You guys are killing me. You have you have staff's phone number. >> No one else came to the front. >> Incredible. And then that's the Ladies and gentlemen, we call the Tuesday, July 14th, 2026 Fable City
Council to order. First item is a roll call. >> Council member Barnes >> here. Dumbuya. >> Ross >> here. >> Rowan >> here. >> Here. >> Teal >> here. >> Mayor Spooner >> here. And pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
>> Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Item number two is approval of the agenda. Anybody have any comments? >> So moved. Seconds. >> Motion by Ran, second by Vance Loose.
All those in favor of the agenda signify by saying I. I. >> I. All opposed. >> It passes. Item three, presentations and introductions. We have not. We'll move on to number four, approval of the minutes. June 23, regular meeting and
close meetings. Uh June 23rd, litigation strategy, special meetings. July 7th, special council meetings. We've had a lot of meetings. All those I'll entertain a motion. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Ross, second by Barnes. All
those in favor signify by saying. >> I. All opposed. Motion passes on to number five. We only have one tonight. Karen Zeller. Come forward and please state your name and address.
>> Yes. Karen Zeller, 1901 Crystal Lane. Hello everybody. I'm the only one this time. Um I want to start off by saying I agree with you Tom after last uh session that we had u listened to you guys talk
that we do need facts. We need to know what's happening here and what's the future? you said what is the future of data centers and where are we headed and that's basically what all of us want to know what's happening with this stuff and also that's why I really feel a
moratorum two-year moratorum is important um that in two years we should have a much better idea of the ramifications of these data centers and the what are what do they bring to our community in a positive and also what
are the negative ramifications of something like this. Are they going to be obsolete? How how how soon will they be obsolete? I mean, Elon Musk is already uh planning with SpaceX. He's planning to put data centers in in space. That's his plan because of the
cooling. Um in three years, is that going to be achievable? I don't know what happens to our data center if we if you guys approve it. It's obsolete. We have to maintain this enormous structure that could cost millions of dollars, at least thousands of dollars a year to
maintain it. What about all of the environmental destruction that will have happened in that amount of time? um uh economist Rick um he says that cities are treating data centers like a free gift when in reality for a
city a small city like ours it is an inter an eternal obligation which has the potential to destroy the city in terms of the environment and everything else also the taxes somebody's going to have to pay to maintain these things
once these billionaires move on to something that looks better and brighter in the future You know, my mom always said that you should take your a news a paper and fold it in half. On one side, you put the pros of an of an idea. The other side you put the cons. And when the cons far
outweigh the pros, it makes a decision much clearer and much easier to make. And I think that's where we are right now. Um, finally, I I just feel like the city council should be incorporating the ideas from the townships in something this massive,
mainly because the people who live in the townships are going to bear the first brunt of all of this, the destruction of the environment, the chemicals, the noise, the light pollution, and the drain on the Jordan
aquifer, which we all need. We need the Jordan aquifer. Not only us, Northfield, Oatana, uh, Pine City, everybody. Pine Island. I mean, we all take water from that. And how much? 3 minutes. >> 30 seconds.
>> 30 seconds. All right. I got THROUGH JUST ABOUT THE WHOLE THING. I'm amazed. Um, I tried to condense it, but one last thing is I cut this out of the Minneapolis paper. It's controlling that PAS plume generated by uh 3M 3M and the
settlement agreed to do uh clean up Oakdale. They didn't agree to clean up the whole state. Unfortunately, the PAS is moving like a flood toward the St. Croy and it's going to take 4.4 million to try to put a barrier up and to
maintain that barrier is going this is the annual cost 12.3 million to 82.8 million. Where would we get that kind of money? >> That's my last question. Thank you once again. >> Thanks everybody. It's been a pleasure.
>> All right, that closes that out. On to item six, consent agenda items. We have 6 A through 60. Would anybody like anything pulled for discussion? >> I'd like to pull item J. >> What's that? >> Item J. >> J.
Would you like it pulled? >> No. I'll make a motion to approve A through I K through O >> second. >> Second by Ross. >> I have a motion by Ron on 6 A through 6
I and 6 K through 6. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. All opposed. The motion passes. 6J. John Ran, what is your question or comments? >> None. I can't support it. Okay. All
right. >> So, >> want to make a motion? >> I make a motion to approve 6J. >> Second. >> I teal. Second by Van Sloo. All those in favor of 6J signify by saying I. >> I. All opposed.
>> Nay. >> All right. Thank you. That passes. No public hearings tonight. 6A ordinance 2026-9 amending the regulations of cannabis and hemp business. Others select us.
>> Mayor and city council. At the June 23rd city council meeting, the council approved the first reading of ordinance 2026-9. Since that time, there's been no comments or changes to the ordinance. So staff is recommending approval and then a subsequent um approval of the
summary publication. Miss >> any questions for Heather? >> Mayor Spooner. >> Yes. >> I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2026-9. >> Second. >> This is an ordinance. We have a motion. Let's have a roll call. Council member
Barnes. >> Hi. >> Ross. >> Hi. >> Rowan. >> Hi. >> Venus. >> Hi. >> Teal. >> Hi. >> Mayor Spooner. >> Hi. >> And approval of the summary of this ordinance. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Mans. Second by Ran. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
>> All opposed. That passes. Item B, resolution 2026-196, approval of plans and specifications to establish a bid date. Mark Duche. >> Thank you, mayor, council members. Before you tonight is a resolution to
approve the plans and specifications for the Two Rivers Siphon Box improvements. This is city contract 202508. Uh this siphon box is located at Two Rivers Park. It carries sanitary sewer waste from kind of the northwest area of town underneath the Canon River and over to our wastewater treatment plant. Uh
siphon box was originally constructed in the '9s. It's showing significant degradation from hydrogen sulfide gases that have eaten away the concrete. We don't know what the pipes underneath the river look like. It's not easy to camera them because we constantly have to have maintain that flow through there. Um but as you recall through a process of
evaluating a feasibility report and look at different options we did settle on the option of replacing both the siphon box and the receiving box on the other side of the river and the pipes in between with a new modern system that will be tolerant of the hydrogen sulfides that are present in that line.
Uh the estimated cost for this project is just over $1.8 million and the resolution before you tonight does establish a bid date of August 5th. Uh, this project will be funded out of our sanitary sewer enterprise fund. If you recall a couple months ago, we did come forward with a resolution asking for
support to apply for a US EDA grant for this project and another project. Um, further investigation and review with the US EDA. This project was not going to score well, so we stopped pursuing that grant on this one. We are still working on the other one at this time,
but there's also a lead time on these siphon boxes of up to six to nine months. So, we anticipate we need to get this project bid now for construction likely in the spring. There's a chance somebody a contractor may have availability late fall or winter to drill the new pipes underneath the river, but the full siphon box being
complete and operational will likely be next spring or early summer sometime. So, with that, I'll ask answer any questions, but we are recommending approval of resolution 2026196. >> Any questions for staff? >> Yeah, mayor. Thank you, mayor. Uh, director, was this in the budget? >> Yes.
>> Perfect. Thank you. No more >> anything else. >> Entertain a motion. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Teal, second by Barnes on resolution 2026-196. >> Signify by saying I. >> All opposed. That passes.
On to the next one. Item C, Ry's Foods at 1910. Variance on a developers agreement. Harry Davis, planning manager. >> Yes. Thank you, mayor. Good evening, council. Um, so just probably take a
minute just for it to load up. There we go. Okay. So, the uh item in front of you is a variance in a development agreement for Ry's Foods. Um, it's Ry's Foods LLC. Uh, they make quite a few frozen pizzas and a few
other things. Uh, the applicant for this project is Brad Moore. Um the location for this is actually their facility behind HIV at 1910 Fifth Street Northwest. And the variance in front of you is for a side setback uh for a new
addition. Here's the property in relation to Highway 60 and the interstate and downtown. And then the property a little bit more zoomed in with an aerial uh outlined in yellow.
the vacation or sorry the uh variance for this project um it's to allow uh an 11 foot side setback when a 15 foot sideback would be uh 15t side setback would be required. So the variance would be 4 feet.
Here's a uh like a somewhat of a of a of a diagram of the property. Um the area where the variance is is uh dashed in blue. So, it's on the east side um adjoining another industrial use and um
you know it we're we're giving a little bit of leeway for this particular project and saying look you know we'll just have it at 11 feet for the side setback rather than you know 11 feet and like 2 in um just to just to provide some grace. And here's what the project will look
like. It's a building addition for this property. This property was built back in the 50s. Um, and so they're trying to make use of an existing building and to improve on it so that uh, Ry's Foods would be able to stay uh, both within the city and within this uh, building
and and continue to use it for a while. So it you know generally in terms of variances we're looking at something called uh is there practical difficulty in trying to meet the um code and also is there uh you know some sort of unique
circumstance that is coming out of this variance request and what we can say is that you know the current property owner and business are are really trying to make use of this property. They're trying to uh extend the life of both the existing building as well as their business uh that's located here since
the 90s. Um and this addition would allow them to uh not rework their entire interior in order to try to accommodate what the uh what this addition would do, which would be dry storage. So, it's it's a better setup for not only their
business uh but for the property as well. Um, you know, in general, we do feel like that this meets the comprehensive plan as well as our zoning uh requirements and planning commission did vote unanimously in favor of this project. So, I actually need two uh
motions tonight from uh from you all. One is uh for the first part which is the variance that's resolution 2026-198 again that approves the variance request and then the second one is uh 2026-199.
So, this is a developers agreement. This supports the variance and just make sure that we're not running into any potential parking issues going into the future resulting from this addition. So, uh with that, I'm happy to take any questions. >> Questions for staff? Mr. Ross. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um Mr. Davis, did
anybody evaluate the drainage between the two buildings when we're narrowing the space up? Are we anticipating any drainage issues at all or? Yeah, we're we're currently not anticipating any drainage issues and engineering which is part of storm water uh their storm water
review the they will be reviewing it for that. >> Okay. Is there green space between them or is it hard surface >> um >> buildings? Trying to remember offhand. I think that it is green space. Um, I know that there is the um hope in the future
to have some sort of uh exterior access point along that side and I think that's probably for fire reasons if I recall correctly. Um, so I believe that the applicant is here if you if you do want >> No, that's that's fine. No, as long as um I just want to make sure that we look
at the uh the drainage so that we're not creating a problem, you know, 5 years from now that we'll have to deal with. So, as long as uh we're going to evaluate the drainage, I'm good. >> Yeah, they are providing storm water facilities on site. >> Thank you.
>> Questions? >> Make a proposal to um pass ordinance or I'm sorry, resolution um 2026-198. Second >> motion by Barnes, second by Ross. All those in favor of resolution 2026.
>> I all opposed. Passes on to the next one. Any >> a motion. >> Mayor Spooner. >> Yes. >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2026-199. >> Second. >> Motion by Ross, second by Van Sloo. All
those in favor of resolution 2026. >> All opposed. That passes. On to item D, resolution 2026-206 postponing the decision on the need for the environmental impact statement for
archer data on a farable campus. Jessica Kinszer. >> Yes. Uh Dave Wineberg is here if you have any specific questions, but uh um since this was discussed heavily at the work session um last week uh and the memo in the packet really includes a lot
of the history of how we got here. I'll be brief in my statements of following the court of appeals ruling. There really were were three options. One which we didn't think was advisable was that the city had the option to appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. That one was taken off the table pretty early as
as not um advisable. Um the second one uh was to um require a discretionary EIS. Um but that is not the path that the council directed at the work session. What was directed um was to allow Archer data centers at their
request to pro uh have until March 31st of 2027 to update the EAW with the information that the court of appeals deemed was missing and any other information that would have changed from the time that that EAW was initially um
prepared in early 2025. And so that is what is before you tonight. Um this will essentially resolve the litigation and the resolution tonight would be filed with the court of appeals as showing the decision that the council made as a result of um their their opinion
offering two paths forward. >> Questions for staff. >> I just want to go on record and say I'm going to support this but I actually want to be on record saying I wanted the environmental impact statement but court
needs this. So, we got to move forward. >> Uh, we can still do the EIS after March. So, that's that's why I'm in support of this. So, >> that that is correct. Um, so ultimately when they provide things back, we'll
have our third party reviewer review. Um there will be I'm assuming a work session and then uh basically asking probably making a recommendation to the council with what to do at that point in sometime in 2027.
>> Right. Any further questions? >> Mayor Spooner. >> Yes. >> Make a motion to approve resolution 2026-206. >> Second >> by Ran, second by Barnes. All those in favor
six signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. All opposed. That motion pass. >> Under resolution 2026-207 authorizing development performance.
Yes, this was also a very big part of our work session discussion as well as the request from Archer data saying that they were going to have a difficult time completing an EAW um if there were not specific performance standards that were established. And um to the non-planner,
if you look in our um unified development ordinance, we have uh a number of performance standards for a number of business uses in our community where we've said we think we should be a little bit more strict than where this would be allowed or have some other requirements. So requiring performance
standards on a data center is not outside the boundaries of what we already have performance standards on um in our community. So, this is this is not something new and and a lot of uses actually do have uh those additional performance standards um placed on them
through our ordinance. Um in talking with um the city attorney following the work session, uh council member Barnes had made a a request to have the environmental commission be part of the performance uh standards um process. And
so we decided rather than adding that into the resolution that was to resolve sort of where where we stand with the court of appeals and filing with the court of appeals um to basically do this as a separate resolution that would direct the the performance standards to be developed and direct that the
environmental commission be part of that process as well. So that is what the separate resolution is. >> Any comments question? >> Just a point of clarification. So, it was mentioned earlier that a two-year
moratorum, somebody would like that. Um, but of course, there's no provision in law for two years. It would be one year if the council ever went down that path. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Uh, thank you, mayor. Um,
I hope I can word my question in intelligent manner to get past what I want to say. Yeah. So, do we, huh? Um, we have we have quite a few businesses that uh come to come into town, buy
land, as long as it's properly zoned, they put up a building, as long as they don't need any variances or any cups or anything, they never come before us. So by developing these performance standards,
could we be setting up that situation where a data center could come to town by properly zoned land, fit it into the box of our new new um parameters here that were the
performance standards and never have to come before us. I don't know. I don't think that's a a yes or a no because the performance standards aren't developed to really apply to what where where something
could be located in the community. Generally, I think um what you would be looking for Yeah. >> Oh, ahead. I'll I'll add >> I think I think it's it's hard to say when we're looking at doing something that places further restriction beyond I2 without knowing what those further
restrictions would be. Um I think probably the the bigger thing is, you know, platting is typically where there might be something that has to come forward if somebody's buying a a green field type of property. Um that that would be the thing that would come before the council before any
application of any other standards. >> Yeah. Because my my concern is that we we create the standards as of today and this is cutting edge technology. So whatever standards we create today, I have a feeling they may be outdated in 6
to 12 months because the technology changes so quickly. So I'm wondering are we always going to be just chasing this? Is this an ordinance that we're going to have to change every year? Or that's my concern is is that I don't want to establish something that makes it
honestly quite simple for a company to come in and build one of these things without coming before us. >> It's I would say it probably is more about a location that would be selected and the site readiness of it. Um,
>> but we've already zoned it or we've already require um I2. >> Mhm. >> So the the zoning's out of it because that's all the only place they can go. So what I'm saying is they could come into an I2 by the land and if they don't
need any variances or CUPs, could they just build it based on our performance standards that were >> I I would say the platting is the thing that would be a is a plat going to be required. Um and that would be the thing that would come before those other items as well too. So uh even if they hurt
made it through those those hurdles, if there was a plat a plat would still go before the planning commission and to um the city council for uh preliminary and final approval. >> Okay. >> I have a comment. As long as we got Harry Davis sitting here, isn't it
something in our standards we could require this as a conditional use as uh we require in the have conditional uses for this data center that we set the standards of what? >> Mhm. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. Um to answer your question, if you know we could put in the performance standards that if a property is within I don't know x amount of feet of a residential property, you know, a a property used primarily for residential.
Um yeah, you know, we could we could require a conditional use permit at that point. Um that is that is an option for us. >> So we could set the standard so high that incredibly tough to build. without coming before us.
>> Correct. >> Because that's the key is, you know, >> I think in this situation on >> the same page with you, >> you know, I just I I hope the council kind of understands where I'm going with this and that by by saying what the standards are, we could have somebody come in, meet all the standards, and
just go boof and build it. >> So, we're just authorizing the development of said standards. We're not approving said standards. >> Correct. There would still be a significant process with the planning commission through work sessions and ultimately um public hearing um as well
as then uh the environmental commission where we'll have to talk about where that's going to fit in with the statutoily required planning process and then ultimately comes back to the council for adoption. So this is this is not going to happen in a short term um
and we'll have much public deliberation. Barnes, >> great question, Council Member Ross. Um, I appreciate coming from I get it and I think it will be an evolving thing. I think each person and each um business
is unique and we need to cater to that and also give each of them a fair shake. Um, I just wanted to read off the environmental commission. Um, it was established in April 17th of 2020. Um, city council created environmental
commission upon the passage of ordinance 2020-3 adopted on February 25th, 2020. The purpose of the commission as given in the ordinance is to advise the city council on environmental issues and opportunities affecting the city while
respecting the city's economic and social environments. And just a reminder reminder of our mission statement as a city. The city of Fairbolt in harmony with residents, businesses, and institutions serves to connect with our community, ensuring a clean, safe, and
vibrant livability. I think this is a perfect union um of the two commissions and I look forward to what they come up with. >> Great. Any other comments, questions? Mayor Spooner. >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution
2026-207. >> Second by Barnes. All those in favor. >> I All oppose. That motion pass. Thank you. On to item nine, bids, resolution 2026-207,
lead service replacements. Director Travis Block. Thank you, mayor, members of the council. As tonight's resolution before you is to approve the or accept the bids for the lead service line replacement project city contract 2026-10.
Bids were received on June 17th. We received five bids for the project with the low bid coming from Wel Construction Oatana for 479675. You can see uh three of the bids were below the engineers estimate with two of them being slightly above.
The uh cost and funding of the project cons including construction engineering and a contingency is 755421. Funding for the project is to be provided by grant funding from the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority in the amount of 1.375 million.
At this time, upon pending approval tonight of the contract or awarding the contract to the low bidder, the water fund will fund the project order until a project order is established or executed with the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority in the fall. What this will do
allow us to uh put a bid package together for additional lead line replacements to try and maximize our grant funding. And in recent conversation and communication that our consultant had with the department of health, they suggested that we if we're going to pursue that action to do that in a timely manner so that we can get
that project going. Then in the fall, then we will have two essentially two agreements executed, a master agreement that will allow us to uh go for any lead service line project now and in the future. And then each time another project comes in, then a project order
for each individual project. uh tenative schedule then where we're at tonight is awarding contract. We'd be looking to begin construction fairly quickly here in August and then with substantial completion of this phase in in October of 2027 and then final completion in 2028 that is essentially
it's when the funding would be need to be expired by that time. So, if you have any questions, I'll take those. Otherwise, I'd recommend approval of resolution 2026-204. >> Questions? >> Right. Mayor Spooner. >> Yes.
>> I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2026-204. >> I'll second. >> Motion by Ross, second by Ran. All those in favor of resolution 2026204. Signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. boards,
commissions, reports, announcements, one administration. >> Yes. Um, and just looking at the the budget schedule, we forgot that, you know, national night out on August 4th is not going to be a work session. Um,
at this point, I do believe we will have a special work session on July 28th following the regular council meeting um for some additional budget stuff. um hoping to kind of keep away from that first week in August. Um though I can't
fully commit at this point that that first week in August we won't be looking at a work session for another reason. So um that is that is kind of where things are at. Um we are still planning to have on July 21st um so an agenda that would be coming out uh this Friday. Um,
basically the here's where we're at for a preliminary levy and just sort of some initial run through of what things look like and more conversation and getting some direction from council on where to go. >> All right. Anything else?
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. Second. >> Motion by Ross, second by Vance Loose. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. I.