow to all all parts of that zone of the city. So you know water towers don't serve 100% of the city. The distribution systems have various zones
in which they they operate out of but this one will you know serve primarily the industrial park area on the north end of town which you know does hold our biggest water users. And right now I would say the one of the most beneficial
parts to this is specifically on the risk mitigation that having that tower will definitely give us the better a better means to provide fire protection for that area. We can provide fire protection. We do have the flows going to that that that zone, but they are
coming through booster pumps that are coming off of the wells. And those booster pumps when they're running for regular use, they're those are fine. they operate just you know no problems with in terms of providing pressure delivering water to those end users. If
ever there is the need and that we had to you know fight a fire and use the hydrants to do so we would flip on a different pump that has such high pressure that if they're not opening all essentially all of the fire hydrants in
that area of town the pipe every main pipe would burst you know. So then you you don't worry about it because you're addressing the the bigger issue crisis at hand of putting out the fire and then you fix the pipes later. But that that in of itself is something we can't test
for. We we can't turn that pump on at at one point and make sure it works. So by doing this definitely, you know, creates a situation where that fire suppression ability through our our hydrants and everything that we do provide in town definitely is much more redundant and
much uh more uh I think confident in terms of our ability to to serve that that area >> and isn't that area the progression isn't that where the city is looking to move also in the future for commercial or >> burn? Yes. in in our current comp plan
which obviously is something we're going to discuss later uh at a council at the council level but in terms of updating that next year but likely in terms of the infrastructure that we're developing yes I mean industrial use if needed and
demand demand is there would grow that direction so that tower would would definitely be beneficial in facilitating future development um towards the north and northeast areas of our of our community. If I got to add one thing, another big part that maybe goes
unnoticed is we only have one water man going out to our industrial area and with this project part because track wants redundancy themselves. So that water man they're putting in not only serves them really it serves our whole industrial area. So now we have redundancy. That's a big benefit to the
city. It's maybe been kind of a minor item, but to me it's it's a really big item. So it's a it's a real big benefit to the city to have that water. Yeah. those those risk factors of like the the fire suppression pump single source for for water manes are definitely pieces
that on our side they they they matter they matter quite a bit and they may not be noticeable but it's it's things that we consider you know when we're talking about projects and developments and just on an aesthetic viewpoint is it going to look like the one up on the
hill do you do we have an idea >> we have all the ability to design it however we need to to right now our commitment is a a million gallon tower but even that we'll you know we'll have to assess and and look at what the what the need need is growth potentials are
you know the various factors that it but I think with the the resources that would be aligned with this development agreement to construct that tower um it gives us a lot of um flexibility to to you know build something that will look
aesthetically appealing um in ser and and have you know very good function as Other comments, concerns? This is both for Okay, we've got uh is there a motion to
recommend a city council resolution 2025- 11 with those stipulations, amendments? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Second. Okay. Uh so a motion by not second by
Nobach. Further discussion all in favor I >> opposed. Nay. So move my paper away. Um information time. No action required. Uh the development application development
agreement. Is that John or >> I can introduce? So no action is required for this. It is just an introduction of the development agreement. So no approval or denial after after this. Um I will defer to
John to kind of give all the details specific for the development agreement. >> Thank you. Um so we did uh add this memo uh tonight. We'll leave you know copy and it'll go into the record as well. Um
so this does outline a on a broader higher level um with some specifics in terms of the actual allocation requests um the water wastewater and other items that are are needed for infrastructure
uh from uh related to this development agreement as well as um financially who would be paying for those improvements. what timing of when um those agreements are going to be um paid
for or started in terms of construction. So, um really this was a a big part that we didn't have a lot of these we had the framework for a lot of this but we didn't have a lot of the final uh details a in place at the time in which
we were um we we discussed the the other land use elements at the last meeting. So, it is I think it is fortunate for the city and the planning commission and the council to have, you know, worked to more of these details by the time that we're making these
approvements that that just the recommendations for approval that just happened. So, I do want to uh specify specifically, you know, with table one, what we tried to outline in our studies were what were our ability to provide water without having to make major
infrastructure improvements. So we wanted to figure out what is our capacity today. How much water do we have? How much are we using? Um how much can we uh increase in terms of that that um service to to users? And then on the back end, how much can we take in in
terms of of uh wastewater and treat um within the the existing plant capacities and permitted capacities that we we have based on our agreements that that are in place. So, and then back to what tract was looking for in terms of the
allocations. They're very much uh proposing this to be coming in on phased phased uh timelines. So, that was back to that kind of that variance conversation and why these things kind of need to have we need a little bit more runway in order
to kind of get things proposed. So while the final number for a full phased out development is 43 million gallons a year which as we uh saw I think one one good example that was new that was presented in the um work session last
week was that equates to within a 6 mile radius less than 1% of the appropriated use uh in terms of of water use from any sort of DNR appropriated purpose that's city canops egg wells um you residential
wells any other user it's less than 1% of the total overall water use in 6 milei radius of the of of the site um it is 1% of the use of the actual water use from what's gets reported reported back to the DNR that's on the that's the with
the full capacity and that isn't even in the plans and timeline for 10 years so that's a 2035 uh target date for for that so and while you do see The numbers in the first column being going from
165,000 gallons per day to 1.35 million gallons per day. These are max. These are the absolute kind of worstc case scenarios ability for them to uh draw water in in times when we're seeing extreme heat or having extreme needs for
for their cooling purpose. Um I think another valuable piece that was discussed in the work session and why I want to reiterate it here is that um they talked about data centers have you know kind of two primary end spectrums of cooling water cooled to electric
cooled or dry cooled and that likely based on the allocations that are requested this would do some level of combination hybrid systems of using some levels of of water cooling to some levels of electrical cooling. So I think for us that provides a lot of assurances
that they're going to want to stay within these allocations. They're not going to want to exceed them because the enduser agreements are going to be prohibitive for them to do that. As we said, we would be working with them in terms of fines to ultimately if you do not comply, we have the capacity to turn
that off. So the other element and I just want to make sure is emphasize that both for the water and the wastewater is that these are still well within our allocated amounts um for and and just in in table two and why we put in the what
we would offer or what we be able to do these are with our planned na a planned natural growth for our community. So take track out of it. But what we could reasonably assume is for our growth not not based it on our past growth and and
changes because we haven't seen much of that. But if things are going to progress and we are going to see some natural development happening in our community where could we end up in in 10 to 20 years and we wanted to preserve that capacity that is accounted for in these agreements. So what you see in
table two is what we said we would be willing to allocate while still reserving these these amounts of water and wastewater for our own purposes for natural development, residential development, commercial development, other industrial development. So those things were taken into consideration and
what we could reasonably preserve for ourselves without having to make major infrastructure investments. So that was why in terms of where we ended up with this agreement and these development terms, I think these are really good things for the city because we are not
investing huge sums of money on the backs of our current users to provide this increased allocation. There's no increase. It's well within what we have today. So we've already invested in these systems. We've already invested in these capabilities. Everything new from
this point forward is def defined and said the mains that are going to serve their to serve this site water and sewer those are going to be paid for 100% by the developer. The water tower as I as I said it is not 100% used for track. So
we were feeling uh equitable and saying that there's a fair share of this. That is the city's responsibility. We know we can't put 100% of that. So that's why we didn't draft it as 100%. We drafted it to commit to. And I will say this, it's not in the memo, but I will say the
number that we've agreed to is $5 million to pay for that that tower. And that will be paid at the time when a building permit is filed so that that money is in hand and we have shity that a project is moving forward and that component of the tower is being paid
for. on the sewer side where it's different is that our plant compat we're not adding changing um any other components to the plant. the plant is what it it it is and in our assessment process we've determined that the plant
needs improvements. And if we were going to any other large-scale developer and they were coming onto our system as a new user, we would likely do the same thing and and say, "Hey, you're coming into our system. We're determining that your request for for what you need for for this service is within what we can
provide, but in order to keep the rates fair for you moving forward and for the rest of the community, we would like you to invest into that system based on this percentage." and that is the the dollar amount in which we've determined um is what we're asking for is a capital
improvement charge to be paid. So likewise at the time of the first uh building permit there's an amount um the total amount it I will say is 1.6 million and we're determining how that amount is going to be paid in the final development agreement stages. So there
are between those two items we are receiving capital dollars to one pay for this tower which I will say um to the plan rest the planning commission council has become more in tune and aware to this because we've talked about in our budget budgeting plans a need for
something in water storage is is going to have to take place the current water storage in that area of town um like I said before is booster stations for this for this area but the rest of that north end of that also could be served by this is coming from a a reservoir that's in
underground and that underground tank is about 50 years old and definitely in need of of major work and rehab. If this development wasn't happening, that's what we'd be looking at doing. We'd be investing huge sums of money likely to, you know, up to upwards of a million,
who knows how much more to determine uh how to make that continue to be used for for a long period of time. We would be paying for that as a city. So there's a there's a responsibility of that cost that we're we're already planning for and we've already in our preliminary budgets for next year already allocated
some resources to do that. Now, if this agreement goes through and it's approved by the council and everything it falls through in the plans, then we can we don't need to do that and this tower, we can move all of our plans and designs into this tower and um still serve the
city uh with with that capacity and we can abandon or remove or find another purpose for for that other reservoir. So, that was a a reason and component of why it's not necessarily just 100% on it. Um, these were things that we went back and forth in terms of trying to
find the most equitable, fair thing for both the developer and us. But I do feel like $5 million in the time in which this is going to be built is going to um be a very large contribution towards towards an overall water tower. So that
that in terms of that um one last piece in terms of dollar amounts that I will speak to tonight is on the uh park dedication fee. So within our ordinances already, we do have a park dedication fee of $2,000 per acre for development and industrial uh areas. And that is
another commitment that is um that tract is willing to pay for and that one is is more on a uh earlier time frame. So um in lie of them dedicating land that could be turned into a park, they're paying that that fee and that total would be $494,000.
Thank you, John. Uh, any further, as I said, this is information only and I think it speaks to our desire to be kept informed on what's going on and to be re reassured and and hopefully that people of Can Falls and surrounding
areas uh can also look at that and have more clarity at least on what is happening. Just to get confirmation on what you're saying, John. So that 43 million gallons per year, that's on the assumption that
they're fully utilizing uh water for cooling purposes because you mentioned dry cooling options, right? Where if they wanted to utilize a mixture of both, but this is under the assumption that 100% of that cooling is utilizing water. >> No, no, no. they that they're they would
have 43 million gallons of wa of water to be allocated to use for cooling purposes. Um what we uh you weren't in the work session on Thursday, but what they what was presented and maybe Trish if you wanted to speak to it um is that they would likely use some sort of
hybrid style system that uses some components of water cooling and additional components of of dry cleaning. It isn't 100% one or the other. they would look to kind of blending the two to optimize it because as they explained and maybe you want to talk about it but um water is more cost
effective water cooling versus electric cooling so that um by using the the resources that are allocated to them they have a more cost effective style >> it just it's for like making coffee too right >> yes oh yeah there I mean there's yes a
small a small amount that would be used for for just domestic >> now let's get to the important things that you need water for. >> So, so essentially if if they get close to that 43 million >> or that $43 million mark or 43 gallon mark, they could switch off to another wave of cooling to make sure
>> they could they could just go to strictly dry cooling if they've over overutilized their their water. >> That's fine. >> Okay. He did a great job. I mean, >> I'm I'm just repeating what I heard. So, that maybe it's a testimony that I can listen. My wife should be watching this meeting.
[Music] Other comments, questions? If not, uh, the next meeting is not even on here. Um, at next month, second Monday of next month, >> November 10th. >> November 10th.
>> November 10th. >> November 10th is the next meeting if if needed. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Move to adjurnn. >> Move. Second.
>> Second. >> Seconds to adjurnn. All in favor? I.