The proposed Archer Data Center faced strong opposition from local resident Piper Nelson, who voiced concerns about its minimal contribution to the community and potential negative impacts. Nelson argued that the data center’s job creation would be limited due to automation, contrasting it with the Geneo Turkey plant, which provides more employment opportunities. She raised issues regarding tax abatements for the center, which would enjoy sales tax exemptions for 35 years. Nelson warned of the risk of obsolescence and questioned the promised benefits, cautioning that such projects might never deliver on their economic promises.

Energy consumption was another topic raised by Nelson. She pointed out the data center’s anticipated daily usage of 120 megawatts, although there was ambiguity about whether this figure referred to megawatt-hours or megawatts. This level of consumption, combined with the use of diesel generators for backup power, appeared to contradict the city’s recently adopted energy action plan, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and community energy costs. Nelson further highlighted the facility’s expected natural gas capacity, which runs counter to the city’s efforts to limit emissions from such sources.

In addition to economic and environmental concerns, Nelson addressed the potential for increased living and utility costs due to the presence of data centers, drawing on examples from across the United States. Her remarks underscored the broader implications for Faribault’s residents, urging the commission to carefully weigh the long-term costs against any potential benefits.

The meeting also saw discussions around resolution 2025-301, which proposed a permit parking system for Henry M Square. This resolution became a focal point of contention when it resulted in a tie vote, effectively blocking its approval. The proposed system involved a 25-year lease for permit parking, with permits managed by the developer and public parking available outside business hours. Concerns were raised regarding tax liabilities and the inclusion of construction access language, which led to calls for careful handling of the agreement.

The debate over the resolution was marked by differing opinions on the lease’s duration and the need for thorough consideration. Some participants expressed reluctance to approve a long-term commitment without further discussion. The potential for unforeseen tax obligations and the need for flexibility in response to developer or tenant changes added complexity to the discussions.

There were procedural challenges surrounding the resolution, including confusion about the ability to reconsider it after the initial vote. One participant requested a recess to review the resolution, highlighting the limited time available for research before the meeting. The possibility of a special session was mentioned to facilitate further dialogue and ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the agreement.

Following the recess, the commission revisited the resolution, acknowledging that neither the developers nor the tenant had reviewed the draft before the meeting. A representative clarified that the draft incorporated previously identified issues, though any substantial changes proposed would require further review. Eventually, a motion to reconsider the resolution was made, allowing it to be brought back for further discussion.

In addition to these topics, the meeting covered other matters, including the strategic plan for 2025 and the Ivy Hills Senior Center expansion application. The strategic plan, presented by the city administrator, outlined priorities and goals for the coming years, emphasizing collaboration among city officials and employees. The Ivy Hills Senior Center expansion involved a zoning map amendment and various permits to increase capacity, with adjustments made in response to resident feedback.