The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda - 10/07/2025 (Workshop Jt CC-PC)AGENDA WORKSHOP – JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION October 7, 2025 – 4:45 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center City Councilmembers: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Kip Christianson, Charlotte Gabler, Tracy Hinz, Lee Martie Commissioners: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Staff: Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Matt Leonard, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier, Anne Mueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Review and discussion on draft amendment to City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance to define and regulate data center and technology campus land uses within the City 2. Adjournment Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop – 10/07/25 1 1C. CONTINUED WORKSHOP: Review and discussion on draft amendment to City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance to define and regulate data center and technology campus land uses within the City Context The City has been evaluating land use regulations for data center development in Monticello, following a series of inquiries for potential data center development in the community. In reviewing the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan in response to the inquiries, city staff determined that the 2040 Plan did not clearly identify how data center uses fit within the City’s plans for future growth. As such, City leaders first need to determine whether and how to allow data centers as a specific land use within the City’s planning documents before any decision on a specific project or development can be made. Land use policy as provided in the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan and regulation language within city codes must come before any individual project can be considered for development in the community. Although two of the data center inquirers submitted conceptual information for data center development at two different locations in the community, the City cannot evaluate any formal application for land use development for data centers until clear land use policy and regulations are put into place. Throughout 2025, the Planning Commission and City Council held a series of public meetings and workshops to discuss how these unique land uses may be considered for development in Monticello. The purpose of the September 24, 2025, workshop is to allow the Planning Commission and City Council to continue to discuss land use regulations for data center uses. Staff are seeking additional input from the City Council and Planning Commission to further refine the draft zoning ordinance for data centers, with specific focus on the intent of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan and the public comments received during the hearing on the ordinance. Pending the feedback received, a revised draft ordinance will be prepared for consideration. A new public hearing will be required for its review. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop – 10/07/25 2 Land Use Planning & Authority Land use planning is an authority granted to local governments by the State and is one of the City’s primary responsibilities. Specifically, Minnesota Statute 462 governs municipal planning and zoning. Land use regulation is intended to allow local governments to provide for public health, safety, and general welfare. In Minnesota, the foundation of land use planning is a Comprehensive Plan. The City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan is the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. The 2040 Plan is the city’s blueprint for growth and is the foundation upon which development and land use decisions are based. It is the official adopted policy regarding the future location, character, and quality of physical development, and the conservation and enjoyment of the natural environment. The 2040 Plan is used by the City Council, Planning Commission, other boards and Commissions, and City staff to inform and guide policy decisions regarding land use, development and infrastructure improvements within the City. Developers, real estate professionals and property owners also use the Plan as an informative document to understand the City’s vision and policies regarding land use and development. Following evaluation and a public hearing, the City adopted amendments to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan in early 2025 identifying the land use designation appropriate to data center uses and outlining land use goals and priorities for data center development. Through the comprehensive plan amendment process, the City determined that Data Center development has unique characteristics and considerations for site selection, including the following: 1. Data Centers, particularly “hyper-scale” facilities, often consume vast amounts of land. 2. Monticello’s growth area land supply is potentially large but is controlled by the Orderly Annexation agreement with the Township, which includes a tiered level of development before expansion is allowed. 3. Monticello’s supply of industrial land is limited by service considerations, including high-capacity road access, sanitary sewer and water capacity, and land use compatibility. 4. Data Centers can create significant demands on municipal utilities, but this aspect is also highly variable, as the nature of individual facilities can vary greatly. 5. Data Centers have the potential for off-site impacts to neighboring land uses which can also vary greatly from end user to end user. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop – 10/07/25 3 6. Data Centers have highly individualized internal design requirements not easily accounted for in most common land use regulatory environments. 7. The City’s primary goals for industrial development include both employment and tax base. Data Centers can meet the tax base goal. However, they are typically more limited with regard to employment – especially employment density. 8. Data Centers remain a relatively new land use in many communities, and studied impacts remain to be fully comprehended. At the time of the adoption of the 2040 Plan amendments, it was recognized that the City would need to develop a regulatory framework within the zoning ordinance to address the unique development characteristics of data centers. While the comprehensive plan provides broad guidance for land use policy, it is the zoning ordinance and other City codes that are the regulatory tools used to implement the land use policy. Zoning Ordinance Regulation The comprehensive plan considerations noted above provide the groundwork for zoning regulations to accomplish the following objectives: 1. Accommodate Data Center development as a unique land use in Monticello. 2. Ensure the unique demands placed on the City’s services are adequately funded by the users that generate those demands. 3. Acknowledge that while Data Centers may not create large numbers of employment, the jobs created are often unique and highly skilled, and consistent with the City’s economic development goals. 4. Ensure the ongoing tax base generation that Data Center development represents, again consistent with the City’s economic development goals. 5. Create a process that is customized to the specific impacts and needs of this particular land use, irrespective of other typical zoning approaches. 6. Confirm that applications for such development provide adequate amounts and types of information to make land use and other decisions and development plans, including public infrastructure investment. 7. Verify that when providing municipal services to data center development, the City retains the ability to provide such services to both existing users and reasonably anticipated new growth. 8. Establish a process that provides for decision on land use entitlements, while protecting and advancing the interests of the City, and also respecting the needs of the developers and end users. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop – 10/07/25 4 Data centers are highly individualized development, each with their own design, construction and systems. Any ordinance developed must set the minimum expectation for all data centers to meet while recognizing that variability exists. The City’s role is to provide clear regulations in support of the City’s policy goals and then evaluate the information provided by a land use applicant against those policies and ordinances. To successfully achieve this, the ordinance must require all information needed to adequately address the City’s goals. It is specifically the developer/applicant’s responsibility to provide information on their specific project and impact as part of any land use application process. The Planning Commission held two workshops in July 2025 to discuss an ordinance approach and provide input on the components of a proposed data center ordinance. The second workshop was held jointly with the City Council. A draft ordinance was developed based on the 2040 Plan amendments and workshop discussion. The draft ordinance was presented for consideration to the Planning Commission in August and September and a public hearing was held on the draft ordinance. A significant amount of public comment was taken during the hearing, and the record includes written comments. These are included with this agenda for reference. Development Proposals A prospective developer of a data center campus concept has requested that the City evaluate the environmental impact of development of land as a technology campus including data centers. The development scenario requires an environmental review process outlined by state statutes and rules. The environmental review is a separate process from the land use policy and regulations being considered by the City. The environmental review documents are intended to inform future decision-making on land use applications. As noted above, the City cannot consider land use applications or decisions for data centers until an ordinance regulating the land use as guided in the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan are adopted. SUPPORTING DATA A. Ordinance Outline – PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT B. Reference – Data Center Example Site Images C. Reference – Setbacks, Building Height & Floor Area Ratio D. Xcel Energy Interconnection Process Information E. Excerpts, Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan F. MN House of Representatives File No.16 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop – 10/07/25 5 G. MN Pollution Control Agency – A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota H. Floor Area Ratio Guidebook, Metropolitan Council I. Public Comment, Written J. August 19, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda K. September 2, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda 1 DRAFT | AUGUST PUBLIC HEARING 153.045 Industrial Base Zoning Districts Data Center Planned Unit Development (DCPUD) Zoning District Purpose. The purpose of the Data Center Planned Unit Development (DCPUD) Zoning District is to provide for, and regulate, Data Center development in appropriate locations, specifically within areas that are otherwise designated for Light Industrial Park land use in the Monticello Comprehensive Plan (2040 Vision + Plan), as it may be amended. Definitions. Data Center: A facility used primarily for the storage, management, processing, and transmission of digital data which houses computer or network equipment, systems, services, appliances, and other associated components related to digital data storage and operations, together with its accessory and appurtenant facilities, which may also include air handlers, power generators, water cooling systems and water storage facilities, utility substations, and other associated infrastructure necessary to support sustained operations at a data center. The term Data Center shall not include digital data computing facilities which are not the principal use of a property in extent or area but which perform similar functions. The term Data Center shall not include data mining as defined by this ordinance. Data Center Campus: A Data Center that occupies more than one building, but is otherwise interconnected by ownership or operator entity, and may include interconnection by power supply, communication systems, power generation or other operational systems to form a unified Data Center facility. This definition may include, but shall not be limited to, “Technology Campus”, “Cloud Computing Center”, “Information Technology Campus”, and similar phrases and terms. May include data management or storage buildings, offices, and ancillary support buildings and structures including secure and controlled entrances, and perimeter fencing. Approval Criteria. No land shall be zoned as DCPUD unless the planned unit development is found consistent with all of the following factors, or if inconsistent, where the City Council specifically finds that the design of the facility has mitigated any inconsistent location factor. (a) Land is guided as Light Industrial Park in the City’s applicable Comprehensive Plan. 2 (b) Land is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) District in the City’s applicable zoning ordinance if currently annexed to the City of Monticello. (c) The DCPUD will be served by City sanitary sewer and water supplies for specified data center demands and will not create shortages in the capacity of the City’s sanitary and water supplies, or create an inability to provide adequate utility service in other existing or planned areas of the City, including the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. (d) The DCPUD will be adequately served with electricity supplies for the specified data center demands from the local electric power supplier, and demonstrates power supply capacity to existing property owners in the City and planned areas of the City, including the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. (e) The DCPUD will provide adequate vehicular transportation facilities to serve the project and will adequately extend such facilities to serve adjoining future development areas. (f) The DCPUD will not displace other land uses the City deems important for the stable, long-term growth of the community, including other industrial lands or the City’s industrial development goals. (g) The DCPUD will provide identified benefits, including the creation and maintenance of tax base, and will avoid negative impacts such as those identified in this section, over the long term. (h) The DCPUD identifies and demonstrates adequate compliance with the provisions of this section and State law for exterior impacts perceptible from the boundaries of the facility, including but not limited to those for noise and lighting impacts. (i) All applicable State Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health, and Department of Transportation requirements are met to the City’s satisfaction. (j) The DCPUD will not conflict with other elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Permitted uses. Uses allowed in the DCPUD are as follows, subject to the procedural and performance standards of this District, and all generally applicable standards of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance: (a) Data Center (b) Data Center Campus (c) Accessory buildings and uses 3 Accessory uses. The following accessory uses are allowed: (a) Appurtenances, or support facilities such as outdoor generators, mechanical or electrical equipment including substations and transmission structures, or similar elements. (b) Accessory Motor Vehicle Parking, subject to the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section §153.067 per Parking Schedule #2. (c) Signs, subject to the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section §153.064. (d) Other site development improvements regulated by the “Finishing Standards” of the Zoning Ordinance in Sections §153.060 – §153.070, except as otherwise prohibited by this Section. (e) A use that is subordinate to and serving the principal use and customarily incidental to the principal use. Prohibited uses. The following uses are specifically prohibited in the DCPUD: (a) The use of cargo containers, railroad cars, semi-trailer containers, and other similar storage containers, or any building that does not meet the building standards of this section (b) Commercial wind energy systems (c) Commercial telecommunication towers as defined by this ordinance (d) Ground solar energy systems (e) Data mining as defined by this ordinance District performance standards. Any application for amendment to the zoning map to rezone land to DCPUD under this Section shall be considered incomplete if it does not address each of the items in such a way as to provide the City with sufficient information to properly evaluate each element in this Section. Any deviation from these standards requires approval of a variance, which shall be reviewed in accordance with §153.208. (a) Any application for DCPUD shall be accompanied by a proposed Preliminary Plat subject to the application and procedural requirements of Chapter §152: Subdivisions for Preliminary Plat and shall only be developed on land subject to said Plat. The Exceptions as found §152.007 in are not applicable to the DCPUD. (b) The minimum floor area ratio (FAR) for the DCPUD and any individual phase of the DCPUD shall be .25. (c) The minimum setback for principal and accessory buildings and appurtenant structures shall be 100’ from any property line, except that the minimum setback shall be 200’ from any property line abutting residentially guided or zoned property, or directly abutting delineated wetland, parkland, or recreational property, which is 4 located in either the City or Monticello Township. Fences as required or permitted by this ordinance are not subject to the setback. (d) The maximum height for principal and accessory structures shall be 65’. (e) Principal building exterior finishes shall consist of materials compatible in grade and quality to the following: a. Decorative rock face block; b. Glass; c. Cast in place concrete or pre-cast concrete panels; d. Brick (f) Accessory building exterior finishes shall consist of materials compatible in grade and quality to the following: a. Decorative rock face block; b. Glass; c. Cast in place concrete or pre-cast concrete panels; d. Brick; e. Exterior insulated finish systems; f. Textured finishes on metal panel to simulate stucco or other similar treatments (g) Noise emanating from the facility, or from any appurtenant or accessory use or element of the facility, shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota pollution control standards and rules. Mitigation strategies are required to be implemented to provide assurance of conformity with these regulations. (a) All illumination levels must meet the requirements of §153.063 LIghting, except that illumination must be 0.0 footcandles at the property line abutting properties used, zoned or guided for residential, civic or institutional, recreational, or parkland uses. No external light source shall be located closer than 50’ from any property used, zoned or guided for residential or recreational uses. (b) Any outdoor facilities or equipment such as generators, parking and private circulation areas, other mechanical equipment, security chain link fencing, or any other similar outdoor facilities shall be fully screened to 100% opacity when viewed at comparable grade from abutting property used, zoned, or guided for residential or recreational uses, and from the public right of way. Screening may be accomplished through individual or combination use of fencing or walls meeting the materials requirements of this ordinance, landscaping, and/or berming. Buildings or building wing walls meeting the materials requirements of this section may also be used for screening. Chain link fence with slats shall not be used for screening purposes. 5 (c) Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from the adjoining property lines via screening walls or parapets. (d) A landscaping buffer shall be installed around the entire perimeter of the DCPUD and maintained for the duration of facility operation per the applicable planting requirements of this chapter. The required landscaping buffer shall be installed and completed with each phase of development. (e) Fencing or walls shall be constructed of maintenance free fencing or brick, stone, masonry or decorative concrete. (f) Chain link fencing may be used for security purposes and shall be black or black coated vinyl and shall not include slats. Linear barbed wire is permitted on the top of such fenceline. In such case, screening to 100% opacity must be placed between the security fence and property line. (g) The facility shall provide parking for employees or service personnel at a rate per §153.067, Parking Schedule #2. (h) Except as provided in this Section, the DCPUD shall comply with all other requirements of this Ordinance. (i) Substations within the DCPUD shall be subject to the following: a. Must be located within the DCPUD; b. Must comply with the setbacks as established herein for all abutting properties which are not zoned DCPUD; c. Must comply with the lighting standards established herein; d. Must comply with the buffer landscaping requirements of §153.060 e. Electrical transmission lines extended to the substation are not subject to §153.065 Underground Utilities; f. The number of substations serving a data center or data center campus are limited to those necessary for operating the data center or data center campus exclusively. (j) In addition to the standards of the Section, all other provisions of the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations shall apply to the facility, unless otherwise exempted. With regard to specific zoning district standards, the requirements of the DCPUD zoning district shall apply. Where the terms of this Section vary from the zoning and subdivision regulations, the requirements of this Section shall apply. DCPUD Initiation of Proceedings. Requests for DCPUD development stage, rezoning to DCPUD, and DCPUD final stage shall be initiated by application of the property owner or other person having authority to file an application pursuant to § 153.027(B), Authority to File Applications. 6 DCPUD Application. (a) Applications for rezoning to DCPUD shall be subject to this section and shall not be subject to the Specific Review Procedures and Requirements of this chapter for Planned Unit Development. (b) Applications for DCPUD Development Stage Permit and DCPUD Final Stage Permit shall be in accordance with this section. The application for DCPUD Development Stage Permit and DCPUD Final Stage Permit shall not run concurrently. (c) Applications for Preliminary and Final Plat as required by this section shall be submitted in accordance with § 152: Subdivisions for Preliminary and Final Plat. (d) Rezoning to DCPUD does not revoke, rescind or otherwise render as not applicable the requirements of this ordinance for any applicable overlay district effective at the time of annexation and as required by State law. (e) All other requirements or provisions not specifically provided for by this section or otherwise exempted shall be as per City Code. DCPUD Development Stage and Rezoning Submittal Requirements. (a) Project narrative, including: i. Existing zoning district(s) and land use designation of subject DCPUD property area and all adjacent lands within 350’ of the subject DCPUD property boundary; ii. Statement of how the project will meet the Approval Criteria and District Performance Standards as required by this section; iii. Proposed phasing of full DCPUD site development, including number of phases, development timeline, and FAR of building within each phase; iv. Listing of all required federal and state permitting and current status of permitting; v. Maximum building height for any proposed principal structure on site; maximum height of any additional appurtenant or accessory structure on site; vi. Description of proposed building materials for all principal and accessory buildings meeting the requirements of this ordinance; vii. Square footage calculation of full usable/buildable area within the DCPUD; viii. Maximum building coverage within the DCPUD site improvement boundary; ix. Estimated building square footage within the DCPUD site improvement boundary by phase; x. Total maximum impervious surface coverage within the DCPUD. (b) Proof of title in a form approved by the City Attorney; 7 (c) Legal description of the property for which the DCPUD is requested; (d) All information required for Preliminary Plat as provided in § 152.040; (e) Certificate of survey illustrating the DCPUD property boundary; (f) DCPUD site improvement plan(s), including: i. Citation of the proposed name of the project, contact information for the developer and individual preparing the plan, signature of the surveyor and civil engineer certifying the document, date of plan preparation or revision, and a graphic scale and true north arrow; ii. Minimum setback requirements as required by this section; iii. Layout of proposed lots with future lot and block numbers; iv. Area calculations for each parcel within the DCPUD property boundary; v. Outlots planned for public dedication and/or open space; vi. Easements and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the subject DCPUD property boundary, including detail on ingress and egress from the subject site to abutting or adjacent public right of way;; vii. Location of all electrical substation and transmission equipment located within the DCPUD; viii. Location, width, and names of existing and proposed streets within and immediately adjacent to the subject DCPUD property boundary and all connection points to public right of way; ix. Proposed sidewalks and trail connection points to public rights of way and any planned public sidewalk and pathways; x. Area calculations for gross land area, wetland areas, wetland buffers, right-of-way dedications, conservation areas, and proposed public parks; (g) Graphic depiction of site development phasing plan by acreage over the full DCPUD property, including proposed public utility easement corridors and/or rights of way; (h) Delineation and functional assessment of wetlands and/or watercourses over the DCPUD property and within 200 feet of the perimeter of the subdivision parcel; (i) Delineation of the ordinary high water levels of all water bodies; (j) Grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared by a registered professional engineer, providing all information outlined in § 153.069(C); plans must show existing contours at intervals of two feet. Contours must extend a minimum of 200 feet beyond the boundary of the parcel(s) in question; (k) Traffic study evaluating: i. Traffic volumes for passenger vehicles during normal operations; ii. Traffic volumes and routes for construction traffic during each phase of site development; iii. Any insufficient street or intersection design pursuant to project; 8 iv. Likely routes and frequency for commercial vehicles; v. Proposed location of pathway, including sidewalks and trails, connections through or along the site perimeter to ensure system connectivity to DCPUD boundary (l) A study that identifies both City and private utility supply and demand on the relevant system. Such study shall include water, wastewater, and stormwater system information, and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the proposed facility can both (1) be adequately served by the existing or planned capacity of the utility, and (2) will not impede access or limit service capacity to those utilities by other future users in the City’s planning and service territory. i. Provide a specific utility phasing plan which demonstrates alignment with the proposed development phasing and timing; ii. Any deficiencies identified by the study shall be accompanied by a mitigation plan, including financial mitigation. iii. The study shall provide for extension of all public facilities, including utilities, roadways, pedestrian facilities, and other such public facilities to the extent of the property boundary as determined by the City Engineer and approved by City Council; (m) A fiscal benefits statement, estimating the annual property tax generation from the project by phase, including a detailed analysis of City property tax share per Minnesota law. The fiscal benefits statement shall include an analysis of the projected cost of any public infrastructure necessary to adequately serve the project as identified above by phase, or to ensure that the infrastructure required by this Section is adequately accounted for, and the applicant’s proposed contribution is sufficient to provide such public service demand; (n) Statement, study, or permit provided by the electric utility provider which demonstrates adequate capacity for the DCPUD and which details any impact to local or regional power supply; (o) Any other information as directed by the Community Development Department required to evaluate the specific Data Center PUD proposal. DCPUD Development Stage Permit Review. (a) The application for rezoning to DCPUD shall be reviewed in accordance with § 153.028(B), Zoning Ordinance Text and Zoning Map Amendments. (b) The application for Preliminary Plat shall be reviewed in accordance with City Code 152.026, Preliminary Plat Procedure. (c) As part of the review process for the DCPUD applications, the Community Development Department shall generate an analysis of the proposal against the 9 Approval Criteria of this chapter to formulate a recommendation regarding the rezoning to the Planning Commission and City Council. (d) As part of the review process for the Development Stage Permit, a Site Improvement Plan Agreement (SIPA) shall be prepared by the City following the application submittal, which details the development phasing, required site improvements, and financial impact and planning which embodies the terms and conditions of the approval given by the Council and which controls the installation of all required improvements for the proposed DCPUD. Such draft agreement shall be included for the City Council’s review and approval of the Development Stage Permit. The SIPA shall include a requirement that until the time of approval of a final stage permit, the rezoning ordinance for DCPUD will not be considered and no development rights are conferred. (e) The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and consider the application’s consistency with the intent and purpose of the DCPUD and comprehensive plan goals. The Planning Commission shall make recommendations to the City Council on the merit, needed changes, and suggested conditions of the proposed rezoning, Preliminary Plat and DCPUD development plan. The Community Development Department may forward an application to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission only if it is deemed necessary to ensure compliance with state mandated deadlines for application review. (f) The City Council may hold a public hearing on the request for DCPUD if they deem such necessary. After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and/or hearing, if applicable, the City Council may approve the Development Stage DCPUD permit or any part thereof in such form as it deems advisable. Approval of the amendment to rezone to DCPUD shall require the approval of two-thirds present of all the members of the City Council, except as may be exempted by state statute. Final Stage Permit Submittal Requirements. (a) Revised DCPUD Development Stage plans as identified above shall be updated to incorporate all changes required by the DCPUD Development Stage permit approval and Preliminary Plat; (b) All information required for Final Plat as provided in § 152.041; (c) Up-to-date title evidence for the subject property in a form acceptable to the city shall be provided as part of the application for the DCPUD Final Plat; (d) Developer shall provide warranty deeds for property being dedicated to the city for all parks, outlots, etc., free from all liens and encumbrances except as otherwise waived by the City Council; 10 (e) Developer shall provide all easement dedication documents for easements not shown on the Final Plat including those for public and private utilities, trails, ingress/egress, etc., together with all necessary consents to the easement by existing encumbrancers of the property; (f) Private covenant documents or easements necessary to implement and maintain the DCPUD as approved by the city; (g) The applicant shall execute the final Site Improvement Plan Agreement which references all DCPUD site improvement plans and performance standards, required public improvements, completion dates for improvements, fiscal impact requirements, the required letters of credit, all required development fees and infrastructure improvement payments and/or securities, escrows, and warranties, and any other information deemed necessary by the city; (h) The city shall, upon approval of the DCPUD Final Stage permit, recording of the Final Plat, and recording of the Site Improvement Plan Agreement, publish the DCPUD ordinance. Such ordinance shall create a zoning district that is specific to the property for which the PUD was applied, and shall be designated in such a way as to be able to mark the official zoning map to identify the DCPUD ordinance. The DCPUD ordinance shall also designate that such property is thereby rezoned to the DCPUD district as adopted. Approval of the amendment to rezone to DCPUD shall require the approval of two-thirds of all the members of the City Council, except as may be exempted by state statute. PUD Final Stage and Final Plat review. (a) The application for Final Plat shall be reviewed in accordance with City Code §152.027, Final Plat Procedure. (b) The application for PUD Final Stage and Final Plat shall be considered by the City Council at a public meeting, following a review and report by the Community Development Department. Approval of the PUD Final Stage and Final Plat shall be by simple majority vote of the City Council, except where State law may specifically require a super majority. (c) Final stage DCPUD approval shall occur by adoption of a rezoning ordinance for the subject property specifying the uses, standards, and other requirements of said DCPUD zoning district. Such ordinance shall include an effective date clause which may delay the effective date of the ordinance until such time as the applicant has met each of the conditions of approval required by the City Council, in addition to other requirements including publication. No approvals are valid, and no permits may be issued, until the ordinance takes effect. If the final stage DCPUD is not approved by the City Council, or the applicant fails to meet the conditions as 11 described, the ordinance shall not take effect, and the subject property shall retain its previous zoning designation. Site Improvement Plan Agreement. (a) The DCPUD, if approved, shall be governed by the approve Site Improvement Agreement; (b) The agreement shall include, at a minimum, reference to DCPUD site improvement plans and performance standards, required public improvements, completion dates for improvements, fiscal impact requirements, the required letters of credit, all required development fees and infrastructure improvement payments and/or securities, escrows, and warranties, and any other information deemed necessary by the city; (c) For any DCPUD which includes subdivision of parcels which have no direct frontage on a public street, the site improvement agreement shall require common maintenance and easement agreement. Site Plan review. Following approval of the DCPUD, development within the DCPUD shall be subject to the Site Plan review process of this chapter. Timeline for performance. Upon DCPUD approval, the applicant is required to record the Final Plat within 360 days of the Council’s approval of Final Stage and Final Plat. A building permit for a principal structure within the first phase of development on site shall be filed within 6 months of the filing of the Final Plat. If there is a lapse of more than 3 years in proceeding to any subsequent and successive phase of development as approved by the SIPA , not withstanding on-going construction within an active phase of development as approved by the SIPA, the City Council may act after the 3 year period to revoke the DCPUD, revoke the governing Final Stage PUD approval, revoke the SIPA, and rezone the land to any other zoning district, following a public hearing to be held by the City Council. Amendment to DCPUD. Approved PUDs may be amended from time to time as a result of unforeseen circumstances, overlooked opportunities, or requests from a developer. At such a time, the applicant shall make an application to the city for a PUD amendment which shall follow the same process as defined in this section for Development and Final Stage Permit. Such amendment shall not: 1. Eliminate, diminish, or vary from the minimum performance standards of this section; 2. Amend any Final Stage site improvement plan element required by this section; 3. Exceed any maximum or minimum established in the DCPUD Final Stage narrative; 12 4. Create non-compliance with any condition attached to the approval of the DCPUD Final Stage plan; 5. Create non-compliance with any term or condition of the approved Site Plan Improvement Agreement. Revocation. If at any time the facility is in violation of the conditions of approval, including terms of the site improvement plan agreement, the Data Center Planned Unit Development approvals may be revoked by the City Council following a public hearing to be held by the City Council. DATA CENTER EXAMPLES STREETVIEW MAPS DATA: © 2025 GOOGLE, IMAGE CAPTURE: NOV., 2021 AERIAL MAPS DATA: © 2025 GOOGLE, IMAGE CAPTURE: 2025 COUNCIL BLUFFS , IOWA DATA CENTER EXAMPLES STREETVIEW 1430 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY MAPS DATA: © 2025 GOOGLE, IMAGE CAPTURE: JULY, 2024 AERIAL | 1430 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY MAPS DATA: © 2025 GOOGLE, IMAGE CAPTURE: 2025 WEST DES MOINES , IOWA DATA CENTER EXAMPLES STREETVIEW 550 WHITE CRANE RD MAPS DATA: © 2025 GOOGLE, IMAGE CAPTURE: JULY, 2024 AERIAL | 550 WHITE CRANE RD MAPS DATA: © 2025 GOOGLE, IMAGE CAPTURE: 2025 WEST DES MOINES , IOWA DATA CENTER EXAMPLES AERIAL | 1497 SE MAFFITT LAKE CT MAPS DATA: © 2025 GOOGLE, IMAGE CAPTURE: 2025 *STREETVIEW NOT AVAILABLE YET WEST DES MOINES , IOWA DATA CENTER EXAMPLES AERIAL | WACO ST. ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA MAPS DATA: © 2025 GOOGLE, IMAGE CAPTURE: 2025 ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA STREETVIEW 14181 BUSINESS CENTER DR., ELK RIVER, MN MAPS DATA: © 2025 GOOGLE, IMAGE CAPTURE: MAY, 2025 STREETVIEW 18195 WACO ST., ELK RIVER, MN MAPS DATA: © 2025 GOOGLE, IMAGE CAPTURE: MAY, 2025 SETBACKS & HEIGHT CITY OF MONTICELLO BLOCK 52 | 17.5' SETBACK FROM PINE ST. / PROPERTY LINE AROPLAX | 100' SETBACK FROM CHELSEA / PROPERTY LINE 23.5' HEIGHT Setbacks : 0-100' 75' HEIGHT CITY OF MONTICELLO UMC | 253' SETBACK FROM CHELSEA RD. / PROPERTY LINE WIHA | 355' SETBACK FROM 7 ST. WTH 50‘ HEIGHT 35‘ HEIGHT Setbacks : 250'-350' SETBACKS & HEIGHT CITY OF MONTICELLO FLEET FARM | 650' SETBACK FROM CHELSEA RD Setbacks : 350'+ SETBACKS & HEIGHT 31‘ HEIGHT (SILO 65') CITY OF MONTICELLO F.A .R FLOOR AREA RATIO 516 E 7TH ST 12.79 ACRE PARCEL 1.739 ACRE BUILDING = 0.13 F.A.R 9668 FALLON 2.00 ACRE PARCEL 0.44 ACRE BUILDING = 0.22 F.A.R CITY OF MONTICELLO F.A .R FLOOR AREA RATIO 10531 DALTON AVE NE 4.68 ACRE PARCEL 1.5 ACRE BUILDING = 0.32 F.A.R 9600 FALLON AVE NE 4.05 ACRE PARCEL 1.39 ACRE BUILDING = 0.34 F.A.R Planning and Permitting Process 1 Interconnection Request Submission (requires site control) −Includes details such as voltage, load ramp, substation ownership, location, etc. System Impact Study (SIS) (approximately 9-12+ months based on queue, payment required) −Provides planning-level estimates on necessary upgrades and associated costs. Facility Study (approximately 4 months, payment required) −Offers a more precise estimate (±30%) on costs and timing. Post Studies -Transmission line extension associated permits (14–24-month process) -Long lead equipment Procurement and detailed engineering via optional Engineering & Procurement Agmt. Interconnection Agreement/Electric Service Agreement −Formalizes the commitment from both parties regarding payment and delivery. −PUC approval required −Generation needs are assessed/finalized here COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | NOVEMBER 23RD, 2020 ADOPTION CHAPTER 3: LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 5 MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 13 FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 3.3 City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Development Reserve (DR) Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC) City Parks and Recreation (PR) Estate Residential (ER) Low-Density Residential (LDR) Traditional Residential (TR) Mixed Neighborhood (MN) Mixed-Density Residential (MDR) Manufactured Home (MH) Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) Community Commercial (CC) Regional Commercial (RC) Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF) Employment Campus (EC) Light Industrial Park (LIP) General Industrial (GI) Public and Institutional (P) Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) North MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 21 Land Use Categories Acreage Development Reserve 3,100 Open Space and Resource Conservation 1,171 City Parks and Recreation 418 Estate Residential 1,102 Low-Density Residential 2,198 Traditional Residential 74 Mixed Neighborhood 635 Mixed-Density Residential 348 Manufactured Home 135 Downtown Mixed-Use 48 Community Commercial 125 Regional Commercial 433 Commercial and Residential Flex 174 Light Industrial Park 757 General Industrial 220 Employment Campus 752 Public and Institutional 268 Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 616 TABLE 3.7: FUTURE LAND USE ACREAGES Note: This acreage includes both developed and undeveloped land within the City and MOAA. MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 39 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK (LIP) The Light Industrial designation accommodates a variety of light industrial uses. Uses are characterized by a higher level of amenities not required in the General Industrial designation. Characteristics such as noise, vibration and odor do not occur or do not generate significant impacts. Hazardous materials handling and storage may also occur but must be stored indoors or screened from the public right-of-way. Activities such as the handling of hazardous materials and outdoor storage are limited. This land use designation does not include the principal retail commercial uses found in the Employment Campus and a more limited range of commercial activities. Transportation impacts which occur are in direct support of the manufacturing or production use. The Light Industrial land use is distinguished from General Industrial land use by reduced potential for noise, visibility, truck activity, storage, and other land use impacts. The Light Industrial Designation accommodates uses such as processing, assembly, production, and fabrication manufacturing which uses moderate amounts of partially processed materials, warehousing and distribution, research and development, medical laboratories, machine shops, computer technology, and industrial engineering facilities. Office uses also occur within these areas. This designation also accommodates limited local-serving commercial uses which may generate storage or noise impacts. “Computer technology” includes active technology uses dominated by office and research-oriented businesses. The Light Industrial Designation accommodates Data Center (or similar “Technology Campus”) development for passive computer storage and processing only when specific elements are demonstrated. Consideration of these uses in the LIP areas shall be subject to the following review requirements, among others as determined on a case-by-case basis: a. The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to size and scope. b. Data center use locations will not create conflict with other land uses, especially residential land uses, through off-site impacts including unusual amounts of noise, lights, odors, or other similar aspects. Data center users will demonstrate site conditions that meet this condition and are consistent with other light industrial development. c. Where data center development creates shortages in land supply, utility services, electric generation service to the broader area, or any other impacts on the City of Monticello or its neighboring communities, and which are not specifically mitigated by the data center developer and its associated partners, the City is under no obligation to accommodate the use within any land use district or location, or through any land use process. d. Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal services, infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated by the data center project and its developers, and such mitigation is sustainable by its subsequent owners, users, and other related entities. e. The data center will not inhibit future growth; it will accommodate and facilitate the extension of efficient and orderly municipal infrastructure to the edge of the development property consistent with the City’s plans for growth. f. Full and clear assurances from both the data center use and the electric utility provider that data center development will not create threats of power loss to the community, nor limit the city’s other growth and development interests in the future. Data Center development is considered against each of these factors, and other site- or use-specific factors that may be relevant at the time of any such proposal. The City reserves the discretion to determine that any location or project has the potential to imperil the City’s infrastructure, related regional infrastructure, the City’s future land use goals, the City’s various economic development goals and objectives, the City’s financial and fiscal obligations and projections, or any other reasonable area of City authority. No area guided LIP (or any other land use category) shall have an inherent right to Data Center development under this amendment. LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 40 Primary Mode Vehicular with access to collectors and arterials Transit or shuttle service Secondary Mode Shared bike/ pedestrian facilities MOBILITY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK (LIP) CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT FORM • Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.50 to 0.75 • Height: Up to 4 stories • Lot Area: N/A LOT PATTERN VISUAL EXAMPLE ZONING INFORMATION 2018 Correlating Zoning District IBC Industrial Business Campus I-1 Light Industrial District LAND USE MIX Industrial • Warehousing and Distribution • Light Manufacturing • Assembly • Production & Fabrication • Research and Development • Medical Laboratories • Computer Technology Commercial • Minor Auto-Repair • Self Storage A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota Acoustical Properties, Measurement, Analysis, and Regulation November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | www.pca.state.mn.us | 651-296-6300 Toll free 800-657-3864 | TTY 651-282-5332 This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us Document number: p-gen6-01 Authors Amanda Jarrett Smith, MPCA Anne Claflin, MPCA Melissa Kuskie, MPCA Editing and graphic design Tanja Michels PST Staff PIO Staff The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to wider audience. Visit our website for more information. MPCA reports are printed on 100% post- consumer recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Foreword The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is empowered to enforce the State of Minnesota noise rules. These rules and supporting acoustical information can be viewed in the document, “A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota.” This publication is intended to provide information on the basics of sound and noise regulation. Revised 2015 Contents Foreword ...........................................................................................................................................2 Contents ............................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 1. Noise rules in Minnesota ................................................................................................................2 1.1 The basics ................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Noise area classifications ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Common noise concerns ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Regulatory agencies ................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Basics of how sound works .............................................................................................................6 2.1 Waves and sound pressure level ................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Sound weighting networks ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Human perception of sound ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Using decibel measurements ................................................................................................................... 10 3. Measurement procedures ............................................................................................................ 13 3.1 General procedures .................................................................................................................................. 13 3.2 Noise Test Procedure 1: Measurement procedure for non-impulsive noise ........................................... 14 3.3 Noise Test Procedure 2: Manual measurement procedure for non-impulsive noise .............................. 14 4. Minnesota noise pollution statutes and rules ................................................................................ 18 Minn. Rules § 7030 NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL .......................................................................................... 19 Minn. Stat. § 86B WATERCRAFT OPERATION ................................................................................................. 27 Minn. Stat. § 84.8 SNOWMOBILES ................................................................................................................. 29 Minn. Stat. § 87A. SHOOTING RANGES .......................................................................................................... 31 Minn. Rules § 6102, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES .............................................................................................. 31 A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1 Introduction Noise is a pollutant. While its physical and emotional effects are difficult to define quantitatively, the noise level itself can be measured. Sound: An alteration of pressure that propagates through an elastic medium such as air and produces an auditory sensation. Noise: Any undesired sound. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is empowered to enforce the State of Minnesota noise rules (Minn. Rules Ch. 7030). Minnesota’s primary noise limits are set by “noise area classifications” (NACs) based on the land use at the location of the person that hears the noise. They are also based on the sound level in decibels (dBA) over ten percent (L10), or six minutes, and fifty percent (L50), or thirty minutes, of an hour. For residential locations (NAC 1), the limits are L10 = 65 dBA and L50 = 60 dBA during the daytime (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) and L10 = 55 dBA and L50 = 50 dBA during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.) (Minn. R. 7030.0040). This means that during a one-hour period of monitoring, daytime noise levels cannot exceed 65 dBA for more than 10 percent of the time (six minutes) and cannot exceed 60 dBA more than 50 percent of the time (30 minutes). A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2 1. Noise rules in Minnesota 1.1 The basics Minnesota’s noise pollution rules are based on statistical calculations that quantify noise levels over a one-hour monitoring period. The L10 calculation is the noise level that is exceeded for 10 percent, or six minutes, of the hour, and the L50 calculation is the noise level exceeded for 50 percent, or 30 minutes, of the hour. There is not a limit on maximum noise. The statutory limits for a residential location are L10 = 65 dBA and L50 = 60 dBA during the daytime (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) and L10 = 55 dBA and L50 = 50 dBA during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.) (Minn. R. 7030.0040). This means that during the one-hour period of monitoring, daytime noise levels cannot exceed 65 dBA for more than 10 percent of the time or 60 dBA more than 50 percent of the time. The basic noise rules for other noise area classifications are: Noise Area Classification Daytime Nighttime L10 L50 L10 L50 1 65 60 55 50 2 70 65 70 65 3 80 75 80 75 1.2 Noise area classifications Noise area classifications (NAC) are based on the land use at the location of the person who hears the noise, which does not always correspond with the zoning of an area. Therefore, noise from an industrial facility near a residential area is held to the NAC 1 standards if it can be heard on a residential property. Some common land uses associated with the NACs include: NAC 1: Residential housing, religious activities, camping and picnicking areas, health services, hotels, educational services NAC 2: Retail, business and government services, recreational activities, transit passenger terminals NAC 3: Manufacturing, fairgrounds and amusement parks, agricultural and forestry activities NAC 4: Undeveloped and unused land Note that, although there is a NAC 4, there are no noise standards for these areas. The full list of NAC land uses can be found starting on page 21 of this guide or in Minnesota Rule 7030.0050. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 3 1.3 Common noise concerns By Minnesota law, the MPCA is empowered to enforce the state’s noise rules. Many other agencies and levels of government, however, have an important role to play in upholding the noise standards. Depending on the source and location of the noise, some agencies may be in a better position than others to help citizens with noise concerns. Industrial facilities The MPCA enforces noise standards at facilities for which it has issued an air permit. For complaints about noise at one of these facilities, please use the Online Citizen Complaints Form. If you prefer, you may call the MPCA to make your complaint: 651-296-6300 within the Twin Cities metropolitan area or 1-800-657-3864 if you are outside of this area. Local land uses Local law enforcement agencies are empowered to enforce Minnesota state rules and laws relating to the prevention and control of pollution (Minn. Stat. 115.071). Many local governments also have nuisance noise ordinances or general public nuisance ordinances that can be used to enforce local noise concerns. Local governments are required to take reasonable measures to prevent the approval of land use activities that will violate the state noise standard immediately upon establishment of the land use (Minn. R. 7030.0030). Municipalities should consider the state noise standard when reviewing and approving new projects in their jurisdiction. The MPCA can provide some expertise to support this review process. Please contact noise.pca@state.mn.us. Roads and highways The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) handles complaints about noise on highways and other roads it manages. According to Minn. Stat. 116.07.2a, most roads are exempt from Minnesota’s state noise rules. MnDOT does, however, have policies, agreed on with the MPCA, for providing noise mitigation when it is determined to be both feasible and reasonable. MPCA reviews some MnDOT projects and noise mitigation decisions. For further information on MnDOT’s noise policies, please visit its website. Vehicles Minn. R.7030.1000-1060 outlines Minnesota’s state rules relating to motor vehicle noise. In addition to the state rules, local governments may have nuisance sound ordinances, which are often easier to enforce than the state rule. As with noise relating to local land-use decisions, contacting your local government or law enforcement is your best course of action. Airplanes The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) responds to all concerns regarding noise relating to aircraft or the airports. For more information, please see its website. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 4 Snowmobiles, off-highway vehicles, and motor boats The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has source-specific noise rules for snowmobiles (Minn. R. 6100.5700.5), off-highway vehicles (Minn. R. 6102.0040.4), and motor boats (Minn. Stat. 86B.321), requiring them to be equipped with proper mufflers and conform to certain noise standards. For more information on MDNR regulations for snowmobiles, off-highway vehicles, and boats, please visit its website. Mining The MDNR also has source-specific rules to restrict noise and vibrations from different types of metallic mining operations (Minn. R. 6130.3900 and 6132.2900). Local governments are relied upon to consider noise when approving and permitting sand and gravel mining operations. The MPCA enforces noise standards at mining facilities for which it has issued an air permit. For complaints about noise at one of these facilities, please use the Online Citizen Complaints Form. If you prefer, you may call the MPCA to make your complaint: 651-296-6300 within the Twin Cities metropolitan area or 1-800-657-3864 if you are outside of this area. Gun clubs Minn. Stat. 116.07.2a exempts gun clubs from the receiver-based noise standards administered by the MPCA. However, Minn. Stat. 87A includes some standards regarding gun club noise. Through this statute, the MDNR is authorized to regulate gun club noise. For further information, please visit its website. Motor vehicle race track Minn. Stat. 116.07.2a exempts motor vehicle race tracks built before July 1, 1996 from Minnesota’s noise standards. All tracks built since that date must comply with the noise rules. Local governments have often been successful in working with exempt tracks to mitigate noise concerns by establishing time and date restrictions, muffler requirements, and noise barriers. 1.4 Regulatory agencies Several agencies have noise regulations for different noise sources. Noise rules either set standards based on the source of the noise (source standards) or based on who hears the noise (receiver-based standards). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - The MPCA has a receiver-based standard intended to limit noise levels and protect the health and welfare of the general public. The MPCA enforces the standard at facilities for which the agency issues air quality permits. The MPCA also works with other agencies and levels of government to enforce noise standards and reduce violations through pre-construction project reviews. Local Agencies - Local governing agencies, such as a cities and counties, are relied upon to enforce noise standards relating to local land use and often have ordinances regulating noise levels. They are also responsible for not allowing land uses that would immediately violate the state noise standard. For instance, local governments should be cautious of allowing a loud local utility facility to locate in a residential area. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 5 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - The MDNR has source standards for snowmobiles, motorboats, personal watercraft, off-highway vehicles, and gun clubs. MDNR also has source standards for metallic mining operations. For more information, see its website. Metropolitan Airport Commission - The MAC is responsible for all noise issues related to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and reliever airports. For more information, see its website. Federal Aviation Administration - The FAA has source regulations for commercial jet engines. All commercial jet engines must meet noise emission criteria prior to being certified for flight. However, the Metropolitan Airport Commission is the best contact for noise concerns related to its airports. Additional information on the FAA’s noise standards can be found on its website. Minnesota Department of Transportation – MnDOT is responsible for state highway noise mitigation. It works with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the MPCA to evaluate road projects for noise impacts and possible mitigation measures. For more information see the Department’s website. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - The FHWA does not have actual noise standards, but has a 70 dBA L10 guideline that is used to determine federal funding for noise abatement on highway projects. New highway projects must go through a noise impact analysis and be considered for abatement measures. Information on FHWA’s noise policies can be found on its website. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) - Regulation of railroad-related noise is the responsibility of the FRA. For more information see the Administration’s website and to contact them about a noise concern, call 1-800-724-5040. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - OSHA has regulations to protect against hearing loss in the workplace. These are “dose standards” that restrict the amount of noise an employee receives over a period of time, such as eight hours. For additional information, visit OSHA’s website. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - HUD has noise regulations that establish acceptable noise zones for HUD housing projects. More information can be found on HUD’s website. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 6 2. Basics of how sound works 2.1 Waves and sound pressure level Sound travels in a wave motion through the air to our ears. A good way to imagine wave motion is with a weight hanging from a spring. Picture the following diagram (Figure 1) as a single weight and spring combination varying as time progresses along the horizontal axis. In Figure 1 the first position of the weight on the spring is at rest with no forces exerted upon the system. If the weight is raised above its point of rest and the progression of the weight moving down and up again is observed over a period of time, a wave form is produced. The amplitude of the moving weight is labeled as “A” in Figure 1 and corresponds with the maximum movement of the weight from its “at rest” position to the peak of the wave form either up or down. We hear changes in amplitude as changes in volume. The period of the vibration is the amount of time taken to produce one complete cycle or, in this example, how quickly the weight moves from top to bottom and back. The number of cycles per second defines the frequency of the periodic (up and down) motion, which is given the unit of hertz, or Hz. We hear different frequencies as higher or lower pitched sounds. Figure 1. Weight on a spring – example of periodic motion Figure 1. Weight on a spring – example of periodic motion A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 7 Figure 2 shows how the weight on a string (two-dimensional) example of sound waves compares to the compression and expansion of sound waves through space (three-dimensional). The graphical representation of sound waves in Figure 2 is of pure tones, which are sounds made up of a single frequency. A familiar example of a pure tone is the sound produced when a single key of a piano is pressed. For instance, the middle C key on a piano vibrates the associated wire at a rate of approximately 260 times per second or 260 Hertz. The vibration of the wire transfers its motion to the sound board of the piano, which then vibrates at the same frequency, causing the air adjacent to the sound board to form compression and expansion waves in the air emitting outward from the sound board. When received by the human ear, this is regarded as sound. Most sounds are not pure tones, but a mixture of tones of varying amplitude, frequency, and duration. The intensity of a sound is the amount of sound energy at a given moment in a given area. The sound pressure level, measured in a unit called the decibel, or dB, is the ratio between the intensity of a sound and that of a reference pressure, which is the threshold of perception. The decibel is a logarithmic measurement which can accommodate a large range of values. The human ear can detect sounds more than a million times quieter than a jet aircraft during take-off; therefore, to have a system with a manageable range of numbers, the logarithm is used. Sound pressure level = 20 Log10 * (Measured Sound Pressure / Reference Pressure) Reference Pressure = 0.00002 Newtons / (meter)2 Figure 2. Comparison of periodic motion to sound waves A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 8 Many different properties affect the noise level of a specific source type. For example, three lawn mowers may have three different noise levels because of differences in each specific piece of equipment. Noise level also depends on the distance from the noise source and features of the surrounding environment. Figure 3 provides a rough estimate of decibel levels of some common noise sources. 2.2 Sound weighting networks Sound level meters (SLM) used for monitoring can pick up sounds as a perfect computer, but the human ear is not as precise. The human ear cannot hear very low frequencies or very high frequencies. Weighting networks are used in noise monitors to adjust specific frequencies in the audio spectrum to attempt to duplicate the response of the human ear. The C-weighting network represents the actual sound pressure level that is received by the sound level meter, and does not noticeably vary in its amount of compensation throughout the audio spectrum. C-weighting is used during the calibration of sound level meters to ensure that the sound level displayed on the meter is accurate and the same as the frequency of the calibrator. The A-weighting network is used to duplicate the sensitivity of the human ear. At 100 Hertz, the A-weighting network filters out approximately 20 dB from the incoming signal before it is combined with the levels from the other frequency ranges to produce an A-weighted sound level. Figure 3. Decibel levels of common noise sources A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 9 The graph in Figure 4 represents the sensitivity of the human ear in comparison to the compensation of a C-weighting network and an A-weighting network. This illustration is useful in understanding how the ear is inefficient in the detection of lower frequencies and is very sensitive to higher frequencies. 2.3 Human perception of sound Sound has qualitative aspects that can be described with adjectives and quantitative aspects that can be described with measurements. Sound can be qualitatively perceived as pleasant or annoying, and quantitatively (as loudness) measured in terms of decibels. Changes in loudness are described on a logarithmic scale because the human ear can hear such a wide range of sound levels. The human ear can usually tell the difference when sound changes by 3 dBA and a 5 dBA change is clearly noticeable. Because of how the logarithmic scale functions in compressing the measurements associated with sounds, an increase of 10 dBA sounds twice as loud. Figure 4. Weighting networks with sound measurements done in the A-weighting network are reported with the unit dBA Figure 5. Change in decibel level and perceived change in loudness ± 1 dBA…………………….. Not Noticeable ± 3 dBA…………………….. Threshold of Perception ± 5 dBA…………………….. Noticeable Change ± 10 dBA…………………… Twice (Half) As Loud ± 20 dBA…………………… Four Times (One Fourth) As Loud A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 10 Figure 6. Distance attenuation of noise levels from a point source (top) and a line source (bottom) 2.4 Using decibel measurements Addition and subtraction of decibels is often necessary for estimating total noise levels or background noise. Because decibels are measured using a logarithmic scale, conventional linear mathematics cannot be used. The following rules of thumb provide a good estimate of the effect that type, distance, and number of sources have on measured sound pressure level. Sound propagation and sources Sources of sound can be defined as point or line sources, based on the way sound pressure waves spread away from the source. Sound waves move out from sources in a way similar to waves traveling away from a rock dropped in a pond. A point source, like a factory, emits sound that spreads out in a sphere. A line source, like a busy highway, emits sound that spreads out in a cylinder. Knowing the sources of sounds makes it possible to make assumptions about how the sound behaves. Distance attenuation Over distance, sound attenuates, or is reduced in amplitude, and is perceived as becoming quieter. This occurs as the sound travels outward to an increasingly larger sphere or cylinder, and the energy per unit of area decreases. These basic principles allow us to make generalized assumptions about sound. When the distance is doubled from a line source, the sound level decreases three decibels. Example: If a sound level is: 70 decibels at 50 feet it will be 67 decibels at 100 feet, and 64 decibels at 200 feet When the distance is doubled from a point source, the sound level decreases six decibels (Figure 6). Example: If a sound level is: 70 decibels at 50 feet it will be 64 decibels at 100 feet, and 58 decibels at 200 feet A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 11 Number of sources In many situations pertaining to noise control and monitoring, it is very useful to be able to add and subtract multiple sources of sound. This can be done with principles similar to how sound attenuation over distance is estimated. A doubling of sound energy yields an increase of three decibels. For example, each generator at a factory produces sound that is measured at 70 decibels, so running one generator would create sound measured at 70 dBA, turning on a second generator would increase sound by 3 dBA to 73 dBA, and doubling again to four generators would increase sound levels to 76 dBA. Figure 7 illustrates this principle. In the same way, reducing the number of sources by half will reduce the sound pressure by 3 dBA. Consider the perception of changes in decibel levels (Figure 5) compared to the example of addition or subtraction of sources (Figure 7). Doubling sources yields an increase of 3 dBA, which is a change that is just perceptible. Background noise Background, or ambient, noise consists of all noise sources other than the noise source of concern. This can include traffic, animals, machinery, voices, and other sounds. Wind is often a major source of ambient noise and can frequently be a problem when trying to monitor a specific source of noise. The MPCA’s noise test procedures state that measurements should not be made when noise from wind or precipitation results in a difference of less than 10 dBA between the background sound level and noise source being measured. In practice, this means that wind speeds must be below 11 mph when making noise measurements and rainy weather conditions should be avoided. When background noise is less than 10 dBA from the decibel level of the noise source to be measured, confidence in the accuracy of the measurement decreases. Figure 7. Addition and subtraction of decibel levels A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 12 In certain instances, when a single noise source is analyzed along with other noise sources, correction factors can be used to isolate the noise source being monitored and calculate its individual noise level. This is done by measuring and recording the total noise level of all sources. Next, the noise source to be isolated is turned off and a noise level reading is taken with all the other existing noise sources in operation. The background noise level is then subtracted from the total noise level. The result is used in conjunction with the following background noise correction chart (Figure 8) to find the approximate noise level of the source. Figure 8 is a graph used to estimate the amount of background noise influencing a measurement. Based on the measured background noise it gives the corresponding decibel level to be subtracted from the total measurement to determine the decibel level of the noise source being monitored. For example, if the total noise level is 74 dBA, and then falls to 70 dBA when the source of interest is turned off, the difference of four decibels between the total noise level and background noise indicates that two decibels should be subtracted from the total. This means that a 72 dBA noise level can be attributed to the monitored source in the absence of background noise. Figure 8. Background noise correction A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 13 3. Measurement procedures This guide contains two measurement procedures. The general protocols remain the same, but your choice of procedure depends on the capabilities of your sound level meter (SLM). Noise Test Procedure 1 (NTP-1) should be used if your SLM is capable of calculating monitoring results and Noise Test Procedure 2 (NTP-2) should be used if your SLM only displays instantaneous readings. 3.1 General procedures Sound level meter Your sound level meter and microphone must comply with the specifications for ANSI S1.4-1983 Type 0, 1, 2, or S. Calibration You must also have a calibrator of a known frequency and sound level. Calibrators should be compared to a lab standard periodically. Calibration must be performed before and after the monitoring period. Adjustments should be made if necessary. Weather conditions Measurements should not be made when noise from wind or precipitation results in a difference between the background sound level and noise source being measured that is less than 10 dBA. In practice, this means that wind speeds must be below 11 mph and rainy weather conditions should be avoided. Temperature and humidity should be within equipment specifications. Background noise As mentioned in the previous section, background noise is any ambient noise other than the noise to be measured, including wind, precipitation, traffic, etc. The difference between the sound level of the source being monitored and that of the background noise must be less than 10dBA. See page 11 for suggestions on how to correct for background noise. Location of measurement Properly choosing a monitoring location is an important consideration. Measurements should be made in the appropriate NAC, at the area of normal outdoor human activity nearest to the noise source. The monitoring location may not necessarily be at the property line; for instance, if the property of the complainant is large and residential outdoor activity is limited to a backyard patio (possibly such as on a farm). Measurements must be made outdoors from at least three feet off of the ground (a tripod is helpful for this). Another important part of site selection is the consideration of errors caused by reflecting objects, such as a house or other large manmade or natural structures. Measurements should be made at least as far away from any large reflecting object as from the noise source being measured. If this is not possible, stay at least 30 feet from structures. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 14 Documentation of measurement A survey form must be completed containing date, time, location, noise source, wind speed/direction, temperature, humidity, equipment information (make, model, serial number), site sketch with the location of the noise source and measurement location (including appropriate distances), data and calibration information. A sample survey form can be found on page 16. 3.2 Noise Test Procedure 1: Measurement procedure for non- impulsive noise The following test procedure has been approved by the Commissioner of the MPCA for the measurement of non-impulsive noise. The general procedures described above (3.1 General procedures) should be followed whether you are using the NTP-1 or NTP-2 procedures. Instrumentation:  Sound level meter and a microphone conforming to type 0, 1, 2, or S specifications under ANSI S1.4- 1983  Calibrator of known frequency and level  Small screwdriver for sensitivity adjustment  Microphone windscreen  Noise survey form  Tripod (optional) Monitoring procedure: Monitoring must be conducted for at least a one hour time period. Sound meter must use the "A" weighting and FAST response characteristics. Follow your manufacturer instructions to obtain the L10 and L50 results. 3.3 Noise Test Procedure 2: Manual measurement procedure for non- impulsive noise The following test procedure has been approved by the Commissioner of the MPCA for the measurement of non-impulsive noise. The general procedures described above (3.1 General procedures) should be followed whether you are using the NTP-1 or NTP-2 procedures. The NTP-2 procedure is to be used with SLMs that cannot calculate noise statistics and only provide instantaneous readings. Instrumentation:  Sound level meter and a microphone conforming to type 0, 1, 2, or S specifications under ANSI S1.4- 1983  Calibrator of known frequency and level  Small screwdriver for sensitivity adjustment  Microphone windscreen  Noise survey form  Tripod (optional) A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 15 Manual monitoring procedure: Using a hand-held SLM, take an instantaneous sound reading every 10 seconds and record on a data sheet. A partner is very helpful. Continue taking sound readings for one hour, which will give you 360 individual readings. Figure 9 provides an example of a manual monitoring data sheet. To determine the L10, take the 36th loudest (10 percent of 360 = 36) individual sound reading by counting from the loudest to the quietest on the data sheet. For example, in Figure 9, the L10 = 63 and is the 36th X from the top of the sheet. To determine the L50, take the 180th loudest (50 percent of 360 = 180) individual sound reading. In Figure 9, the L50 = 57 and represents the 180th X from the top of the sheet. Figure 9. Example manual monitoring data sheet A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 16 A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 17 Noise survey Investigator ______________________________________ Date _________________________ SLM Manufacturer and Model _______________________ Serial Number_________________ Calibrator Manufacturer and Model ____________________________________________________ Calibrator Serial Number____________________________ Calibrator Frequency (Hz) ____________ Initial Calibration (dBA) ___________ Final Calibration (dBA) ___________ Meteorological Conditions: Wind Speed ________ Direction ________ Temperature________ Source ________________________________________________________________________ Monitor Location _______________________________________________________________ Time Start _______________ Time End _________________ Results L10 _________dBA L50 _________dBA Diagram (Indicate noise source, receiver, microphone location, reflecting objects, obstructions, landmarks, and distances) A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 18 4. Minnesota noise pollution statutes and rules Minn. Stat. § 116.07 POWERS AND DUTIES. Subdivision 1. Generally. In addition to any powers or duties otherwise prescribed by law and without limiting the same, the Pollution Control Agency shall have the powers and duties hereinafter specified. Subd. 2. Adoption of standards. (c) The Pollution Control Agency shall also adopt standards describing the maximum levels of noise in terms of sound pressure level which may occur in the outdoor atmosphere, recognizing that due to variable factors no single standard of sound pressure is applicable to all areas of the state. Such standards shall give due consideration to such factors as the intensity of noises, the types of noises, the frequency with which noises recur, the time period for which noises continue, the times of day during which noises occur, and such other factors as could affect the extent to which noises may be injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or could interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of life or property. In adopting standards, the Pollution Control Agency shall give due recognition to the fact that the quantity or characteristics of noise or the duration of its presence in the outdoor atmosphere, which may cause noise pollution in one area of the state, may cause less or not cause any noise pollution in another area of the state, and it shall take into consideration in this connection such factors, including others which it may deem proper, as existing physical conditions, zoning classifications, topography, meteorological conditions and the fact that a standard which may be proper in an essentially residential area of the state, may not be proper as to a highly developed industrial area of the state. Such noise standards shall be premised upon scientific knowledge as well as effects based on technically substantiated criteria and commonly accepted practices. No local governing unit shall set standards describing the maximum levels of sound pressure which are more stringent than those set by the Pollution Control Agency. Subd. 2a. Exemptions from standards No standards adopted by any state agency for limiting levels of noise in terms of sound pressure which may occur in the outdoor atmosphere shall apply to (1) segments of trunk highways constructed with federal interstate substitution money, provided that all reasonably available noise mitigation measures are employed to abate noise, (2) an existing or newly constructed segment of a highway, provided that all reasonably available noise mitigation measures, as approved by the commissioners of the Department of Transportation and Pollution Control Agency, are employed to abate noise, (3) except for the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, an existing or newly constructed segment of a road, street, or highway under the jurisdiction of a road authority of a town, statutory or home rule charter city, or county, except for roadways for which full control of access has been acquired, (4) skeet, trap or shooting sports clubs, or (5) motor vehicle race events conducted at a facility specifically designed for that purpose that was in operation on or before July 1, 1996. Nothing herein shall prohibit a local unit of government or a public corporation with the power to make rules for the government of its real property from regulating the location and operation of skeet, trap or shooting sports clubs, or motor vehicle race events conducted at a facility specifically designed for that purpose that was in operation on or before July 1, 1996. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 19 Minn. Rules § 7030 NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL 7030.0010 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. For the purpose of chapter 7030, American National Standards Institute, Specification for Sound Level Meters, S1.4-1983 is incorporated by reference. This publication is available from the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10018 and can be found at: the offices of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1935 West County Road B-2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113; the Government Documents Section, Room 409, Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, 309 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454; and the State of Minnesota Law Library, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155. This document is not subject to frequent change. The Federal Highway Administration publication, Sound Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise: Final Report, FHWA-DP-45-1R (August 1981) is incorporated by reference. This publication is available from the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1000 North Globe Road, Arlington, Virginia 22201 and can be found at: the offices of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1935 West County Road B-2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113; the Government Documents Section, Room 409, Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, 309 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454; and the State of Minnesota Law Library, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155. This document is not subject to frequent change. 7030.0020 DEFINITIONS. Subpart 1. Application. The terms used in this chapter have the meanings given them in this part. Subp. 2. A-weighted. "A-weighted" means a specific weighting of the sound pressure level for the purpose of determining the human response to sound. The specific weighting characteristics and tolerances are those given in American National Standards Institute S1.4-1983, section 5.1. Subp. 3. Daytime. "Daytime" means those hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Subp. 4. dB(A). "dB(A)" means a unit of sound level expressed in decibels (dB) and A-weighted. Subp. 5. Decibel. "Decibel" means a unit of sound pressure level, abbreviated as dB. Subp. 6. Impulsive noise. "Impulsive noise" means either a single sound pressure peak (with either a rise time less than 200 milliseconds or total duration less than 200 milliseconds) or multiple sound pressure peaks (with either rise times less than 200 milliseconds or total duration less than 200 milliseconds) spaced at least by 200 millisecond pauses. Subp. 7. L10. "L10" means the sound level, expressed in dB(A), which is exceeded ten percent of the time for a one hour survey, as measured by test procedures approved by the commissioner. Subp. 8. L50. "L50" means the sound level, expressed in dB(A), which is exceeded 50 percent of the time for a one hour survey, as measured by test procedures approved by the commissioner. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 20 Subp. 9. Municipality. "Municipality" means a county; a city; a town; a regional planning and development commission established under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 473; the metropolitan council; or other governmental subdivision of the state responsible by law for controlling or restricting land use within its jurisdiction. Subp. 10. Nighttime. "Nighttime" means those hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Subp. 11. Person. "Person" means any human being, any municipality or other governmental or political subdivision or other public department or agency, any public or private corporation, any partnership, firm, association, or other organization, any receiver, trustee, assignee, agency, legal entity, other than a court of law, or any legal representative of any of the foregoing, but does not include the agency. Subp. 12. Sound pressure level. "Sound pressure level", in decibels, means 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure to the reference pressure. The reference pressure shall be 20 micronewtons per square meter. 7030.0030 NOISE CONTROL REQUIREMENT. No person may violate the standards established in part 7030.0040, unless exempted by Minnesota Statutes, section 116.07, subdivision 2a. Any municipality having authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use activities listed in noise area classification (NAC) 1, 2, or 3 in any location where the standards established in part 7030.0040 will be violated immediately upon establishment of the land use. 7030.0040 NOISE STANDARDS. Subpart 1. Scope. These standards describe the limiting levels of sound established on the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of public health and welfare. These standards are consistent with speech, sleep, annoyance, and hearing conservation requirements for receivers within areas grouped according to land activities by the noise area classification (NAC) system established in part 7030.0050. However, these standards do not, by themselves, identify the limiting levels of impulsive noise needed for the preservation of public health and welfare. Noise standards in subpart 2 apply to all sources. Subp. 2. Noise standards. Noise Area Classification Daytime Nighttime L10 L50 L10 L50 1 65 60 55 50 2 70 65 70 65 3 80 75 80 75 A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 21 7030.0050 NOISE AREA CLASSIFICATION. Subpart 1. Applicability. The noise area classification is based on the land use activity at the location of the receiver and determines the noise standards applicable to that land use activity unless an exception is applied under subpart 3. Subp. 2. Noise area classifications. The noise area classifications and the activities included in each classification are listed below: Noise Area Classification Land Use Activities 1 Household Units (includes farm houses) Transient lodging Group quarters Mobile home parks or courts Residential hotels Other residential Cultural activities and nature exhibitions Medical and other health services Correctional institutions Educational services Religious activities Motion picture production Entertainment assembly Resorts and group camps Camping and picnicking areas (designated) Other cultural, entertainment, and recreational activities. 2 Railroad terminals (passenger) Bus passenger terminals (intercity) Railroad terminals (passenger and freight) Bus passenger terminals (local) Rapid rail transit and street railway passenger terminals Bus passenger terminals (intercity and local) Other motor vehicle transportation Marine terminals (passenger) Airport and flying field terminals (passenger) Marine terminals (passenger and freight) Airport and flying field terminals (passenger and freight) Automobile parking Telegraph message centers Transportation services and arrangements Wholesale trade Retail trade -- apparel and accessories Retail trade -- building materials, hardware, and farm equipment Retail trade -- automotive, marine craft, aircraft, and accessories Retail trade -- general merchandise Retail trade -- furniture, home furnishings, and equipment Retail trade -- food Retail trade -- eating and drinking Other retail trade Finance, insurance, and real estate services A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 22 Personal services Repair services Business services Legal services Other professional services Contract construction services Governmental services (except correctional institutions) Miscellaneous services (except religious activities) Public assembly (except entertainment assembly and race tracks) Amusements (except fairgrounds and amusement parks) Recreational activities (except designated camping and picnicking areas) Parks. 3 Food and kindred products -- manufacturing Textile mill products -- manufacturing Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics, leather, and similar materials -- manufacturing Lumber and wood products (except furniture) -- manufacturing Furniture and fixtures -- manufacturing Printing, publishing, and allied industries Paper and allied products -- manufacturing Chemicals and allied products -- manufacturing Petroleum refining and related industries Primary metal industries Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products -- manufacturing Stone, clay, and glass products -- manufacturing Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments; photographic and optical goods; watches and clocks -- manufacturing Railroad, rapid transit, and street railway transportation (except passenger terminals) Miscellaneous manufacturing (except motion picture production) Fabricated metal products -- manufacturing Motor vehicle transportation (except passenger terminals) Aircraft transportation (except passenger terminals) Marine craft transportation (except passenger and freight terminals) Communication (except telegraph message centers) Highway and street right-of-way Utilities Race tracks Fairgrounds and amusement parks Agricultural Agricultural and related activities Fishing activities and related services Other transportation, communication, and utilities (except transportation services and arrangements) Forestry activities and related services (including commercial forest land, timber production, and other related activities) All other activities not otherwise listed. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 23 4 Undeveloped and unused land area (excluding non-commercial forest development) Non-commercial forest development Water areas Vacant floor area Under construction Other undeveloped land and water areas. Subp. 3. Exceptions. The noise area classification for a land use may be changed in the following ways if the applicable conditions are met. A. The daytime standards for noise area classification 1 shall be applied to noise area classification 1 during the nighttime if the land use activity does not include overnight lodging. B. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 2 shall be applied to a building in a noise area classification 1 if the following conditions are met: (1) the building is constructed in such a way that the exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at least 30 dB(A); (2) the building has year-round climate control; and (3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for outdoor activities C. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 3 shall be applied to a building in a noise area classification 1 if the following conditions are met: (1) the building is constructed in such a way that the exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at least 40 dB(A); (2) the building has year-round climate control; and (3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for outdoor activities. D. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 3 shall be applied to a building in a noise area classification 2 if the following conditions are met: (1) the building is constructed in such a way that the exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at least 30 dB(A); (2) the building has year-round climate control; and (3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for outdoor activities. 7030.0060 MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY. Subpart 1. Measurement location. Measurement of sound must be made at or within the applicable NAC at the point of human activity which is nearest to the noise source. All measurements shall be made outdoors. Subp. 2. Equipment specifications. All sound level measuring devices must meet Type O, I, II, or S specifications under American National Standards Institute S1.4- 1983. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 24 Subp. 3. Calibration. All sound level measuring devices must, at a minimum, be externally field calibrated before and after monitoring using a calibration device of known frequency and sound pressure level. Subp. 4. Measurement procedures. The following procedures must be used to obtain representative sound level measurements: A. Measurements must be made at least three feet off the ground or surface and away from natural or artificial structures which would prevent an accurate measurement. B. Measurements must be made using the A-weighting and fast response characteristics of the sound measuring device as specified in American National Standards Institute S1.4-1983. C. Measurements must not be made in sustained winds or in precipitation which results in a difference of less than ten decibels between the background noise level and the noise source being measured. D. Measurements must be made using a microphone which is protected from ambient conditions which would prevent an accurate measurement. Subp. 5. Data documentation. A summary sheet for all sound level measurements shall be completed and signed by the person making the measurements. At a minimum, the summary sheet shall include: A. Date B. Time C. Location D. Noise source E. Wind speed and direction F. Temperature G. Humidity H. Make, model, and serial number of measuring equipment I. Field calibration results J. Monitored levels K. Site sketch indicating noise source, measurement location, directions, distances, and obstructions. 7030.0070 SOUND ATTENUATION MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY. Subpart 1. Purpose. Sound level measurements made for assessing sound attenuation as specified in part 7030.0050, subpart 3, item B, C, or D, shall be made according to the requirements of this part. Subp. 2. Equipment. The equipment shall meet the requirements specified in part 7030.0060, subpart 2. Subp. 3. Calibration. The equipment must meet the calibration requirements specified in part 7030.0060, subpart 3. Subp. 4. Measurement procedure. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 25 The measurement procedure described in FHWA-DP-45-1R, section 8 must be used for determination of the sound attenuation. Subp. 5. Equivalent methods. Methods equivalent to those described in subpart 4 may be used provided they are approved by the commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The commissioner shall approve an alternative method if the commissioner finds that the method will produce representative data and results which are as reliable as the methods specified in subpart 4. 7030.0080 VARIANCE. If, upon written application of the responsible person, the agency finds that by reason of exceptional circumstances strict conformity with any provisions of any noise rule would cause undue hardship, would be unreasonable, impractical, or not feasible under the circumstances, the agency may permit a variance upon the conditions and within the time limitations as it may prescribe for the prevention, control, or abatement of noise pollution in harmony with the intent of the state and any applicable federal laws. 7030.1000 DEFINITION. "Motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively upon railroad tracks and any vehicle propelled or drawn by a self-propelled vehicle and includes vehicles known as trackless trolleys which are propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated upon rails, except snowmobiles. 7030.1010 PROHIBITIONS. Subpart 1. Operation of vehicle. No person shall operate either a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles of a type subject to registration pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 168 at any time or under any condition of grade, load, acceleration, or deceleration in such a manner as to exceed the noise limits contained herein for the category of motor vehicle and speed limits specified, when tested with a measurement procedure approved by the commissioner. Subp. 2. Sale of vehicle. No person shall sell or offer for sale a new motor vehicle or combination of vehicles of a type subject to registration pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 168 which when maintained according to the manufacturer's specifications would exceed the noise limits contained herein for the category of motor vehicle and speed limits specified, when tested with a measurement procedure approved by the commissioner. Subp. 3. Modification of vehicle. No person shall modify a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles of a type subject to registration pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 168 in a manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the vehicle, above the noise limits contained herein for the category of motor vehicle and speed limits specified, when tested with a measurement procedure approved by the commissioner. No person shall operate a motor vehicle so modified. Subp. 4. Sale of parts. No person shall sell or offer for sale replacement or additional parts for a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles of a type subject to registration pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 168 which when installed in the vehicle will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the vehicle, above the noise limits A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 26 contained herein for the category of motor vehicle and speed limits specified, when tested with a measurement procedure approved by the commissioner. No person shall operate a motor vehicle incorporating such parts. 7030.1020 SCOPE. This chapter applies to the total noise from a vehicle or combination of vehicles of a type subject to registration pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 168 and shall not be construed as limiting or precluding the enforcement of any other provision of law relating to motor vehicle exhaust noise. 7030.1030 EXCEPTIONS. Vehicles under parts 7030.1050 and 7030.1060 are allowed to exceed the noise limits contained herein when performing acceleration maneuvers for safety purposes. 7030.1040 NOISE LIMIT FOR VEHICLES OVER 10,000 POUNDS. Motor vehicle noise limits for vehicles with a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds and any combination of vehicles towed by such motor vehicle. A. Speed limits greater than 35 mph. B. Speed limits equal to or less than 35 mph and stationary run-up tests (for vehicles with governed engines). For stationary run-up tests on all-paved surfaces, add 2 dBA. C. Speed limits equal to or less than 35 mph and stationary run-up tests (for vehicles with governed engines), for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1978. For stationary run-up tests on all-paved surfaces, add 2 dBA. D. Speed limits equal to or less than 35 mph and stationary run-up tests (for vehicles with governed engines), for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1982. For stationary run-up tests on all-paved surfaces, add 2 dBA. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 27 7030.1050 MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE LIMITS FOR MOTORCYCLES. A. For vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1975. B. Speed limits greater than 35 mph for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1975. C. Speed limits equal to or less than 35 mph for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1975. 7030.1060 NOISE LIMITS FOR OTHER VEHICLES. Motor vehicle noise limits for any other motor vehicle not included under parts 7030.1040 and 7030.1050 and any combination of vehicles towed by such motor vehicle. Minn. Stat. § 86B WATERCRAFT OPERATION 86B.321 NOISE LIMITS. Subdivision 1. Operation in excess of noise limits prohibited. A person may not operate a motorboat under any condition of load, acceleration, or deceleration in a manner that exceeds the noise limits contained in subdivision 2. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 28 Subd. 2. Noise limits. (a) The noise limits for the total noise from the marine engine or motorboat may not exceed: (1) for marine engines or motorboats manufactured before January 1, 1982, a noise level of 84 decibels on the A scale measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorboat or equivalent noise levels at other distances as specified by the commissioner in a pass-by test or 86 decibels on the A scale measured at idle in a stationary test at least four feet above the water and at least four feet behind the transom of the motorboat being tested; and (2) for marine engines or motorboats manufactured on or after January 1, 1982, a noise level of 82 decibels on the A scale measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorboat or equivalent noise levels at other distances as specified by the commissioner in a pass-by test or 84 decibels on the A scale measured at idle in a stationary test at least four feet above the water and at least four feet behind the transom of the motorboat being tested. (b) The noise limits in paragraph (a) do not preclude enforcement of other laws relating to motorboat noise. The officer or deputy doing the testing shall determine which test or tests shall be used. Failure to pass either the pass-by or stationary idle test is a violation of this section. (c) Equivalent noise levels under paragraph (a) shall be specified by the commissioner by written order and published in the State Register. The noise level determinations are exempt from the rulemaking provisions of chapter 14 and section 14.386 does not apply. Subd. 3. Applicability. The provisions of this section do not apply to motorboats operating under a permit issued under section 86B.121 or a United States Coast Guard marine event permit in a regatta or race while on trial runs or while on official trials for speed records during the time and in the designated area authorized by the permit. 86B.521 MOTORBOAT NOISE CONTROL. Subdivision. 1. Exhaust muffling system required. A motor may not be used on a motorboat unless it is equipped with an efficient muffler, underwater exhaust, or other device that adequately muffles or suppresses the sound of the exhaust of the motor so as to prevent excessive or unusual noise. A motor may not be equipped with an altered muffler, muffler cutout, muffler bypass, or any other device designed or installed so that it can be used to continually or intermittently bypass any muffler or muffler system installed in the motorboat or to reduce or eliminate the effectiveness of such a muffler or muffler system. Subd. 2. Sale of motor that exceeds noise limits prohibited. A person may not sell or offer for sale a marine engine or motorboat that would exceed the noise limits contained in section 86B.321, subdivision 2, under a test procedure approved by the commissioner if the motor is maintained according to the manufacturer's specifications. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 29 Subd. 3. Modification of engine to exceed noise limits prohibited. (a) A person may not modify a marine engine or motorboat in a manner that will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the marine engine or motorboat above the noise limits contained in section 86B.321, subdivision 2, under a test procedure approved by the commissioner. (b) A person may not operate a motorboat with an engine modified to increase noise above the noise limits. Subd. 4. Sale of parts that cause excessive noise prohibited. (a) A person may not sell or offer for sale replacement or additional parts for a marine engine or motorboat which when installed in the marine engine or motorboat will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the marine engine or motorboat above the noise limits contained in section 86B.321, subdivision 2, under a test procedure approved by the commissioner. (b) A person may not operate a motorboat incorporating parts prohibited to be sold under paragraph (a). Subd. 5. Applicability. The provisions of this section do not apply to motorboats operating under a permit issued under section 86B.121 or a United States Coast Guard marine event permit in a regatta, or race, while on trial runs, or while on official trials for speed records during the time and in the designated area authorized by the permit. Subd. 6. Rulemaking exemption. The test procedures under subdivisions 2, 3, and 4 shall be established by written order by the commissioner and published in the State Register. The establishment of test procedures is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of chapter 14 and section 14.386 does not apply. Minn. Stat. § 84.8 SNOWMOBILES 84.871 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS. Subdivision. 1. Mufflers. Except as provided in this section, every snowmobile shall be equipped at all times with a muffler in good working order which blends the exhaust noise into the overall snowmobile noise and is in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise. The exhaust system shall not emit or produce a sharp popping or crackling sound. This section does not apply to organized races or similar competitive events held on (1) private lands, with the permission of the owner, lessee, or custodian of the land; (2) public lands and water under the jurisdiction of the commissioner of natural resources, with the commissioner's permission; or (3) other public lands, with the consent of the public agency owning the land. No person shall have for sale, sell, or offer for sale on any new snowmobile any muffler that fails to comply with the specifications required by the rules of the commissioner after the effective date of the rules. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 30 6100.5700 REQUIRED EQUIPMENT. Subp. 5. Mufflers. Mufflers: A. No person shall operate a snowmobile unless it is equipped with a muffler as required by law and these rules, except that snowmobiles may be operated in organized events as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, section 84.871, without such a muffler. B. No snowmobile manufactured on or after June 30, 1970, and before February 1, 1972, for sale in Minnesota, except snowmobiles designed for competition purposes only, shall be sold, or offered for sale, unless it is equipped with a muffler that limits engine noise to not more than 86 decibels on the A scale at 50 feet. C. No snowmobile manufactured on or after February 1, 1972, for sale in Minnesota, except snowmobiles designed for competition purposes only, shall be sold, or offered for sale, unless it is equipped with a muffler that limits engine noise to not more than 82 decibels on the A scale at 50 feet. D. No snowmobile manufactured on or after April 1, 1975, except a snowmobile designed for competition purposes only, shall be sold, offered for sale, or operated in Minnesota unless it is so equipped and has been certified by the manufacturer to conform to a sound level limitation of not more than 78 decibels on the A scale at 50 feet as originally equipped. E. In certifying that a new snowmobile complies with the noise limitation requirements of this rule, a manufacturer shall make such a certification based on measurements made in accordance with the SAE Recommended Practice J192(a), as set forth in the Report of the Vehicle Sound Level Committee, as approved by the Society of Automotive Engineers September 1970 and revised November 1973. F. No snowmobile shall be sold or offered for sale in Minnesota unless its maker has previously furnished the commissioner with a certificate of compliance certifying that all snowmobiles made by that maker meet or exceed the applicable noise level restrictions established by these rules. The certification of compliance shall be in the form of a "Snowmobile Safety Certification Committee" label conspicuously attached to the machine showing certification by the Snowmobile Safety and Certification Committee, Inc., or a label showing compliance with Snowmobile Safety Certification Committee standards accompanied by a letter containing test results of an evaluation of noise levels by a competent independent testing laboratory. Snowmobiles intended for competition purposes only shall be exempt from this part provided a separate placard identifying that such snowmobile is not so equipped is conspicuously and permanently affixed thereto. G. Except for organized events as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, section 84.871, no snowmobile shall be modified by any person in any manner that shall amplify or otherwise increase total noise level above that emitted by the snowmobile as originally equipped, regardless of date of manufacture. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 31 Minn. Stat. § 87A. SHOOTING RANGES 87A.05 NOISE STANDARDS. Allowable noise levels for the operation of a shooting range are the levels determined by replacing the steady state noise L10 and L50 state standards for each period of time within each noise area's classification with a single Leq(h) standard for impulsive noise that is two dBA lower than that of the L10 level for steady state noise. The noise level shall be measured outside of the range property at the location of the receiver's activity according to Minnesota Rules, parts 7030.0010 to 7030.0080, as in effect on May 28, 2005. For purposes of this section, "Leq(h)" means the energy level that is equivalent to a steady state level that contains the same amount of sound energy as the time varying sound level for a 60-minute time period. Minn. Rules § 6102, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES 6102.0002 DEFINITIONS. Subpart 1. Scope. For the purposes of parts 6102.0002 to 6102.0080, the terms defined in this part have the meanings given them. Subp. 2. ATV. "ATV" means an all-terrain vehicle. Subp. 3. Commissioner. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of Natural Resources. Subp. 4. Department. "Department" means the Department of Natural Resources. Subp. 5. OHM. "OHM" means an off-highway motorcycle. Subp. 6. ORV. "ORV" means an off-road vehicle. Subp. 7. Vehicle. "Vehicle" means an OHM, ORV, or ATV. 6102.0040 REQUIRED EQUIPMENT. Subp. 4. Mufflers. A. No person shall operate a vehicle unless it is equipped with a muffler having a spark arrestor approved by the United States Forest Service as described by Code of Federal Regulations, title 36, chapter II, section 261.52, paragraph (j). B. Vehicles shall not be sold, offered for sale, or operated in this state unless equipped so that overall noise emission does not exceed a sound level limitation of not more than 99 decibels on the A scale from a distance of 20 inches using test procedures and instrumentation as set forth in the Society of Automotive Engineers' Standard, SAE J1287, June 1988, or, if different procedures or instrumentation are used, a noise level equivalent to that level. C. No noise suppressing system or muffler shall be equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device and no person shall modify or alter that system or its operation in any manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the vehicle's motor to exceed the noise limits established in this subpart, except for organized events as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, sections 84.795, subdivision 7; 84.804, subdivision 5; and 84.928, subdivision 5. WHAT IS FAR? Floor area ratio (FAR) is the measurement of a building’s floor area in relation to the size of the lot/parcel that the building is located on. FAR is expressed as a decimal number, and is derived by dividing the total area of the building by the total area of the parcel (building area ÷ lot area). FAR is an effective way to calculate the bulk or mass of building volume on a development site, and is often used in conjunction with other development standards such as building heights, lot coverage and lot area to encourage a community’s desired arrangement and form of development. In this context, higher FARs indicate greater building volume. PURPOSE AND ROLE IN PLANNING FAR is most often used to express development intensity of non-residential land uses, and integrated into a community’s zoning and other land development controls. FAR can be used to either limit the intensity of land use to lessen the environmental impacts of development or to control the mass and scale of development. In addition, by referencing characteristics for a given land use such as number of employees and number of vehicle or transit trips per square foot of building space, FARs can estimate the potential impact of a proposed development scenario. FAR is sometimes used as an analytical tool for projecting the impact of different land use and development intensity scenarios. HOW TO CALCULATE FAR Typically, FAR is calculated by dividing the gross floor area of a building(s) by the total buildable area of the piece of land upon which it is built. Your community may choose to measure floor area and land area differently based upon local standards, policies, and other conditions. However, to calculate FAR using gross floor area and buildable land area, take the following steps: STEP 1.Determine the total BUILDABLE LAND AREA, in terms of square feet, for the site. Buildable land area is that portion of a development site where construction can legally and reasonably occur – so public streets and rights-of way, wetlands and watercourses, and other constraints would not be included. Buildable Land Area (B) = (Parcel Width x Parcel Depth) – Square feet of undevelopable land (if applicable) STEP 2.Determine the FLOOR AREA of each story of the building. Calculate the area of each story (floor) of the building, typically measured between the exterior walls. Those portions of each story above the ground surface prior to any manipulation or grading are usually included in the calculation. STEP 3.Determine the GROSS FLOOR AREA of the Building. Gross floor area is the sum of the floor area of each story. Gross Floor Area (G) = Floor Area of 1st Story + Floor Area of 2nd Story… for all floors above the ground STEP 4.Calculate the FLOOR AREA RATIO. Divide the GROSS FLOOR AREA by the BUILDABLE LAND AREA. The result is the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = (G)/(B) CALCULATING FLOOR AREA RATIO LOCAL PLANNING HANDBOOK Continue to next page June 2015 Metropolitan Council 390 Robert Street North Saint Paul, MN 55101 metrocouncil.org Main: 651.602.1000 TTY: 651.291.0904 Public Information: 651.602.1500 public.info@metc.state.mn.us LOCAL PLANNING HANDBOOK FAR ILLUSTRATED EXAMPLE: Calculating FAR A development company is planning to build a two-story building on a rectangular parcel that has 100 feet of street frontage and 200 feet of depth. The first story measures 50 feet by 200 feet, and the second story measures 50 feet by 200 feet. There are no public rights-of-way, or other exceptional development limitations on the parcel. Step 1. Determine the total BUILDABLE LAND AREA for the site. (B) = (Parcel Width x Parcel Depth) (B) = 100 ft. x 200 ft. (B) = 20,000 ft2 Step 2. Determine the FLOOR AREA of each story of the building. Story 1 Floor Area = 50 ft. x 200 ft. = 10,000 ft2 Story 2 Floor Area = 50 ft. x 200 ft. = 10,000 ft2 Step 3. Determine the GROSS FLOOR AREA of the Building. (G) = 10,000 ft2+ 10,000 ft2 = 20,000 ft2 Step 4. Calculate the FLOOR AREA RATIO. FAR = G/B FAR = 20,000 ft2 / 20,000 ft2 = 1.0 Figure 1. FAR Illustration (Image Credit: Julie Campoli, Visualizing Density) From:Rachel Leonard To:Jennifer Schreiber Cc:Angela Schumann Subject:RE: Data Center Concerns Date:Monday, September 8, 2025 9:08:35 AM Attachments:image001.png You can go ahead and send to them. I’d like them to have time to read before the council meeting tonight. Rachel Leonard City Administrator 763-271-3275 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362 MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 8:24 AM To: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov> Cc: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: FW: Data Center Concerns Hi Rachel, Do you want me to forward to CC or do you want to? Wasn’t sure if you had other items to send out. From: Trina Hedquist Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 11:48 AM To: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Data Center Concerns Hello, Council Members I am writing to say Monticello does not need a data center. It will harm our air, water, noise, home values, our health and so much more. Please see my below questions. This is so alarming. It also seems we have a paid person invading messaging boards and Facebook groups that is trying to convince the community our concerns are unfounded. Research and communities that have a data center say otherwise. This is a huge issue and I really hope our elected officials haven’t been paid to push this through. Many communities who faced this same scenario the city council holding hearings was just a formality. Even when communities said no on an overwhelming level the city councils pushed it through anyway as they were paid to do so. I really hope that is not already the situation here. I think a situation of this magnitude should go to the people to vote on. Please hear our voices and put the community first. Thank you for taking time to read this and my below prepared remarks. I was sick the day of the meeting. Sincerely, Trina Hedquist Community Questions for City Council Regarding Proposed Data Center Good evening, Council Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I come as a concerned resident regarding the proposed data center. While I understand the potential for economic development, I am deeply worried about the strain this facility could place on our community’s resources, especially our water supply, our electrical grid, and the peace of our neighborhoods. Data centers are notorious for high water consumption, massive electricity demands, and constant noise from cooling systems and generators. These impacts, if not managed properly, could directly affect the daily lives of residents, our local environment, and even our long-term costs of living. With that in mind, I respectfully ask: Water Usage • How much water will the proposed data center require daily, and where will that water come from? • Has an independent environmental impact study been conducted on long-term water use? • What safeguards will be in place to prevent water shortages for residents during droughts or peak usage periods? • Will the company commit to public transparency on monthly water consumption? Electricity & Energy • How much electricity will the facility consume compared to our city’s current residential and business usage? • Will this require new power plants, substations, or infrastructure upgrade, and who pays for those costs? • Has the company committed to renewable energy, or will this increase fossil fuel dependency in our area? • Could the added demand on the grid raise local energy prices for residents? Noise & Environmental Impact • What is the expected noise level from cooling systems and backup generators, and how will it be mitigated? • Has an environmental impact assessment been conducted for air, noise, and light pollution? • How close will the data center be to residential neighborhoods, schools, or parks? Community & Accountability • What long-term benefits (jobs, tax revenue, infrastructure improvements) will this bring to residents versus costs and risks? • How many permanent jobs will actually be created, and are they accessible to local residents? • Will the company commit to a community benefits agreement ensuring protections for residents? • If negative impacts (like water shortages or noise issues) arise, who will be held accountable and how will they be addressed? Thank you and have a productive day! Charlotte Gabler Monticello City Council Member Term Expires Dec 31st, 2026 Pronouns: she, her, hers NOTICE: Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Erica Stonestreet Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 1:34 PM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Data centers Hi Charlotte, I'm late to this party, but I know the Planning Commission is considering amendments to the relevant ordinances to possibly allow a data center to be built in Monticello. I'm not sure what they decided after their meeting this week, and whether the City Council gets involved at some point, but I recently read this article on living near data centers and thought it was a useful take on the pros and cons, and I'm hoping if we go ahead we can put in requirements to reduce noise and require green energy use, and some of the other suggestions for making it liveable. Does p. 5 of this proposal imply that wind and solar would be prohibited entirely, or does "commercial" mean they can't sell the power? I would prefer that sustainable energy sources be allowed, so that any data center could generate a lot of its own power. Thanks! Erica (she/her) Personal web site: ericastonestreet.org Substack: Humaning is Hard, but Philosophy Can Help *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* It has always seemed strange to me that in our endless discussions about education so little stress is laid on the pleasure of becoming an educated person, the enormous interest it adds to life. To be able to be caught up into the world of thought -- that is to be educated. Edith Hamilton From:Jennifer Schreiber To:Angela Schumann Cc:Anne Mueller Subject:FW: Notes for tonight"s planning commission meeting Date:Tuesday, August 5, 2025 1:16:00 PM Attachments:image001.png Angela, Please see his message below. Can you guys pass along the info to the PC? Jennifer Schreiber City Clerk 763-271-3204 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362 MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News From: Scott Harper Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 1:03 PM To: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov> Cc: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Re: Notes for tonight's planning commission meeting Oh! I had thought it was because Rachel had mentioned it in her email. Please do pass the email with the link and attachment to the planning committee. I will be attending National Night Out tonight instead. Scott Harper On Aug 5, 2025, at 12:43 PM, Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@monticellomn.gov> wrote: Hi Scott, You are more than welcome to attend the Planning Commission meeting tonight, but I wanted to let you know that the Data Center ordinance public hearing is not on the agenda this evening. This public hearing is scheduled for August 19 at 6 p.m. at a special Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please let me know. Jennifer Schreiber City Clerk 763-271-3204 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362 <image001.png> MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News From: Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 12:01 PM To: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov> Cc: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Notes for tonight's planning commission meeting Rachel and Jennifer, I have been thinking about the requirements for the new zoning regulations and wanted to suggest a few things. We can consider a noise clause that might read like this: “Noise reduction efforts are required to meet Minnesota Rules Ch. 7030 in its entirety and the noise standards set forth in these regulations is hereby adopted in full without amendment. Any new development or subsequent design changes to an existing development shall meet this standard without exception. Any violation of these standards will be subject to cease and desist orders and fines until such time as the system can operate within the requirements of Minnesota Rules Ch. 7030. In no case will systems in violation of Minnesota Rules Ch. 7030 be allowed to operate and the Grantee of the operational permit shall take notice that the acceptance of the permit is acceptance of these conditions. Grantee accepts all potential consequences civil and / or criminal based on the severity of the nature of the violation and dose so at its own peril. Grantee also will not transfer any facility without appraising the new owner(s) that they also have the same responsibility to the City of Monticello as provided above and in Minnesota Rules Ch. 7030 and this shall be incorporated into any contract conveying interest, ownership or operating agreement with any new parties in perpetuity.” As it pertains to water usage, cooling tower plumes, and public health and safety, there is a type of cooling tower that operates on the adiabatic principle. I have attached a copy of a presentation that discusses this in general and also a link below. Adiabatic cooling would 1. Reduce water usage significantly thus reducing any municipal water supply investment and operating costs for city or well water. (60 to 90% reduction overall) 2. Reduce sewer water requirements by not requiring that the tower purge water be discharged to the municipal waste water system. (There is no purge requirement for these systems.) 3. Address Legionella concerns (No cooling tower tank or recycle required) 4. Not require water tower chemicals that would become airborne and provide localized contamination issues (Once through design 5. Reduce or eliminate cooling plumes (Aesthetically better overall, greatly reduced chance of ice fog on roads, driveways and other properties.) 6. Please specifically note Pages 41, 44 and 45 for your review. It could be written into the permitting process in a form similar to this: “In the interests of water conservation, public health and wellness (Legionella, Sound Level, Airborne Chemical Discharge, etc.) as well as public safety related matters such as ice fog or vapor plumes, the grantee shall only be permitted to use cooling equipment of the Adiabatic Type without substitution or deviation. Failure to comply will require that the violating system shall be immediately shut down by Grantee, removed and replaced with an Adiabatic system without exception. Adiabatic systems shall be sized at a minimum of 95% ASRAE requirement for Monticello, MN” Scott Harper https://coolingbestpractices.com/system-assessments/water-savings/how-adiabatic- technology-delivers-performance-savings-and From: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:21 PM To: Cc: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: RE: City Council Meeting on Monday, July 28 Thank you – yes, the meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. Are you planning to bring copies of the document you attached to the meeting to distribute? Rachel Leonard City Administrator 763-271-3275 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362 <image001.png> MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:06 PM To: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov> Cc: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: RE: City Council Meeting on Monday, July 28 Importance: High Rachael and Jennifer, Specifically in relation to tonight’s meeting. Starts at 6:30? Scott Harper From: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:55 AM To: Subject: City Council Meeting on Monday, July 28 Hello Mr. Harper, I’m glad we had the opportunity to connect over the phone this morning. As discussed, I’ve attached the City Council agenda for tonight, and here is a link to agenda reports. The report and draft scoping document for the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) are included in item 4B. If you’d like to speak about data center development generally, you can utilize the section of the agenda called Citizen Comments. That’s one of the first items on the agenda and allows public comment on anything that’s not formally on the agenda. The mayor will announce the item and ask anyone who would like to speak to come to the podium. Speakers are given 3 minutes, but time may go longer if there are questions from the Council. If you’d like to speak specifically about aspects of the environmental review, the most appropriate time would be when they reach that item on the agenda. There will be summary explanation from staff followed by questions and discussion by Council. At that point, they will often ask if there are members of the public who would like to speak. It’s not a formal public hearing, but the Council appreciates input from community members. As you likely already know, the meetings start at 6:30 p.m. and take place in the Mississippi Room at the Monticello Community Center, 505 Walnut Street. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any follow up questions! Rachel Leonard City Administrator 763-271-3275 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362 <image001.png> MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Callie Hendrickson Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 9:38 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Monticello Data Center Development To Whom It May Concern: Please do not follow through with plans to build the data center without doing due diligence in researching how data centers have affected communities after being built and running. The water supply necessary for data centers is more than many areas can handle. I hope the city actually looks into this, and doesn't just follow through with plans if water things "pass" on paper. I'm also not interested in it due to noise, environmental impact, and the amount of resources (land) it takes up. Please consider all comments underneath your Facebook update as well, as of August 11, 2025. Thank you. Callie Hendrickson Monticello, MN 55362 From: Peg Jensen Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 5:47 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data Center The city should do a full EIS not just an AUAR these centers cause noise pollution, water pollution and air pollution. They use massive amounts of our water and electricity driving cost up for everyone else! I am totally against this proposal for a data Center. Can't you guys find a nice manufacturing company to build there instead? You know providing jobs for people not machines? Get Outlook for Android From: Kelsey Hamel Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 8:29 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Data Center Near Featherstone Dear Angela, I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in featherstone regarding the proposed data center planned for the area just outside our community. While I understand the importance of economic development and technological infrastructure, I have serious concerns about the potential impact this project will have on our neighborhood especially for families with children. Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk or bike in the area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operations poses significant safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add to congestion on our local roads, which are not designed for such high-volume industrial use. Additionally, data centers are known to generate considerable noise from cooling systems and backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our neighborhood both day and night. Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the potential environmental footprint of such a large facility, raises further concerns for the health and well-being of our residents. Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long-term effects on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future industrial development so close to residential areas. I respectfully urge you and the planning department to carefully evaluate alternative locations that would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to family neighborhoods. Our community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should remain a top priority in development decisions. Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further. Kelsey Hamel From:Harlan Hamson To:Development Services Subject:Do do this proposed development of an approximately 550-acre technology campus by Monticello Tech LLC.. Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 8:37:47 PM Do do this proposed development of an approximately 550-acre technology campus by Monticello Tech LLC.. You will completely wreck the city of Monticello. From:fred hoiles To:Development Services Subject:Data center Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 5:03:57 PM Dear Monticello Gov, I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the construction of any data centers in Monticello—both the one proposed near my home and any future projects. While I understand these facilities are often framed as economic opportunities, the negative impacts to our community far outweigh any potential benefits. ⸻ Why I Oppose Data Centers in Monticello 1. Enormous Energy Consumption Data centers require massive amounts of electricity to operate and cool their equipment. This puts pressure on our local power grid and can drive up costs for residents without delivering proportional community benefit. 2. Heavy Water Usage & Environmental Strain Many data centers consume millions of gallons of water each year for cooling. That kind of demand could strain our local water supply and impact groundwater levels—something Monticello should be protecting, not depleting. 3. Minimal Long-Term Job Creation For their size, data centers create surprisingly few permanent jobs once operational. This means the long-term return to the community is minimal compared to the infrastructure and environmental costs. 4. Noise, Heat, and Industrial Impact The constant hum of cooling systems, heat emissions, and the industrial look of these facilities change the character of surrounding neighborhoods and could harm property values. 5. Loss of Land for Better Development Once large tracts of land are used for single-purpose industrial facilities, we lose opportunities for projects that could bring more jobs, tax revenue, and community value—without the environmental toll. 6. Why push out local farms for little value in the community?! Growth is going to happen, that I understand, but to push growth to just help corporations and hurt the community you serve makes no sense. ⸻ My Request I urge the City to reject all data center proposals in Monticello, regardless of location. Instead, we should focus on development that: • Creates sustainable, long-term economic growth • Produces meaningful numbers of local jobs • Protects our environmental resources • Enhances the quality of life for residents I care deeply about Monticello’s growth, but I believe data centers are not the right path forward for our city—whether two blocks from my house or on the other side of town. Thank you for your time and consideration. From: Kelly Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 9:53 AM To: Angela Schumann Angela, I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in featherstone regarding the proposed data center planned for the area just outside our community. While I understand the importance of economic development and technological infrastructure, I have serious concerns about the potential impact this project will have on our neighborhood especially for families with children. Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk or bike in the area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operations poses significant safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add to congestion on our local roads, which are not designed for such high-volume industrial use. Additionally, data centers are known to generate considerable noise from cooling systems and backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our neighborhood both day and night. Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the potential environmental footprint of such a large facility, raises further concerns for the health and well-being of our residents. Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long- term effects on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future industrial development so close to residential areas. I respectfully urge you and the planning department to carefully evaluate alternative locations that would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to family neighborhoods. Our community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should remain a top priority in development decisions. Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further. Kelly Johnson From: amberkoch Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 5:05 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data center Dear Monticello Gov, I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the construction of any data centers in Monticello—both the one proposed near my home and any future projects. While I understand these facilities are often framed as economic opportunities, the negative impacts to our community far outweigh any potential benefits. Why I Oppose Data Centers in Monticello 1. Enormous Energy Consumption Data centers require massive amounts of electricity to operate and cool their equipment. This puts pressure on our local power grid and can drive up costs for residents without delivering proportional community benefit. 2. Heavy Water Usage & Environmental Strain Many data centers consume millions of gallons of water each year for cooling. That kind of demand could strain our local water supply and impact groundwater levels—something Monticello should be protecting, not depleting. 3. Minimal Long-Term Job Creation For their size, data centers create surprisingly few permanent jobs once operational. This means the long-term return to the community is minimal compared to the infrastructure and environmental costs. 4. Noise, Heat, and Industrial Impact The constant hum of cooling systems, heat emissions, and the industrial look of these facilities change the character of surrounding neighborhoods and could harm property values. 5. Loss of Land for Better Development Once large tracts of land are used for single-purpose industrial facilities, we lose opportunities for projects that could bring more jobs, tax revenue, and community value—without the environmental toll. My Request I urge the City to reject all data center proposals in Monticello, regardless of location. Instead, we should focus on development that: • Creates sustainable, long-term economic growth • Produces meaningful numbers of local jobs • Protects our environmental resources • Enhances the quality of life for residents Angela, I care deeply about Monticello’s growth, but I believe data centers are not the right path forward for our city—whether two blocks from my house or on the other side of town. Thank you for your time and consideration. Amber From: Joe Kraft Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 11:03 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Opposition to Data Center Development in Monticello Hi Angela, I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the construction of any data centers in Monticello—both the one proposed near my home and any future projects. While I understand these facilities are often framed as economic opportunities, the negative impacts to our community far outweigh any potential benefits. Why I Oppose Data Centers in Monticello 1.Enormous Energy Consumption Data centers require massive amounts of electricity to operate and cool their equipment. This puts pressure on our local power grid and can drive up costs for residents without delivering proportional community benefit. 2.Heavy Water Usage & Environmental Strain Many data centers consume millions of gallons of water each year for cooling. That kind of demand could strain our local water supply and impact groundwater levels—something Monticello should be protecting, not depleting. 3.Minimal Long-Term Job Creation For their size, data centers create surprisingly few permanent jobs once operational. This means the long-term return to the community is minimal compared to the infrastructure and environmental costs. 4.Noise, Heat, and Industrial Impact The constant hum of cooling systems, heat emissions, and the industrial look of these facilities change the character of surrounding neighborhoods and could harm property values. 5. Loss of Land for Better Development Once large tracts of land are used for single-purpose industrial facilities, we lose opportunities for projects that could bring more jobs, tax revenue, and community value—without the environmental toll. My Request I urge the City to reject all data center proposals in Monticello, regardless of location. Instead, we should focus on development that: ·Creates sustainable, long-term economic growth ·Produces meaningful numbers of local jobs ·Protects our environmental resources ·Enhances the quality of life for residents Angela, I care deeply about Monticello’s growth, but I believe data centers are not the right path forward for our city—whether two blocks from my house or on the other side of town. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Joe Kraft From: Allisonlansing Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 9:43 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Featherstone - Please Listen Dear Angela, I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in featherstone regarding the proposed data center planned for the area just outside our community. While I understand the importance of economic development and technological infrastructure, I have serious concerns about the potential impact this project will have on our neighborhood especially for families with children. Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk or bike in the area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operations poses significant safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add to congestion on our local roads, which are not designed for such high-volume industrial use. Additionally, data centers are known to generate considerable noise from cooling systems and backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our neighborhood both day and night. Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the potential environmental footprint of such a large facility, raises further concerns for the health and well-being of our residents. Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long- term effects on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future industrial development so close to residential areas. I respectfully urge you and the planning department to carefully evaluate alternative locations that would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to family neighborhoods. Our community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should remain a top priority in development decisions. Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further. Allison Lansing 2025 From: Monica Vosmek Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 3:26 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Fw: Opposition to Data Center ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Monica Vosmek To: angela.schumann@MonticelloMN.gov <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 at 10:53:09 AM CDT Subject: Opposition to Data Center Good morning Angela. I am writing in opposition of the Data Center being built directly across from Featherstone neighborhood. With the current construction detours, we have already seen an increase in traffic that has negatively impacted our neighborhood to the point of several neighbors placing signs to slow down as our neighborhood has many, many children. There are several home daycares that frequently walk the trails along the road. For our family, we have a child with Autism and fear that the Data Center will bring additional traffic dangers. The Data Center will also disrupt our quiet neighborhood with the loud noises it will bring. Extra pollution is another concern. We hope that Monticello will keep this area residential and NOT commercial. KEEP OUR AREA SAFE FOR OUR CHILDREN. Thank you, Monica Primeau Featherstone Neighborhood From: shawn o Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 1:08 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Opposition to data center Dear Angela, I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in the ESTABLISHED Featherstone neighborhood regarding the proposed data center planned for the area just outside our community. While I understand the importance of economic development and technological infrastructure, I have serious concerns about the potential impact this project will have on our neighborhood especially for families with children. Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk or bike in the area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operations poses significant safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add to congestion on our local roads, which are not designed for such high-volume industrial use. Additionally, data centers are known to generate considerable noise from cooling systems and backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our neighborhood both day and night. Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the potential environmental footprint of such a large facility, raises further concerns for the health and well-being of our residents. Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long-term effects on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future industrial development so close to residential areas. Our neighborhood (Featherstone) has been expanding and is scheduled to be expanded further to Hwy 25 I believe. I have seen the plans. We did not buy our homes 10+ years ago with plans for a data center RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. There is farmland there now. If a data center were to be built on 550 acres, where are any new houses going to be built in town? Monticello will soon run out of land. Then what to expand the tax base? When we moved to Monticello in 2015, there were literally 3 homes for sale in Monticello at the time. THREE. Thankfully there has been new construction since then and there continues to be. But if Monticello runs out of land for homes, the town is going to slowly die. I respectfully urge you and the planning department to carefully evaluate alternative locations that would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to family neighborhoods. Our community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should remain a top priority in development decisions. Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further. Thanks, Shawn From: Q Turner Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 6:50 PM To: Angela Schumann Angela- As a concerned parent and resident in Featherstone; I am writing to express my strong opposition to the construction of the data center planned for the area adjacent to our community. I understand the importance of economic development and these facilities are often framed as "economic opportunities"; the impacts to our community far outweigh any potential benefits. Our community is home to young children who regularly play outside and walk and bike our sidewalks. Increased traffic, noise from cooling systems, pollution and the significant environmental footprint that such a large facility would create would negatively impact our neighborhood and the young families that call this area home. Not only am I concerned about the mine as well as my neighbors quality of life, I am also concerned about the long-term impact on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future industrial development so close to residential areas. I urge the city to reject this data center plan and look for an alternative placement away from residential areas. Our communities safety, environment and quality of life should be of utmost importance and a priority in development decisions. Thank you, Niquish Turner -Featherstone Resident- -2 nd (c)we would request that if mechanical equipment is within 400' from property line and adjacent to residential or civic uses then it shall be fully screen. If outside that setback or not adjac�nt to civic or residential we would ask that it not be fully screened. -2nd (d) we would request that it is struck and replace with .... A landscaping buffer shall be installed where the DCPUD is adjacent to residential or civic uses and where principal structures, mechanical yards, or parking circulation is within 200' of the property line. The landscaping buffer shall be installed and maintained for the duration of facility operation per the applicable planting requirements of this chapter. -2 nd (e)add Architectural steel to the list -2 nd (i)add that sub stations may be placed on a separate lot within the DCPUD 2nd (i)we would ask that item d be struck Timelines for perfo rmance Would like the timing of commitment of phasing to be removed. If it can't be removed, we would ask that 3 years goes to 5 years. 2 From: Jennifer Schreiber Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 7:59 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: FW: Data centers From: Teia Strand Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2025 2:15 PM To: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Data centers I do not support the city putting in data centers. From:Jonathan Jones To:Angela Schumann Subject:Monticello Tech LLC Data Center Concerns Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 7:42:30 PM Good Evening Ms. Schumann, I have lived in Monticello for about 10 years, and a homeowner here for 6. I cannot stress how much the approval of this Data Center would take this great town towards a dark future. Data Centers are a concrete tumor on resources. They require more more energy than all of the residential communities, create waste in our water systems, and providing no services or jobs for those who live here. If the consideration for this approval is based on the monetary gains from taxes on the land, why drive Monticello to a soulless husk of concrete and metal, when we could be using that same land for homes, enterprises with transparent practices that actually bring jobs into the city, or for projects that provide beautification and continue to draw people here? I cannot, in good faith, believe that a previously unknown company with no tangible ability to show its care and investment back into the community would act in a way that would provide equal benefit to Monticello as well as itself. We can't simply believe that any company, let alone an LLC, that uses the name Monticello in its name is home grown. It's been shown that Monticello Tech LLC is connected to another LLC with the name Monticello used loosely in its name that also has no contributing presence. Monticello Tech LLC's Data Center proposal will only bring harm to our community, and I hope that you consider my thoughts and those of others as well. Thank you for your time. - Jon Jones Subject:Fwd: Data Center Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 1:05:36 PM Monticello Planning Commission, Please see below and links. I will be at the meeting tomorrow evening but wanted to send this as information beforehand. I will referencing it if given an opportunity to speak. From CEDS website (Community & Environmental Defense Services) – When data centers are restricted to industrial sites, they are frequently considered light industrial, as opposed to heavy industrial. However, a case can be made that data centers are more heavy than light industrial. A widely accepted definition of light industrial are those uses where impacts do not extend beyond the site boundary. Given the noise, air pollution and other data center impacts can extend into nearby residential areas and beyond, they should be classed as heavy industrial. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/02/11/water-guzzling-data-centers-spark-worries-for- minnesotas-groundwater https://youtu.be/JflFFqbZ1X8?si=UUs9gXYHnxRYrtLh Regards, Lisa Keenan Monticello, MN 55362 From: Angel Petitta Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:47 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data Center Hello, I have very strong concerns over the proposed data center being built. It does not appear that thorough review was done on the environmental impacts and the resources this will require. There are many protected wild life in these areas that would be impacted as well and I think more time needs to be dedicated to researching and understanding these impacts as well as informing residents of the effects to local farmland, water designation, and potential strain on our power plant. I oppose the rezoning that is being proposed to accomplish this. Other local families are concerned as well and will be spreading awareness. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Thank you, Angelique Petitta From:megan sanborn To:Angela Schumann Subject:Community Opposition: Monticello Tech LLC Data Center Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 10:17:14 PM Hey Angela, Monticello already hosts a nuclear power plant and sits near coal-burning facilities. A water- hungry, energy-hungry data center would push our resources and safety to the breaking point. This project is near the Midwest’s largest solar field, and metals recycling industry. Combined industrial pollution is ignored in their report. The 546 acres targeted include prime farmland, state-important farmland, and 8 wetlands not “vacant land.” These wetlands are home to monarchs, western regal fritillary butterflies, whooping cranes, and bald eagles. The project violates the Wright County Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan (2007) and Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2020). Data centers require massive amounts of water to keep servers cool. We already use enormous amounts of water to cool the nuclear plant. Adding more demand is dangerous and irresponsible. *dont forget our tritium ongoing leak problem..and reminder of how dangerous industrial oversight already are here. And remember Becker Metals’ lithium fire incident — once ignited, these fires are nearly impossible to put out, releasing toxic smoke and runoff into our environment. (During school hours) The community already doesn't trust this project and putting it here is a horrible PR move for Black Rock and Monticello Tech LLC. This project is a direct threat to our farms, water, wildlife, and families. Let’s stand together and say GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY to Black Rock and Monticello Tech LLC. -Megan Sanborn Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer From: Feanna Sobania Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 7:36 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data center concerns Hello! I’m writing as a Monticello resident because I’m worried about the new data center being planned for our city. I understand the appeal of new development, but I hope the city will take a really close look at the impact this could have on our community. We already have a nuclear plant here, which recently had a leak. That shook a lot of people’s confidence in how big facilities like this affect our safety and environment. Adding another large, resource-heavy operation feels foolish. Some of the things I’m especially concerned about are: -Water use: Data centers use a huge amount of water for cooling, and I worry this could strain our local resources. -Energy demand: They also need massive amounts of electricity which could stress the grid. -Environmental impact: Warm water and other byproducts can affect local ecosystems. -Community benefits: From what I understand, data centers don’t create many long-term jobs compared to the amount of resources they use. -Global impact: Data centers in general are going to be devastating to our already warming earth. I would love to see the city share a full environmental review before going forward with any plans. Monticello is a great place to live, and I want to make sure growth here benefits the people who call it home without putting too much strain on our natural resources. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns, Feanna Sobania From: Bonita Stromberg Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 7:15 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data park Absolutely not in favor of this. Not sure that it is in Mon+cello’s best interests. Bonnie Stromberg Sent from my iPhone From:Kara Thornton To:Development Services; Angela Schumann; Charlotte Gabler; Lloyd Hilgart; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Kip Christianson Subject:Monticello Tech LLC Data center Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 8:52:52 PM To whom it may concern, I am writing to voice my very strong opposition to any zoning or land use amendments that will encourage or allow the development of any data center in Monticello. These technology campuses have been shown to use massive amounts of water and electricity, the cost of which is often shouldered by residents. There is concern about ground water contamination, noise pollution, light pollution, elimination of farm and potential residential property, and reduction of property values. Monticello is a growing community with so much potential. Please do not let the supposed financial incentives of allowing a data center into our city ruin that potential! Sincerely, Kara Thornton , Monticello, MN 55362 From:Derrick Zychowski To:Angela Schumann Subject:AI data center Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 10:57:27 PM Angela, My name is Derrick Zychowski, a Monticello resident living very close to the site of the proposed Data center. I know this has sparked quite a bit of interest and I certainly have my opinion on the matter. As mentioned we live Monticello and have always been pleased with the decisions the city has made about developing farmland but this one has me a bit confused. I won't get into a long email discussion on the issue I guess I would ask one simple question. What are 5 reasons having this data center in Monticello would be good for the residents of Monticello? I look forward to your response. Thank you, Derrick Zychowski From:Eli gindele To:Angela Schumann Subject:Data center Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 6:53:08 PM Good evening, I am a small business owner with three young children i was not able to make to the meeting tonight. None of us want this development here besides the current land owner who’s the seller. As a resident here who’s spent most of my 31 years here we do not want this here! It will drive up all costs, taxes, utilities not to mention the ugly thing I gotta drive by to my daycare center explaining to my kids what greed looks like…. We are trying hard enough don’t need to make it harder after recently buying our families forever home I here in Monti I think this towns changed quite a bit the last three years don’t need this crap here!!! I draw my living from the swamps and bodies of water in the area don’t need acres of paved surfaces for a mile square. Thanks for your thoughts of the community not the investors Sent from my iPhone From:Paul and Kelsey H To:Angela Schumann Subject:Data Center Concern Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 1:01:04 PM Dear Angela, I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in featherstone regarding the proposed data center planned for the area just outside our community. While I understand the importance of economic development and technological infrastructure, I have serious concerns about the potential impact this project will have on our neighborhood especially for families with children. Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk or bike in the area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operations poses significant safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add to congestion on our local roads, which are not designed for such high-volume industrial use. Additionally, data centers are known to generate considerable noise from cooling systems and backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our neighborhood both day and night. Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the potential environmental footprint of such a large facility, raises further concerns for the health and well-being of our residents. Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long-term effects on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future industrial development so close to residential areas. I respectfully urge you and the planning department to carefully evaluate alternative locations that would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to family neighborhoods. Our community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should remain a top priority in development decisions. Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further. Paul Hamel From:Kelsey Hubred To:Angela Schumann Subject:Stop the data center Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 1:01:21 PM Dear Angela, I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in featherstone regarding the proposed data center planned for the area just outside our community. While I understand the importance of economic development and technological infrastructure, I have serious concerns about the potential impact this project will have on our neighborhood especially for families with children. Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk or bike in the area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operations poses significant safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add to congestion on our local roads, which are not designed for such high-volume industrial use. Additionally, data centers are known to generate considerable noise from cooling systems and backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our neighborhood both day and night. Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the potential environmental footprint of such a large facility, raises further concerns for the health and well-being of our residents. Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long-term effects on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future industrial development so close to residential areas. I respectfully urge you and the planning department to carefully evaluate alternative locations that would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to family neighborhoods. Our community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should remain a top priority in development decisions. Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further. K Hubred From:Rachelle Kylochko To:Angela Schumann Subject:No AI data center!!! Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:58:11 AM Dear Angela, For the concern of the proposed AI data center in Monticello, MN: Monticello already hosts a nuclear power plant and sits near coal-burning facilities. A water- hungry, energy-hungry data center would push our resources and safety to the breaking point. This project is near the Midwest’s largest solar field, and metals recycling industry. Combined industrial pollution is ignored in their report. The 546 acres targeted include prime farmland, state-important farmland, and 8 wetlands not “vacant land.” These wetlands are home to monarchs, western regal fritillary butterflies, whooping cranes, and bald eagles. The project violates the Wright County Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan (2007) and Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2020). Data centers require massive amounts of water to keep servers cool. We already use enormous amounts of water to cool the nuclear plant. Adding more demand is dangerous and irresponsible. *dont forget our tritium ongoing leak problem.. This project is a direct threat to our farms, water, wildlife, and families. Let’s stand together and say GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY to Black Rock and Monticello Tech LLC. -Rachelle Kylochko From:Scott Nelson To:Angela Schumann; Jennifer Schreiber; Development Services Subject:Data Center Feedback Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:55:31 PM Hello, I am not sure if I will be able to attend the special session tonight, but I also wanted to voice my concern for the proposed data center south of 85th and Hwy 25. I am a resident in the Featherstone neighborhood . While I am already not a huge fan of the proposed industrial area behind our neighborhood for the Stellis Health campus (Is that still planned? I haven't heard anything in a while), I think adding in a data center is going too far for such a residential area of the city that would essentially set a hard boundary in the sand for future city expansion and create headaches for the residents in the area. The electrical grid is already way more unstable than any other city I have lived in and we have all new power lines running to our house. Adding in the tremendous electrical load so close by could cause us more problems and affect our ability to be comfortable in our own houses, especially in high heat times when the grid is stressed as we've seen a few outages already this year. This problem would only get worse. Additionally, I am concerned about the background noise that this would add. As it stands now, I can walk out to my backyard and hear a single hwy 25 so clearly, it might as well be right next to us. We can hear coyotes playing in the field some nights, and occasionally a little music from Quarry Church makes its way over. If we added a 24/7 data center, our peace and quiet would be turned into a white noise machine around the clock, drowning out the slow moving pace we have come to love and enjoy about Monticello. I also have some smaller concerns about the potential light pollution, as we already have far too much of it from UMC and Camping World using far too many and far too bright lights to light their flags, but that's another topic for another day. Adding a data center along with all the utility demands that this type of business would bring with it would negatively affect resale values in an already tough market, and so quickly after the neighborhood was built. I think this could also affect the ability to sell the remaining properties to be built in the Featherstone neighborhood's 7th addition in the future. Overall, I am very against adding this kind of industrial and high demand business so close to the city center. This type of project should be relegated much closer to the power plant and river, as that would also benefit the data center by giving lots of sustainable options for them to support their utility needs while lowering the impact of the neighboring residents. I am not against adding a data center to Monticello, and I think it could be a great addition to the city, but I think its location needs to be more thought out. I think there is plenty of room to grow the residential neighborhood down Hwy 25. Adding a data center at that location would be like setting the boundaries of the city so early in Monticello's growth. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter, Scott Nelson From:Angel Petitta To:Angela Schumann Subject:Data Center Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:47:02 AM Hello, I have very strong concerns over the proposed data center being built. It does not appear that thorough review was done on the environmental impacts and the resources this will require. There are many protected wild life in these areas that would be impacted as well and I think more time needs to be dedicated to researching and understanding these impacts as well as informing residents of the effects to local farmland, water designation, and potential strain on our power plant. I oppose the rezoning that is being proposed to accomplish this. Other local families are concerned as well and will be spreading awareness. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Thank you, Angelique Petitta From: Allison Rajaratnam Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4:07 PM To: Development Services Subject: Comments for today's Planning Commission Meeting Attachments: Allison Rajaratnam comments to Planning Commission_Aug 19 2025.docx Attached please find my comments for today's Planning Commission meeting. Thank you so much, Allison -- Allison Rajaratnam, MPH August 19, 2025 Dear Planning Commission: My family and I moved to Monticello last year. We have really enjoyed this community and plan to raise our young family here in Monticello. Thank you to Stephen for the recommendations to the Planning Commission. I particularly appreciated the pictures and comparison sites for setback distances and data center exteriors. That said, I do share concerns of others related to noise, water and electric use, as well as waste water disposal. So my recommendations and questions are below: 1) First, I agree with designating a specific “Data Center Planned Unit Development (DCPUD) Zoning District .” I appreciate the specificity this brings to evaluating data center proposals. 2) Second, I would like to see the setback on residential borders expanded from 200’ to 300’. 3) Third, I did not see a requirement on how waste water is disposed and would like to see a requirement that waste water is discharged into a waste water system and not directly into nearby bodies of water. 4) Fourth, if Monticello has alternative sources of water rather than our potable water source, that should be considered for a data center. 5) Fifth , I would like to see specifics on the data center’s responsibility for future infrastructure upgrades to electric, water, and waste water systems. Even if estimates of usage are accurate upon the application, 10 years down the road, utility needs may expand. Monticello residents should not have to share in these additional infrastructure costs. In addition, the data center should pay at a higher rate for use of utilities. These are two ways a data center can contribute to the common good of the community. 6) Sixth, I would like to raise the question of the sufficiency of the Minnesota Noise Pollution requirements. Are these requirements strong enough to product the residential feel and quiet of neighborhoods? Would a hum from a data center impact the property values and ability to resell a home? 7) Seventh, I would like to better understand enforcement actions the city can take prior to revocation. Revocation is a high bar, especially for an operational data center, but the city needs recourse actions if the data center strains water or electric supplies or if we have noise pollution violations. These measures need to be strong enough to be truly punitive or to catalyze correction action rather than becoming a cost of doing business. 8) Finally, below are some links to some national reporting that raises concerns other communities have faced with data centers: a. https://one.npr.org/i/fis-381443930- 6b7bfc690f0f4f05c1343f59d629be08:fis-381443930- 6b7bfc690f0f4f05c1343f59d629be08-enclosure-audio b. https://one.npr.org/i/nx-s1-5469933:nx-s1-5527651-1 c. https://one.npr.org/i/nx-s1-5430796:nx-s1-5527651-1 Thank you to the Planning Commission for allowing additional time to consider these recommendations. Allison Rajaratnam Monticello, MN From:candace To:Angela Schumann Subject:Public Comment on AUAR – Draft Order for the City of Monticello Industrial Development Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) As the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:20:48 PM Dear Ms. Schumann, I am submitting this comment regarding the proposed AUAR for the Monticello Tech development. Water Cooling Restriction Given the known, extremely high water use associated with traditional data center cooling systems, I strongly urge the City of Monticello to include a zoning restriction that prohibits water-based cooling for data centers within the technology campus. Large-scale data centers can consume millions of gallons of water daily, placing unsustainable pressure on municipal wells, aquifers, and nearby wetlands. This is particularly concerning given: The project area’s location in a wellhead protection zone and Drinking Water Supply Management Area. The presence of wetlands and impaired waters near the site. Minnesota’s increasing vulnerability to drought cycles and groundwater stress. Preferred Alternatives Modern data centers do not need to rely on water cooling. The City should require developers to adopt more sustainable and resilient cooling methods, including: Closed-loop liquid or immersion cooling (sealed systems with minimal water use). Air or free cooling, which is viable in Minnesota’s climate much of the year. Use of reclaimed/greywater if absolutely necessary, rather than potable municipal supply. Request for Action To safeguard Monticello’s long-term water security and ensure compatibility with community needs, the AUAR and subsequent zoning ordinances should explicitly: Ban water-based cooling systems for data centers. Require developers to demonstrate sustainable cooling technologies as part of site plan approval. Set enforceable caps on water consumption for all tech campus tenants. By putting this standard in place now, the City can welcome economic development while also protecting residents, farms, and ecosystems from avoidable water stress. Thank you for considering this request. Respectfully, Candace Seidl Buffalo MN 55313 From:Nicholas To:Development Services; Jennifer Schreiber Subject:Concerned Eakern Cir Resident Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:27:59 AM Good afternoon, As I can't make it to today's public hearing, I would like to submit my comments in regard to the zoning proposals. These comments surround data centers, why it is a bad choice for our community, and facts of how it would hurt our community, rather than help. • Not here to stop new technology, as data centers and AI are certainly a part of an ambious future but it's not something that I want in my backyard • Living a third of a mile away…concerned about noise level of 60db and wildlife being driven away. • I would like to know what is planned for noise ordinance, power monitoring, and the plan for safe water • We are not being told the ramifications for such a project in our growing city • Data center’s needs outweigh the needs of the city • While it has improved, we’ve had stress on the power grid without this data center and I feel that we don’t have the power infrastructure for it o There would need to be more investments in network reinforcement and power congeson relief from Xcel. Are they willing to do this? ((Aneli, Stefano & Tina, Giuseppe & Gagliano, Antonio. (2025) • The majority of the jobs that these data centers create are for the erecon of the building o Data centers during regular operation only employ 10-100, and AI is already being looked at to run most operaons. These few jobs usually require a high bar for entry, and are often contract positions • As data center usage increases with AI and other implementations for future tech, power consumption will increase from 4.4% consumption of US electricity to 6.7-12%. (Shehabi, A.; Newkirk, A.; Smith, S.; Hubbard, A.; Lei, N.; Siddik, M., et al. (2024)) • The sign that we are too early to decide if this is a good idea, is that there is a huge lack of transparency in the aforementioned report from these companies. Not only are these companies yet to disclose what their energy output is, there is also a lack of metrics to measure this figure by. o I don’t want such a large unknown in this city. Truly the only advantage to this are the temporary jobs it will bring and efficiency it will bring to those we will never meet, does not outweigh how it affects a growing populaon right off of a major highway. o We are only so large of a town, space is limited, and we can do a lot beter with housing or retail space. • This is all simply a company trying to take advantage of a town outside of the cies, for relatively cheap land. • Data centers will consume rural America, consuming our water and our power, while being an eyesore for our growing city. We can do better. References: Aneli, Stefano & Tina, Giuseppe & Gagliano, Antonio. (2025). Modelling and experimental surveys on the energy consumpon of a small-scale data center. Energy Efficiency. 18. 10.1007/s12053-025- 10357-7. Shehabi, A.; Newkirk, A.; Smith, S.; Hubbard, A.; Lei, N.; Siddik, M., et al. (2024). 2024 United States Data Center Energy Usage Report. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Report #: LBNL- 2001637. htp:////dx.doi.org/10.71468/P1WC7Q Retrieved from htps:////escholarship.org/uc/item/32d6m0d1 Thank you, Nick Skramstad Nicholas Skramstad Email: Phone: Address: From: Ashley Andersen Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 1:28 PM To: Development Services Subject: Feedback on the new data center I would like to share my opinion on the new data center proposed for Monticello MN. Unfortunately I was not able to attend the public hearing on August 19. As many others have stated, I have concerns over the large amount of resources a data center will require. The amount of water and power required to run these plants is astonishing and wasteful. This is a concern not just for our community, but for the whole concept of data centers. Why would the city and its leaders choose to bring a large facility into our community that will take such a large draw of our water and power? Is this really worth it for the tax or financial incentives? Are we only looking at revenue and not the quality of life for our community members? Not only would the data center be wasteful, it will cover acres of farmland. If the farmland must be developed, more housing seems like it would be a better choice for our community than this use of the land. Residential neighborhoods still allow green space, trees, ponds, etc. Residential areas allow local wildlife to still live in the area. A data center will turn open space into a field of ugly concrete buildings and cement parking lots. Wildlife will be displaced or lost altogether. It will be unsightly and invasive. Please consider the voices of community members during this time of public comment. It sounds like there are more negatives than positives for our community if this data center were to be built. Thank you, Ashley Andersen Monticello, MN From:Nick Frattalone To:Angela Schumann Cc:Luke Appert/USA Subject:DCPUD Date:Wednesday, August 20, 2025 6:46:59 AM Good Morning Angela, Great job at the meeting last night. I just wanted to follow up in writing with the comments I have on the DCPUD: 1. Minimum FAR – This seems adequate on a normal development but extremely massive on a larger scale lot. If we used this as a minimum on a 550 acre site, the building footprint would need to be a minimum of 5.95 million square feet. Not sure the city would want that kind of density and/or if a developer would even want to agree to it. 2. Landscape Buffer: Currently states “buffers” are required all along the perimeter of the site. We would like to propose a further setback along non-residential/non-civic areas that would be exempt from these buffers. Say, 300-400’? 3. Timeline for performance of phased projects of 3 years. With technology ever changing, this could provide unintentional “rushed” development and should be removed or changed to at least 5 years. 4. Electricity supply “study”. Requesting this to be removed as it is not the applicant’s responsibility. 5. Fiscal supply study. This is very vague and could mean different things to different parties. Again, with technology ever changing, it would be difficult for a developer to get fine detail on this and then have to be held accountable to those figures 3-5 years later. 6. Substations should be exempt from design standards. I am not 100% certain but I do believe the substations are directed by the power supplier (X-cel) and I am not sure the developer can guarantee meeting the same standards as the proposed Data Center. It may make sense to create another set of standards for the substation that pertains to things such as max heights, screening, fencing, min lot areas, max impervious area, minimum FAT, etc. 7. Height of structures. Most data centers have internal communication towers that can be up to 85’ in height and would exceed the current 65’ height restriction and could possible be listed under the current prohibited use section. I look forward to future discussions on these matters. Thanks and have a great day! Nick Frattalone Chief Executive Officer 3205 Spruce Street St. Paul, MN 55117 P: 651.484.0448 | C: 651.283.6627 www.frattaloneco.com From: Derrick Zychowski Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 12:26 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Re: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration Thank your for your response. You are welcome to use my comments in the document. I know the meeting tonight was to establish guidelines in the event that someone was interested in building a data center in Monticello. It sounded like we had someone inquire about building one on the proposed site. I attended the majority of the meeting but had to leave before it was over for a prior commitment. What are the next steps in the process? I know there is another meeting 9/2. Who makes the final decision on weather we have the right zoning rules? When is that decision made? The only benefit I heard about the potential data center was it would increase the tax base. Isn't there other ways to increase the tax base without putting the residents of Monticello at risk? It didn't sound like many residents that attended the meeting had any interest in a data center at the proposed site. Do you have any thoughts on how it would be the residents of Monticello? On Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 4:47 PM Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote: Thank you for emailing your comments related to the consideration of data center development in the community. Your comments will be forwarded to the Monticello Planning Commission for their consideration as part of this evening’s public hearing on the draft zoning ordinance regulating data centers. The data center ordinance being discussed at Planning Commission is not specific to a particular data center project. The ordinance would set the requirements for any data center development in the city. The report and draft ordinance for the August 19th, 2025 item can be found here. An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Scoping Document has also been prepared as related to development of an approximately 546 acre area south of 85th Street NE. More information can be found at Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN. Your comments will also be included in the public comment documentation for the AUAR Scoping Document. If you would like to make additional comment specific to the AUAR Scoping Document, the comment period is open until September 4, 2025. If you do not wish for your prior email to be included in the AUAR document, please email me that you do not wish for your comment to be included in the AUAR Scoping Document comments. Angela Schumann Community Development Director Development Services 763-271-3224 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Mon.cello, MN 55362 Mon.celloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Nicole Puckett Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 6:43 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Monticello Data Center Hello Angela, My name is Nicole, I am a resident of Big Lake. I live here with my family, my husband and our two children. We've lived here for the last 6 years and had made the decision to move here to step out of the large cities. We wanted a slower life away from Big Tech. The plans of bringing a Data Center to Monticello is extremely concerning as it threatens everything from the land, the Earth to the inhabitants in the area, animals and humans alike. I know i am not alone in this, the Data Center simply shouldn't be built. I know many have felt the energies shift recently, we are on our way to a new healthy new Earth. These Data Centers are taking steps backwards. The Earth needs us now more than ever to help her heal. Please help us stop these centers from being built. https://www.staxengineering.com/stax-hub/the-environmental-impact-of-data-centers/ https://www.dataversity.net/data-centers-and-the-climate-crisis-a-problem-hiding-in- plain-sight/ I appreciate your time and attention on this! Thanks, Nicole Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: Harlan Hamson Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 10:35 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration In general, Omaha, Nebraska is a popular location for data centers due to factors like reliable and affordable electricity, open land, and a robust fiber optic network. However, some challenges and concerns are associated with the growth of data centers in Omaha and elsewhere: ·Environmental Impact: Data centers are energy and water-intensive, consuming significant electricity and water for operation and cooling. This can put a strain on local resources and raise concerns about the environmental footprint of these facilities. For example, the Omaha Public Power District has faced increased demand and delayed the shutdown of a coal plant due to data center expansion, particularly Google's investments in the area. ·Grid Reliability: The increasing demand from data centers can impact the stability and reliability of the electrical grid. There have been concerns raised about the potential for data center behavior to contribute to cascading power outages, according to NERC reports. ·Infrastructure Demands: Building and maintaining data centers requires substantial infrastructure, including power, cooling, and fiber optics. Keeping up with the rapid growth in demand for these resources presents challenges for utilities and communities. ·Local Concerns: Residents and communities may have concerns about the environmental impact, noise levels, and potential strain on local resources posed by data center development. ·Outages: While many data centers prioritize reliability and redundancy to prevent downtime, outages can still occur due to power issues, equipment failures, or even software updates. These outages can affect various services and businesses, as seen in a global IT outage that impacted Nebraska residents. Despite these challenges, data centers play a crucial role in supporting the digital economy and provide significant benefits, such as job creation and the provision of essential services. Ultimately, the development and operation of data centers in Omaha involve a balancing act between the benefits they offer and the need to address the associated environmental and infrastructure concerns. From: Harlan Hamson Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 9:02 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration Here's a post from a friend who is fighting the same battle in another state. Might be worth looking into if this would be true here as well. "Getting ready for our likely last shot at stopping this data center within eyesight of our house. The list of reasons this is a bad idea is very long, but the latest I just learned is that the legal language includes a free pass for destroying the local wells and water table. If everyone living in the area suddenly loses water, as has happened with other data centers, they have no legal liabilities. The city wants this for tax revenue. Which is why they're offering fifty years of zero taxes to the data center. From: Harlan Hamson Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 10:35 AM To: Angela Schumann <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov> Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration In general, Omaha, Nebraska is a popular location for data centers due to factors like reliable and affordable electricity, open land, and a robust fiber optic network. However, some challenges and concerns are associated with the growth of data centers in Omaha and elsewhere: ·Environmental Impact: Data centers are energy and water-intensive, consuming significant electricity and water for operation and cooling. This can put a strain on local resources and raise concerns about the environmental footprint of these facilities. For example, the Omaha Public Power District has faced increased demand and delayed the shutdown of a coal plant due to data center expansion, particularly Google's investments in the area. ·Grid Reliability: The increasing demand from data centers can impact the stability and reliability of the electrical grid. There have been concerns raised about the potential for data center behavior to contribute to cascading power outages, according to NERC reports. ·Infrastructure Demands: Building and maintaining data centers requires substantial infrastructure, including power, cooling, and fiber optics. Keeping up with the rapid growth in demand for these resources presents challenges for utilities and communities. · Local Concerns: Residents and communities may have concerns about the environmental impact, noise levels, and potential strain on local resources posed by data center development. · Outages: While many data centers prioritize reliability and redundancy to prevent downtime, outages can still occur due to power issues, equipment failures, or even software updates. These outages can affect various services and businesses, as seen in a global IT outage that impacted Nebraska residents. Despite these challenges, data centers play a crucial role in supporting the digital economy and provide significant benefits, such as job creation and the provision of essential services. Ultimately, the development and operation of data centers in Omaha involve a balancing act between the benefits they offer and the need to address the associated environmental and infrastructure concerns. From: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 9:44 PM To: Harlan Hamson Subject: Automatic reply: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration Thank you for your email. I am currently out of office, returning on Monday, August 25th, 2025. If you need immediate assistance, please call our front desk at 763-295-2711. From: Harlan Hamson Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 9:45 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration Why doesn't the city of Monticello put Data Center on the ballot for this November. Let he people of the city decide if the Data Center should be built here. From: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4:47 PM To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov> Cc: Anne Mueller <Anne.Mueller@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tyler Bevier <Tyler.Bevier@MonticelloMN.gov>; Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration Thank you for emailing your comments related to the consideration of data center development in the community. Your comments will be forwarded to the Monticello Planning Commission for their consideration as part of this evening’s public hearing on the draft zoning ordinance regulating data centers. The data center ordinance being discussed at Planning Commission is not specific to a particular data center project. The ordinance would set the requirements for any data center development in the city. The report and draft ordinance for the August 19th, 2025 item can be found here. An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Scoping Document has also been prepared as related to development of an approximately 546 acre area south of 85th Street NE. More information can be found at Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN. Your comments will also be included in the public comment documentation for the AUAR Scoping Document. If you would like to make additional comment specific to the AUAR Scoping Document, the comment period is open until September 4, 2025. If you do not wish for your prior email to be included in the AUAR document, please email me that you do not wish for your comment to be included in the AUAR Scoping Document comments. Angela Schumann Community Development Director Development Services 763-271-3224 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362 MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Beth Heck Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 1:19 PM To: Development Services Subject: Data Center I am a long +me resident of Mon+cello. I am against the Data Center because of the nega+ve environmental impacts. I have researched and feel that the income poten+al does not outweigh the costs to our environment and our residents. Beth Heck Mon+cello From: Beth Heck Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 1:34 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data Center I am against the Data Center. I have researched and read about the environmental impacts. I can’t see where the claimed financial gains for the city outweighs the costs to our environment and the surrounding area. It’s not something we need to grow as a community. Destroying our natural environment and stressing our natural resources, which are not unlimited just isn’t worth it. I really hope you listen to the people of this community and do not allow this Data Center to go forward. Beth Heck, , Mon5cello From: Harlan Hamson Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 4:11 PM To: Angela Schumann; Lloyd Hilgart Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration https://www.facebook.com/reel/1301648375032057 From: Harlan Hamson Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 9:02 PM To: Angela Schumann <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov> Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration Here's a post from a friend who is fighting the same battle in another state. Might be worth looking into if this would be true here as well. "Getting ready for our likely last shot at stopping this data center within eyesight of our house. The list of reasons this is a bad idea is very long, but the latest I just learned is that the legal language includes a free pass for destroying the local wells and water table. If everyone living in the area suddenly loses water, as has happened with other data centers, they have no legal liabilities. The city wants this for tax revenue. Which is why they're offering fifty years of zero taxes to the data center. From: Harlan Hamson Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 10:35 AM To: Angela Schumann <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov> Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration In general, Omaha, Nebraska is a popular location for data centers due to factors like reliable and affordable electricity, open land, and a robust fiber optic network. However, some challenges and concerns are associated with the growth of data centers in Omaha and elsewhere: ·Environmental Impact: Data centers are energy and water-intensive, consuming significant electricity and water for operation and cooling. This can put a strain on local resources and raise concerns about the environmental footprint of these facilities. For example, the Omaha Public Power District has faced increased demand and delayed the shutdown of a coal plant due to data center expansion, particularly Google's investments in the area. ·Grid Reliability: The increasing demand from data centers can impact the stability and reliability of the electrical grid. There have been concerns raised about the potential for data center behavior to contribute to cascading power outages, according to NERC reports. · Infrastructure Demands: Building and maintaining data centers requires substantial infrastructure, including power, cooling, and fiber optics. Keeping up with the rapid growth in demand for these resources presents challenges for utilities and communities. · Local Concerns: Residents and communities may have concerns about the environmental impact, noise levels, and potential strain on local resources posed by data center development. · Outages: While many data centers prioritize reliability and redundancy to prevent downtime, outages can still occur due to power issues, equipment failures, or even software updates. These outages can affect various services and businesses, as seen in a global IT outage that impacted Nebraska residents. Despite these challenges, data centers play a crucial role in supporting the digital economy and provide significant benefits, such as job creation and the provision of essential services. Ultimately, the development and operation of data centers in Omaha involve a balancing act between the benefits they offer and the need to address the associated environmental and infrastructure concerns. From: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 9:44 PM To: Harlan Hamson Subject: Automatic reply: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration Thank you for your email. I am currently out of office, returning on Monday, August 25th, 2025. If you need immediate assistance, please call our front desk at 763-295-2711. From: Jeanne Yohn Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 8:44 PM To: Angela Schumann; Tyler Bevier; Development Services Subject: Data Centers Objection I’ve recently learned about the possibility of data centers near our home. We want to submit our objection to this project. Here are our concerns: ·Data Centers are a huge drain on water and electricity for their source of power. We are concerned that this demand will deplete our local resources, potentially raising prices for our own power needs. ·Data Centers are loud. The area under discussion is largely rural but with housing nearby the site. In addition, the noise will cause problems for the wildlife and livestock in the area. ·Data Centers are bright. This also negatively impacts the housing around the area. ·All of these things are not only going to impact the residents quality of life, it will reduce our home values. Overall, please know that we strongly object to the locations considered. If you disregard the concerns of the public and move forward over our objections, we would ask you to do one thing: REQUIRE THEM TO USE SOLAR PANELS TO PRODUCE 100% OF THEIR POWER NEEDED. Respectfully, Jeanne and Alan Yohn From: Jeanne Yohn Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 8:44 PM To: Angela Schumann; Tyler Bevier; Development Services Subject: Data Centers Objection I’ve recently learned about the possibility of data centers near our home. We want to submit our objection to this project. Here are our concerns: · Data Centers are a huge drain on water and electricity for their source of power. We are concerned that this demand will deplete our local resources, potentially raising prices for our own power needs. · Data Centers are loud. The area under discussion is largely rural but with housing nearby the site. In addition, the noise will cause problems for the wildlife and livestock in the area. · Data Centers are bright. This also negatively impacts the housing around the area. · All of these things are not only going to impact the residents quality of life, it will reduce our home values. Overall, please know that we strongly object to the locations considered. If you disregard the concerns of the public and move forward over our objections, we would ask you to do one thing: REQUIRE THEM TO USE SOLAR PANELS TO PRODUCE 100% OF THEIR POWER NEEDED. Respectfully, Jeanne and Alan Yohn From:Christa Duggan To:Angela Schumann Subject:Data Center Date:Sunday, August 24, 2025 5:38:56 PM Hi Angela, I live in Monticello and I’m writing in regard's to the proposed data center that is possibly coming to Monticello. It not a good idea. I realize the city would love it because of the taxes it could bring. It requires re-zoning to have it there. That land could be better put to use by more housing or even other businesses that don’t have the environmental impacts the data center could cause. Data centers use an immense amount of water, they put a huge strain on power grids and are not great for the environment in general. Not to mention the wildlife and other environmental impacts it could have. It’s just not a great idea. Monticello doesn’t need that. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Christa Duggan From:Charlotte Gabler To:Tina Forster Cc:Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject:Re: Date:Monday, August 25, 2025 9:17:15 AM From: Tina Forster Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 9:18 PM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Hello Charlotte, My name is Tina Forster and have been a Monticello resident for 22 years. You were my daughter’s Girl Scout troop leader. I am against the data center for a plethora of reasons. First of all, nobody wants data centers in their community. Nobody! The environmental damage, electric usage, and the water waste are just a few of the environmental abuses citizens will face. The tax payers will be saddled with the bills and anything promised economically is NOT worth it. These large scale data centers are not meant to be placed in residential areas, by churches, daycares, schools and houses. Energy- One data center uses as much electricity as 80,000 homes. The citizens of Monticello will end up paying rates for their electricity beyond our wildest dreams. We already have Black rock trying to purchase Excel and privatize our electrical grid. The billionaires are buying up all they can including the town of Monticello. Water-This is another way citizens in Monticello will literally pay the price. Not only will we need to expand our water treatment facility, but the tax payers will foot the bill. A data center could consume up to 110 millions of gallons of water per a year which is equivalent to 1,000 households. This is a threat to the Midwest’s precious resource which is water. Economic-proponents of the data center are convinced that 1000’s of job opportunities will be brought to Monticello when actually they bring only 20- 50 jobs. They need someone to clean and keep the lights on. The company does not use local electrical crews or data specialists. Most of these positions are contracted out. These companies are largely tax exempt Pollution-The related emissions from the diesel generators release matter and nitrogen dioxide impacting the air quality causing respiratory problems in humans. I can’t help but feel completely sold out by our elected officials in Monticello. I’ve been studying other Minnesota towns that are fighting data centers: Farmington, Rosemount, Mankato, Becker, Hampton, Hermantown etc. The pattern of late public awareness is exactly what is a hallmark of data center planning and that’s exactly what is happening to Monticello. There is a shadowy billionaire company masquerading as a local Monticello business which we have discovered is Black rock. I hope the Monticello City Council members did not sign NDA’s like Farmington’s city officials. I discovered that the project in Farmington had been in the planning phase for 1 1/2 years or longer before the public was notified. Word is getting out and 95% of citizens will not be pro-data Center in their town. Anyone that is looking out for the best interests of Monticello citizens and its resources would not be pro-data center. The tax rewards to not equate to the environmental damage and high bills that Monticello residents will be left with. Thank you, Tina Forster From: Harlan Hamson Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 11:44 AM To: Lloyd Hilgart; Angela Schumann Subject: Data Center- Problems People oppose data centers due to their high consumption of energy and water , leading to concerns about strain on local resources and potential increases in utility costs. Additional concerns include noise pollution, negative impacts on local land use and property values, the generation of air pollution from backup diesel generators, and a perceived lack of significant long-term economic benefits or permanent jobs for the local community, according to Data Center Knowledge, Data Center Frontier, and Hivenet. Here's a breakdown of the main reasons for opposition: ·High Energy Consumption: Data centers require vast amounts of electricity to operate, which can strain local power grids, potentially leading to increased costs for all customers. ·Water Usage: Many data centers consume significant quantities of water for cooling, which can be a concern in water-scarce regions, impacting available water for residents. ·Environmental Impact: Backup diesel generators, often used in data centers, release emissions that can negatively affect local air quality. ·Noise Pollution: The constant operation of equipment and backup systems can generate noise that is disruptive to nearby communities. ·Impact on Local Resources: Data centers can consume large amounts of land and put pressure on local infrastructure, potentially leading to changes in land use and increased demands on local utilities. ·Limited Economic Benefits: While data centers may create jobs during construction, they often generate few long-term, permanent jobs for the local community, and the tax revenue generated may not be a fair trade for the strain on resources, according to Data Center Frontier and Hivenet. ·Lack of Transparency: Developers and Big Tech firms sometimes use non-disclosure agreements, which can prevent communities from fully understanding the scope and impact of a proposed data center, leading to a perception of secrecy and a lack of community input. · Property Value Concerns: The large size and potential changes in land use associated with data centers can lead to concerns about their impact on local property values. AI Get Outlook for iOS From: Charlotte Gabler Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 9:15 AM To: Ted Cc: Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject: Re: Good Morning Ted- Thank you for the email. I am including City Administrator Rachel Leonard on this as well as Community Development Director Angela Schumann. I appreciate your feedback. There are a lot of unknowns at this time but please know we are doing our diligence to make sure we understand pros/cons/impacts. No formal applications have been submitted. We have had 2 interested parties reach out since 2024-one was interested in a site within the Otter Creek Business Park and the other is in the orderly annexation/growth area south of town-the 500+/- acre area. No decisions have been made about any specific projects, just relating to land use/zoning codes. Land use/zoning codes help us better regulate. Because of the interest in the 500+/- area, this also triggered a much bigger review for environmental, city infrastructure (water, sewer, roads), and those interested parties also have to work with Xcel to see if Xcel is able to provide the necessary power. The Xcel analysis can take a while as well. Please continue to share feedback as you see items on the city website for public notices/meeting agendas. Any questions please give City Hall a call 763-295-2711 Thank you! Charlotte Thank you and have a productive day! Charlotte Gabler Monticello City Council Member Term Expires Dec 31st, 2026 Pronouns: she, her, hers NOTICE: Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Ted Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 5:22 PM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Hello, My name is Theodore Keith and I live in Monticello township cross from where the data center is being proposed . I ask you to vote against a data center coming to Monticello. Here are the reasons why: Environmental and resource consumption High energy usage: Data centers are extremely energy-intensive, consuming up to 50 times more power per square foot than a typical office building. Globally, data centers account for about 1% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. The AI boom is expected to accelerate this demand dramatically, with some forecasts projecting global data center electricity consumption to more than double by 2030. Strain on the power grid: This soaring energy demand, particularly from AI-optimized centers, can overwhelm existing power grids and delay the shutdown of older, fossil fuel- based power plants. This can also drive up electricity costs for local residential and commercial customers. Excessive water consumption: Large data centers can consume between 1 million and 5 million gallons of water daily, primarily for cooling servers. This places a major strain on local water resources, especially in areas with limited or stressed water supplies. E-waste generation: The rapid upgrade cycle for hardware, driven by technological advancements, creates large amounts of electronic waste, which can release toxic materials into the environment if not disposed of properly. Backup generator emissions: Many facilities rely on large, diesel-powered backup generators to ensure 24/7 uptime. Regular testing of these generators releases pollutants like nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter, which degrades local air quality and poses health risks. Local socioeconomic impacts Limited permanent jobs: While data center construction creates short-term work, the operational phase is highly automated and requires very few permanent employees. This means the long-term economic benefits to the local community in terms of job creation are minimal. Tax incentives and revenue questions: Developers often receive substantial tax incentives and abatements to build in a community. This reduces the overall tax revenue for the locality, and critics argue the incentives rarely provide a tangible economic lift that justifies the costs. Exclusionary development: Data center deals are frequently brokered in secret, with local governments approving large-scale, "by-right" zoning for facilities with minimal public engagement. This lack of transparency can leave residents feeling excluded from decisions that directly impact their community. Infrastructure costs shifted to taxpayers: Upgrades required for roads, utilities, and power transmission to support data centers are often subsidized by or shifted to local taxpayers. Community and quality of life issues Noise pollution: Cooling fans, generators, and transformers at data centers create a constant, low-frequency humming sound that can disrupt residents' quality of life, especially in rural or suburban areas. The noise from backup generator testing is also disruptive. Aesthetic concerns: The windowless, industrial-style warehouses of data centers are often seen as eyesores that clash with surrounding architectural aesthetics, particularly in suburban or rural settings. Land use and property value: Data centers consume large parcels of land, replacing open spaces, farmland, or potential residential areas. While some argue they can increase property values, concerns remain about their impact on the character and future development of a community. Wildlife disturbance: Noise emissions from data centers can disrupt local wildlife, altering animal behavior and migration patterns. Again I urge you to vote against the data center coming to Monticello. Thank you for reading my email, I urge you to do the right thing and vote against the data center coming to Monticello, Theodore Keith Resources: https://www.datacenterfrontier.com/site-selection/article/55307719/when-communities- push-back-navigating-data-center-opposition https://www.staxengineering.com/stax-hub/the-environmental-impact-of-data- centers/#:~:text=Data%20center%20emissions%20are%20caused,40%25%20of%20their %20electricity%20usage. https://www.techtarget.com/searchdatacenter/feature/How-the-rise-in-AI-impacts-data- centers-and-the-environment#:~:text=their%20energy%20footprint.- ,AI%20must%20process%20vast%20volumes%20of%20data%20and%20conduct%20co mplex,complex%20and%20demand%20more%20energy. https://www.brushwoodmedianetwork.com/national/poll-american-voters-dont-want- data-centers-built-in-their- communities/#:~:text=The%20data%20centers%20are%20used,a%20large%20amount% 20of%20energy. https://greenehurlocker.com/recent-developments-at-the-intersection-of-data-centers- and- energy/#:~:text=Recent%20Developments%20at%20the%20Intersection%20of%20Data,a re%20putting%20pressure%20on%20the%20energy%20system. https://www.datacenterwatch.org/report#:~:text=While%20there%20is%20bipartisan%20 opposition,to%20have%20a%20partisan%20lean. From: Ted Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 5:14 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Don't approve the data center Hello, My name is Theodore Keith and I live at Monticello, MN 55362. I ask you to vote against a data center coming to Monticello. Here are the reasons why: Environmental and resource consumption High energy usage: Data centers are extremely energy-intensive, consuming up to 50 times more power per square foot than a typical office building. Globally, data centers account for about 1% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. The AI boom is expected to accelerate this demand dramatically, with some forecasts projecting global data center electricity consumption to more than double by 2030. Strain on the power grid: This soaring energy demand, particularly from AI-optimized centers, can overwhelm existing power grids and delay the shutdown of older, fossil fuel- based power plants. This can also drive up electricity costs for local residential and commercial customers. Excessive water consumption: Large data centers can consume between 1 million and 5 million gallons of water daily, primarily for cooling servers. This places a major strain on local water resources, especially in areas with limited or stressed water supplies. E-waste generation: The rapid upgrade cycle for hardware, driven by technological advancements, creates large amounts of electronic waste, which can release toxic materials into the environment if not disposed of properly. Backup generator emissions: Many facilities rely on large, diesel-powered backup generators to ensure 24/7 uptime. Regular testing of these generators releases pollutants like nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter, which degrades local air quality and poses health risks. Local socioeconomic impacts Limited permanent jobs: While data center construction creates short-term work, the operational phase is highly automated and requires very few permanent employees. This means the long-term economic benefits to the local community in terms of job creation are minimal. Tax incentives and revenue questions: Developers often receive substantial tax incentives and abatements to build in a community. This reduces the overall tax revenue for the locality, and critics argue the incentives rarely provide a tangible economic lift that justifies the costs. Exclusionary development: Data center deals are frequently brokered in secret, with local governments approving large-scale, "by-right" zoning for facilities with minimal public engagement. This lack of transparency can leave residents feeling excluded from decisions that directly impact their community. Infrastructure costs shifted to taxpayers: Upgrades required for roads, utilities, and power transmission to support data centers are often subsidized by or shifted to local taxpayers. Community and quality of life issues Noise pollution: Cooling fans, generators, and transformers at data centers create a constant, low-frequency humming sound that can disrupt residents' quality of life, especially in rural or suburban areas. The noise from backup generator testing is also disruptive. Aesthetic concerns: The windowless, industrial-style warehouses of data centers are often seen as eyesores that clash with surrounding architectural aesthetics, particularly in suburban or rural settings. Land use and property value: Data centers consume large parcels of land, replacing open spaces, farmland, or potential residential areas. While some argue they can increase property values, concerns remain about their impact on the character and future development of a community. Wildlife disturbance: Noise emissions from data centers can disrupt local wildlife, altering animal behavior and migration patterns. Again I urge you to vote against the data center coming to Monticello. Thank you for reading my email, I urge you to do the right thing and vote against the data center coming to Monticello, Theodore Keith. Resources: https://www.datacenterfrontier.com/site-selection/article/55307719/when-communities- push-back-navigating-data-center-opposition https://www.staxengineering.com/stax-hub/the-environmental-impact-of-data- centers/#:~:text=Data%20center%20emissions%20are%20caused,40%25%20of%20their %20electricity%20usage. https://www.techtarget.com/searchdatacenter/feature/How-the-rise-in-AI-impacts-data- centers-and-the-environment#:~:text=their%20energy%20footprint.- ,AI%20must%20process%20vast%20volumes%20of%20data%20and%20conduct%20co mplex,complex%20and%20demand%20more%20energy. https://www.brushwoodmedianetwork.com/national/poll-american-voters-dont-want- data-centers-built-in-their- communities/#:~:text=The%20data%20centers%20are%20used,a%20large%20amount% 20of%20energy. https://greenehurlocker.com/recent-developments-at-the-intersection-of-data-centers- and- energy/#:~:text=Recent%20Developments%20at%20the%20Intersection%20of%20Data,a re%20putting%20pressure%20on%20the%20energy%20system. https://www.datacenterwatch.org/report#:~:text=While%20there%20is%20bipartisan%20 opposition,to%20have%20a%20partisan%20lean. To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Hello Charlotte, My name is Tina Forster and have been a Monticello resident for 22 years. I am against the data center for a plethora of reasons. First of all, nobody wants data centers in their community. Nobody! The environmental damage, electric usage, and the water waste are just a few of the environmental abuses citizens will face. The tax payers will be saddled with the bills and anything promised economically is NOT worth it. These large scale data centers are not meant to be placed in residential areas, by churches, daycares, schools and houses. Energy- One data center uses as much electricity as 80,000 homes. The citizens of Monticello will end up paying rates for their electricity beyond our wildest dreams. We already have Black rock trying to purchase Excel and privatize our electrical grid. The billionaires are buying up all they can including the town of Monticello. Water-This is another way citizens in Monticello will literally pay the price. Not only will we need to expand our water treatment facility, but the tax payers will foot the bill. A data center could consume up to 110 millions of gallons of water per a year which is equivalent to 1,000 households. This is a threat to the Midwest’s precious resource which is water. Economic-proponents of the data center are convinced that 1000’s of job opportunities will be brought to Monticello when actually they bring only 20-50 jobs. They need someone to clean and keep the lights on. The company does not use local electrical crews or data specialists. Most of these positions are contracted out. These companies are largely tax exempt Pollution-The related emissions from the diesel generators release matter and nitrogen dioxide impacting the air quality causing respiratory problems in humans. I can’t help but feel completely sold out by our elected officials in Monticello. I’ve been studying other Minnesota towns that are fighting data centers: Farmington, Rosemount, Mankato, Becker, Hampton, Hermantown etc. The pattern of late public awareness is exactly what is a hallmark of data center planning and that’s exactly what is happening to Monticello. There is a shadowy billionaire company masquerading as a local Monticello business which we have discovered is Black rock. I hope the Monticello City Council members did not sign NDA’s like Farmington’s city officials. I discovered that the project in Farmington had been in the planning phase for 1 1/2 years or longer before the public was notified. Word is getting out and 95% of citizens will not be pro-data Center in their town. Anyone that is looking out for the best interests of Monticello citizens and its resources would not be pro-data center. The tax rewards to not equate to the environmental damage and high bills that Monticello residents will be left with. Thank you, Tina Forster From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, Sara Lyrenmann Monday, August 25, 2025 3:55 PM Angela Schumann Data Center I am a Monticello community member and am writing to give my comments on the proposed data center. I am concerned with the negative effects that this data center would have on our community, especially extreme water and energy usage. I believe this would negatively impact Monticello residents with decreased water pressure, higher energy costs and impact on our aquifers. I urge you to take into consideration your community members' viewpoints on this crucial matter. Thank you, Sara Lyrenmann From: Felicia Olson Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 3:04 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Proposed Data Center Ms. Schumann, My daughter and I own a home at Monticello, MN 55362. One of the proposed Data Center sites would be directly across from our backyard which backs to 85th. We just bought our home and spent a great deal of our Savings to buy it. We truly would be devastated by a decrease in our property values and increases in our utility bills. We would like to express that placing a business that large across from a neighborhood filled with families, pets and so many people working to build relationships with each other as neighbors is not the best idea. Most of us bought our homes because it was a nice neighborhood and quiet and family friendly. We, personally, don't want to have lights shining in our house or specifically in the bedrooms on the back of the house. We don't want to be caught up in traffic trying to get places. We don't want to hear noise that isn't part of a neighborhood. We don't want to pay higher Utilities or have our water pressure lower. We hope that you will consider the lives of the people in the neighborhood and locate another place for this large Tech Campus. Thank you, Felicia K. Olson Danielle M. Olson Monticello, MN 55362 From: bgreteman Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 1:44 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data center Hello, I am a resident of Monticello. I am strongly opposed to the proposed data center in Monticello for a number of reasons. I am particularly opposed to the proposed location in a semi-rural location adjacent to the Bertram Lakes park. This park and nature area is a treasure for Monticello and Wright County. Placing this data center anywhere close to this area would ruin the natural beauty of this area. The negatives far outweigh the positives for this center with the increased traffic, water and power usage and the scarring of the land in this area. You may notice that the AI titans are not building these in their backyards. Please don't let Monticello become a victim of these centers for a few tax dollars generated by this facility. Thank you, Brian Greteman Monticello Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone To: Kip Christianson <Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lee Martie <Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Concerns with potential Data Center My name is Anna Hennes, and I live on Eisele Ave just down the road from the proposed data center site. I have concerns about the data center being proposed/company that is requesting new zoning so they can build the data center. I don't feel it will benefit the city of Monticello and in the long run it will hurt Monticello. We already frequently lose power in my neighborhood, how can our city support such a large building that requires lots of electricity? Please vote against the data center/request for rezoning. Thank you! Anna Hennes From: Gwen&Wayne Johnson Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 5:17 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Planning Commission on Ordinance for Data Center I want to thank the Planning Commission and the city staff for their work in creating an ordinance on the requirements for a Data Center. The work is a tremendous effort and it is a progressive step in evaluating the needs of the city and business partners as they receive requests for Data Centers. This is taking a thoughtful and necessary approach for the city. While we do not know all the steps and work required for evaluating a Data Center, I do believe that this is the future of the United States, not just in Monticello. We need to be ready for new development and new ways of thinking as data drives everything that we touch in our lives today. This will not go away, and the need will only continue to grow. Because of this, I support your work, your diligence. I also support the next steps of the AUAR to conduct necessary research for a Data Center. My concern is the lack of knowledge by the many people that have put information online and in the meetings. I hear more and more incorrect information being passed around all the time, and in today's "data" transfer on social media, it only reinforces the need for a Data Center! Thank you for your work, -- Gwen Johnson From: Charlotte Gabler Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2025 11:59 AM To: Sarah Scribner Cc: Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject: Re: Proposed Data Center Good Afternoon Sarah- Thank you for the email. I am including City Administrator Rachel Leonard on this as well as Community Development Director Angela Schumann. I appreciate your feedback. There are a lot of unknowns at this time but please know we are doing our diligence to make sure we understand pros/cons/impacts. No formal applications have been submitted. We have had 2 interested parties reach out since 2024-one was interested in a site within the Otter Creek Business Park and the other is in the orderly annexation/growth area south of town-the 500+/- acre area. No decisions have been made about any specific projects, just relating to land use/zoning codes. Land use/zoning codes help us better regulate. Because of the interest in the 500+/- area, this also triggered a much bigger review for environmental, city infrastructure (water, sewer, roads), and those interested parties also have to work with Xcel to see if Xcel is able to provide the necessary power. The Xcel analysis can take a while as well. Please continue to share feedback as you see items on the city website for public notices/meeting agendas. Any questions please give City Hall a call 763-295-2711 Thank you! Charlotte Thank you and have a productive day! Charlotte Gabler Monticello City Council Member Term Expires Dec 31st, 2026 Pronouns: she, her, hers NOTICE: Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Sarah Scribner Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 3:17 PM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Proposed Data Center Hello Ms. Council Member Gabler, My name is Sarah Scribner and I live off 88th St NE in Monticello. I ask you to vote against a data center coming to Monticello. Here are the reasons why: Environmental and resource consumption High energy usage: Data centers are extremely energy-intensive, consuming up to 50 times more power per square foot than a typical office building. Globally, data centers account for about 1% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. The AI boom is expected to accelerate this demand dramatically, with some forecasts projecting global data center electricity consumption to more than double by 2030. Strain on the power grid: This soaring energy demand, particularly from AI- optimized centers, can overwhelm existing power grids and delay the shutdown of older, fossil fuel-based power plants. This can also drive up electricity costs for local residential and commercial customers. Excessive water consumption: Large data centers can consume between 1 million and 5 million gallons of water daily, primarily for cooling servers. This places a major strain on local water resources, especially in areas with limited or stressed water supplies. E-waste generation: The rapid upgrade cycle for hardware, driven by technological advancements, creates large amounts of electronic waste, which can release toxic materials into the environment if not disposed of properly. Backup generator emissions: Many facilities rely on large, diesel-powered backup generators to ensure 24/7 uptime. Regular testing of these generators releases pollutants like nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter, which degrades local air quality and poses health risks. Local socioeconomic impacts Limited permanent jobs: While data center construction creates short-term work, the operational phase is highly automated and requires very few permanent employees. This means the long-term economic benefits to the local community in terms of job creation are minimal. Tax incentives and revenue questions: Developers often receive substantial tax incentives and abatements to build in a community. This reduces the overall tax revenue for the locality, and critics argue the incentives rarely provide a tangible economic lift that justifies the costs. Exclusionary development: Data center deals are frequently brokered in secret, with local governments approving large-scale, "by-right" zoning for facilities with minimal public engagement. This lack of transparency can leave residents feeling excluded from decisions that directly impact their community. Infrastructure costs shifted to taxpayers: Upgrades required for roads, utilities, and power transmission to support data centers are often subsidized by or shifted to local taxpayers. Community and quality of life issues Noise pollution: Cooling fans, generators, and transformers at data centers create a constant, low-frequency humming sound that can disrupt residents' quality of life, especially in rural or suburban areas. The noise from backup generator testing is also disruptive. Aesthetic concerns: The windowless, industrial-style warehouses of data centers are often seen as eyesores that clash with surrounding architectural aesthetics, particularly in suburban or rural settings. Land use and property value: Data centers consume large parcels of land, replacing open spaces, farmland, or potential residential areas. While some argue they can increase property values, concerns remain about their impact on the character and future development of a community. Wildlife disturbance: Noise emissions from data centers can disrupt local wildlife, altering animal behavior and migration patterns. Again, I urge you to vote against the data center proposed to come to Monticello. Thank you for reading my email, I urge you to do the right thing and vote against the data center proposed to come to Monticello, Sarah Scribner To: Development Services <Community.Development@MonticelloMN.gov>; Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lee Martie <Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov>; Kip Christianson <Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Monticello Tech LLC Data center To whom it may concern, I am writing to voice my very strong opposition to any zoning or land use amendments that will encourage or allow the development of any data center in Monticello. These technology campuses have been shown to use massive amounts of water and electricity, the cost of which is often shouldered by residents. There is concern about ground water contamination, noise pollution, light pollution, elimination of farm and potential residential property, and reduction of property values. Monticello is a growing community with so much potential. Please do not let the supposed financial incentives of allowing a data center into our city ruin that potential! Sincerely, Kara Thornton Monticello, MN 55362 From: Gwen&Wayne Johnson Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2025 1:24 PM To: Development Services Subject: Data center I wanted to voice my support concerning the data center issue. It appears the city council is moving forward with due diligence as it should. --I believe a data center would be a great opportunity for our area. Thank you Wayne and Gwen Johnson From: Charlotte Gabler Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2025 12:05 PM To: bil keenan Cc: Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject: Re: Proposed data center Good Afternoon Bil;- Thank you for the email. I am including City Administrator Rachel Leonard on this as well as Community Development Director Angela Schumann. I appreciate your feedback. There are a lot of unknowns at this time but please know we are doing our diligence to make sure we understand pros/cons/impacts. No formal applications have been submitted. We have had 2 interested parties reach out since 2024-one was interested in a site within the Otter Creek Business Park and the other is in the orderly annexation/growth area south of town-the 500+/- acre area. No decisions have been made about any specific projects, just relating to land use/zoning codes. Land use/zoning codes help us better regulate. Because of the interest in the 500+/- area, this also triggered a much bigger review for environmental, city infrastructure (water, sewer, roads), and those interested parties also have to work with Xcel to see if Xcel is able to provide the necessary power. The Xcel analysis can take a while as well. The City is not in any financial holes per your comment below. All financial reports and budgets are located on the City website www.monticellomn.gov under Finance Department. Residents/businesses are free to read through these documents. I have NOT signed any NDA's regarding data centers and their interested parties. You can certainly send in a data request to City Hall https://www.monticellomn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/203/City-of-Monticello-Data- Request-Form-PDF?bidId= Please continue to share feedback as you see items on the city website for public notices/meeting agendas. Any questions please give City Hall a call 763-295-2711 Thank you! Charlotte Thank you and have a productive day! Charlotte Gabler Monticello City Council Member Term Expires Dec 31st, 2026 Pronouns: she, her, hers NOTICE: Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: bil keenan Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2025 11:44 AM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Fw: Proposed data center -- Hello, My name is Bil Keenan and I live at Monticello. Monticello is a great place to live and has good track record of attracting people to Monticello either to live or have a business. Who would want to spend $400,000- 500,000 to live in a town with a data center? What company would want to compete for electric and water against this? Frattalone Companies and Cushman Wakefield do not live in this community and do not care if this hurts this community. They are here for one reason. To make millions off the backs of the residents of Monticello, It is your obligation to the people that voted you in to do what is best for Monticello and not just what will dig Monticello out of a financial hole. I ask you to vote against a data center coming to Monticello. Here are the reasons why: Environmental and resource consumption High energy usage: Data centers are extremely energy-intensive, consuming up to 50 times more power per square foot than a typical office building. Globally, data centers account for about 1% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. The AI boom is expected to accelerate this demand dramatically, with some forecasts projecting global data center electricity consumption to more than double by 2030. Strain on the power grid: This soaring energy demand, particularly from AI-optimized centers, can overwhelm existing power grids and delay the shutdown of older, fossil fuel-based power plants. This can also drive up electricity costs for local residential and commercial customers. Excessive water consumption: Large data centers can consume between 1 million and 5 million gallons of water daily, primarily for cooling servers. This places a major strain on local water resources, especially in areas with limited or stressed water supplies. E-waste generation: The rapid upgrade cycle for hardware, driven by technological advancements, creates large amounts of electronic waste, which can release toxic materials into the environment if not disposed of properly. Backup generator emissions: Many facilities rely on large, diesel-powered backup generators to ensure 24/7 uptime. Regular testing of these generators releases pollutants like nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter, which degrades local air quality and poses health risks. Local socioeconomic impacts Limited permanent jobs: While data center construction creates short-term work, the operational phase is highly automated and requires very few permanent employees. This means the long-term economic benefits to the local community in terms of job creation are minimal. Tax incentives and revenue questions: Developers often receive substantial tax incentives and abatements to build in a community. This reduces the overall tax revenue for the locality, and critics argue the incentives rarely provide a tangible economic lift that justifies the costs. Exclusionary development: Data center deals are frequently brokered in secret, with local governments approving large-scale, "by-right" zoning for facilities with minimal public engagement. This lack of transparency can leave residents feeling excluded from decisions that directly impact their community. Infrastructure costs shifted to taxpayers: Upgrades required for roads, utilities, and power transmission to support data centers are often subsidized by or shifted to local taxpayers. Community and quality of life issues Noise pollution: Cooling fans, generators, and transformers at data centers create a constant, low-frequency humming sound that can disrupt residents' quality of life, especially in rural or suburban areas. The noise from backup generator testing is also disruptive. Aesthetic concerns: The windowless, industrial-style warehouses of data centers are often seen as eyesores that clash with surrounding architectural aesthetics, particularly in suburban or rural settings. Land use and property value: Data centers consume large parcels of land, replacing open spaces, farmland, or potential residential areas. While some argue they can increase property values, concerns remain about their impact on the character and future development of a community. Wildlife disturbance: Noise emissions from data centers can disrupt local wildlife, altering animal behavior and migration patterns. Again I urge you to vote against the data center coming to Monticello. Thank you for reading my email, I urge you to do the right thing and vote against the data center coming to Monticello, Monticello is a great place to live and has good track record of attracting people to Monticello either to live or have a business. Who would want to spend the $400,000- 500,000 to live in a town with a data center? What company would want to compete for electric and water against this? Frattalone Companies and Cushman Wakefield do not live in this community and do not care if this hurts this community. They are here for one reason. To make millions off the backs of the residents of Monticello, It is your obligation to the people that voted you in to what is best for Monticello and not just what will dig Monticello out of a financial hole. From: Lisa Murphy Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2025 4:02 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data center Do I want an AI data center in your backyard? NO Mon+cello Tech LLC is owned by Mon+celloam LCC. The co-founder of Mon+celloam LLC is Johnathan Li1 who is the Assistant Treasurer Black Rock Mon+cello Debt Real Estate Investment Trust. This report is spo1y, and over looks many environmental factors that are unique to our loca+on, and our farming prac+ces. This scope is covering 546 acres of land (only 10acres of this is currently paved) everything else is water sources, and farmland (the vast majority of this land is considered 'prime farm land', or 'farmland of state wide importance'. There are 8 wetlands in this area of study which are crucial for endangered species like the monarch, and the western regal fri+llary bu1erfly and the whooping crane. There are also bald eagles in this area that are protected un+l MBTA and the Golden Eagle Protec+on Act. This build is not in compliance with Wright County Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan of 2007 nor City of Mon+cello 2040 comprehension Plan of 2020; it is appalling that Kimley Horn half heartedly a1empts to jus+fy it. Data Centers need significant amounts of water. There has been alot of flooding occurring in the United States. We already have a nuclear power plant to keep cool. It is NOT a good idea to place a data center in Mon+cello MN. PLEASE, DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN HERE. Sent from my iPad From: Mary Beth Noll Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2025 7:31 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data Center I oppose building a data center in the currently proposed section. This is precisely the area in which population growth is anticipated. This is one major reason to oppose the construction of a data center, and there are so many reasons! "Without decisive action, the unchecked expansion of data centers will exacerbate an emerging energy crisis, increase pollution and impose unbearable energy costs on residents. Policymakers should focus on tipping the scales towards environmental sustainability and public well-being instead of rubber-stamping data centers in the name of more revenue. This report serves as both a warning and a call to action—we must manage data center growth before it is too late." Thank you. Mary Beth Noll Monticello, MN 55362 To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Data Center Application > My name is Ryan Buboltz and I live in Monticello, MN. I have concerns about a data center being proposed/company that is requesting new zoning so they can build a data center. It will not benefit the city of Monticello nor future residents of this great town. The only parties who will benefit are the energy supplier and the owner of the data center. This is a huge decision and the wrong decision will leave a legacy nobody wants their name tied to. I trust you will follow the communities convictions and values by voting against the data center/request for rezoning. > > Thank You, > > Ryan Buboltz > Sent from my iPhone From: Alexander Coady Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 9:44 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data centers. Greeting Angela, I'm emailing you because recently I found out that there are not one, but two data centers trying to be built in my home town, and I have some concerns. To start off with, on the off chance that I wasn't clear, I do not support the approval, nor the construction of these projects. Now, onto the concerns. First off, I in general dont like data centers as a base concept, they take up a lot of space, the use a lot of electricity. As well as water and I feel this increase of demand on both ends will result in a further increase in pricing for the general populace in monticello, which is not a prospect that particularly interests me. (There have also been reports and interviews of CEO's literally saying that those costs would be primarily onto the locals, so I've little doubt that subsidizing the citizens of monticello is part of the game plan) They generally look ugly if aesthetics were a concern, and I dont support what they do, harvesting data to sell and push ads to a population that generally doesn't want them. Furthermore, I have a hard time seeing the benefits to our community, as I feel the people operating and maintaining the project would most likely NOT be locals. In fact I can almost guarantee thlife. 90%-99% won't be, as I have not met a single person in the field in my life. In short, the prospect of these projects seem like a lot of long term consequences for very little short term gain that doesn't have enough visible nor probable long term benefits to the population of the city you serve. From: Russ Hendrickson Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 3:57 PM To: Development Services Subject: Rezoning. My name is Russ Hendrickson, Monticello, MN 55362 Township. I would like you to vote NO on the proposal for a large data center across the street. I don't think that would be advantageous for any one. We are opposed to it. Respectfully Russ and Sandy Hendrickson. From: Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 3:48 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data Center Zoning Ordinance Planning and Zoning Board, & City of Monticello Council Members; We are writing to express our opposition for any consideration of a Data Center. We have lived in this community our entire life and have raised family in Monticello. I served on the Monticello Parks Board and East Bridge Garden group for many years. I have volunteered my time to help make this Community beautiful. I feel a Data Center would decrease new growth and tourism to our beautiful Community. There are several disturbing facts I have found with regard to the impact a Data Center would have on our Community. 1. Electrical needs: ·Data centers are among the most energy-intensive building types, consuming up to 50 times more energy per floor space than typical commercial buildings. ·Small data centers can require 1–5 megawatts (MW) of power, while hyperscale facilities can demand over 100 MW. A single large center can use as much electricity annually as 350,000 to 400,000 electric cars. ·Grid strain and costs: Clusters of data centers can strain local power grids, potentially contributing to higher electricity rates for local residents and increasing the risk of outages during peak demand. ·Backup power: Facilities rely on massive backup generator systems, often powered by diesel, to ensure continuous operation. These generators produce significant noise and air pollution, including particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, which can harm nearby communities. 2. Water sources and impacts on aquifers: ·Intensive water consumption: A large data center can consume millions of gallons of water per day, with consumption projected to increase alongside AI processing.- WHERE WILL THIS COME FROM? · Water sources: Data centers typically source water from municipal utilities, relying on local freshwater resources. Some also use non-potable or recycled water, while others draw directly from aquifers.- AGAIN, WHERE WILL THIS COME FROM?OUR LAKES IN THE AREA, BERTRAM? HOW WILL THIS AFFECT RESIDENTIAL WELL WATER PRESSURE AND RURAL WATER SOURCES? · Strain on local supply: data centers puts a severe strain on local water supplies, depleting aquifers and potentially diverting resources from agriculture and resident use. · Environmental effects: The discharge of warmed water from cooling systems can raise the temperature of local water bodies, potentially disrupting aquatic ecosystems. 3. Property Values · Potential decrease: A negative impact on property values can occur if the facility is located very close to homes, particularly if its operations result in significant noise, air pollution, or light pollution. Visual impacts from the building and associated infrastructure, like transmission lines, can also depress property values. · Higher property taxes: In some cases, increasing land values for data center development can raise assessed property taxes for surrounding landowners, potentially pricing out long- term residents. · Potential tax shifts: Some communities and state regulators express concern that residents and small businesses may end up subsidizing data center development through higher property taxes or increased energy costs. 4. Construction Traffic Highway 25 and Country Rd 37 are already seeing an increased amount of traffic. Highway 25 into downtown Monticello is CONGESTED every day of the week. Construction truck traffic from building of the Data Center Is going to increase our traffic greatly. Thank you, Janine & Bruce Kopff From: Rachel Leonard Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:18 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: FW: Opposition to data centers Please see below for public comment on the zoning ordinance. Rachel Leonard City Administrator 763-271-3275 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362 MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Wendy Suddard Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 4:32 PM To: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Opposition to data centers Dear Rachel, I am concerned about the new amendment to the city code and zoning ordinance that would create a special land use overlay zone specifically for the placement of data centers. I am opposed to land use by data centers. One of them would be very close to my house and the other would be very close to Bertram Chain of Lakes of which I am a Friend of Bertram. Wendy Suddard-Bangsund From: Paula Zychowski Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 5:04 PM To: Angela Schumann; Jim Thares; Tyler Bevier; kio.christianson@monticellomn.gov; charlott.gabler@monticellomn.gov; tracy.heinz@monticellomn.gov; Lee Martie; lloyd.hilgert@monticellomn.go Subject: Data Center I’m To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the construction of any data centers in Monticello regardless of location. The following reasons are why I strongly oppose any data centers in Monticello. -Enormous Energy Consumption -Heavy Water Usage and Environmental Strain -Minimal Long-Term Job Creation -Noise and Light Pollution -Security Risk - physical and cyber - LOSS OF HOME VALUE!!! - NOBODY WANTS TO LIVE BY ONE!!! The reasons why I am opposed to it far outweigh any tax benefits that would come with a data center. I did try to keep an open mind by looking up videos of citizens in other cities now living near a data center and positive out comes of it - I did not find ANY and quite the opposite. I heard a lot of devastating results to their quality of life having data centers in their communities. Lawsuits against some cities, claiming lack of transparency from the city and even some of the companies cutting a deal with the city before the citizens had a chance voice their opinion or vote!! I am very thankful and trust that this will not be the case with our city council members. I am wondering… 1. Will there be a meeting so people are able to voice their opinions as to whether or not we would even want a data center here? This feedback could be valuable information when making zoning decisions. 2. Would it be possible that the zoning requirements could be so restrictive, focusing on protecting our community and the environment, that it would prevent data centers from building here? 3. If the city is approached by a company that wants to build a data center here, will the community be given the opportunity to vote for or against it? Once again, I urge the city to reject all data center proposals and focus on preserving what makes Monticello such a great place to live and why it attracts people to the area….our schools, safety, scenic walking and biking trails, vast recreational opportunities, the beautiful Mississippi River, Bertram, and Lake Maria State Park to name a few. Monticello offers small town charm with the convenience of shopping and restaurants, which is the reason our family moved back to this area 10 years ago. Thank you for your time, I look forward to hearing from you. Paula Zychowski From: Charlotte Gabler Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 10:44 AM To: Kate Brown Cc: Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject: Re: Vote NO to data center Good Morning Kate- Thank you for the email. I am including City Administrator Rachel Leonard on this as well as Community Development Director Angela Schumann. I appreciate your feedback. There are a lot of unknowns at this time but please know we are doing our diligence to make sure we understand pros/cons/impacts. No formal applications have been submitted. We have had 2 interested parties reach out since 2024-one was interested in a site within the Otter Creek Business Park and the other is in the orderly annexation/growth area south of town-the 500+/- acre area. No decisions have been made about any specific projects, just relating to land use/zoning codes. Land use/zoning codes help us better regulate. Because of the interest in the 500+/- area, this also triggered a much bigger review for environmental, city infrastructure (water, sewer, roads), and those interested parties also have to work with Xcel to see if Xcel is able to provide the necessary power. The Xcel analysis can take a while as well. Please continue to share feedback as you see items on the city website for public notices/meeting agendas. Any questions please give City Hall a call 763-295-2711 Thank you! Charlotte Thank you and have a productive day! Charlotte Gabler Monticello City Council Member Term Expires Dec 31st, 2026 Pronouns: she, her, hers NOTICE: Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Kate Brown Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:38 PM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Vote NO to data center My name is Katherine Brown, I live in Monticello, MN . I have concerns about a data center being proposed/company that is requesting new zoning so they can build a data center. I don't feel it will benefit the city of Monticello and in the long run it will hurt Monticello . Please vote against the data center/request for rezoning. Thank you for taking your time, Katherine Brown Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: Shannon Bye Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:13 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: comments for DRAFT AUAR: due 9/4, sent 9/2 Agricultural Land Conversion: *The conversion of agricultural land to industrial use (e.g., for a data farm) can result in the loss of valuable crop production space, impacting local food systems, farmers’ livelihoods, and regional agriculture. * data centers often involve significant soil disturbance, leading to a loss of soil health and potential to sequester carbon, wetlands, grasslands, and woodlands sequester significant amounts of carbon. Converting these habitats for industrial purposes could release stored carbon into the atmosphere. *Wetlands play critical roles in water filtration, carbon sequestration, and as habitats for wildlife. Wetland loss due to development would disturb the local ecosystem and could reduce biodiversity. Disruption of wetlands and open water areas could negatively affect local aquatic ecosystems, leading to declines in fish and other aquatic species populations. The recommendations in previous projects by Army Corp of Engineers, aren't monitored unless there are complaints, I'd be curious to see what agency is overseeing adherence to recommendations, in areas zoned industrial vs housing data centers consume a lot of water (for cooling systems) and can generate runoff, potentially leading to contamination of adjacent water bodies if proper stormwater management systems aren’t put in place. Wetlands are typically protected by federal, state, and local regulations, and their disruption should face significant legal challenges. A full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be required to assess all the potential effects on the environment. This would help determine whether the proposed project is in line with sustainability goals and whether mitigation strategies can be put in place. This should be advance under the impression it is not a LIGHT industrial project rather a significant project draining resources and generating waste materials *Grasslands and woodlands are rich in species diversity. Such habitats provide critical support to pollinators, birds, and wildlife, all of which would be disturbed by construction and operation of a data farm. * Data farms of this size could fragment larger ecosystems, disrupting migration patterns and reducing the ability of species to thrive. *Data centers, particularly those located in regions that traditionally have rural or semi-rural environments, can contribute significantly to the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. Large data farms generate heat due to the high energy usage for computing and cooling equipment. This additional heat can raise temperatures in the immediate area, making the environment hotter compared to nearby rural areas. *The conversion of agricultural land and woodlands to impervious surfaces (e.g., concrete, asphalt, buildings) would exacerbate this effect. These surfaces absorb and retain heat more efficiently than natural landscapes, which increases local temperatures during summer months. Here winters are sometimes harsh and summers can become hot, the development of a data farm could create localized heat islands, exacerbating the urban-rural temperature gap. This could lead to higher cooling demands in residential areas, thereby increasing energy consumption and further contributing to climate change in addition to impacting local microclimates, disrupting seasonal patterns and affecting crop yields if the surrounding agricultural land is still used for farming. Data centers consume enormous amounts of electricity, often derived from non-renewable sources, unless renewable energy is utilized. This would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, further exacerbating climate change. If the data farm is designed to run on renewable energy (e.g., solar, wind), it could mitigate some of the climate change effects, but much of the data infrastructure is still energy-intensive and powered by conventional energy sources in many cases. The removal of natural vegetation (woodlands, wetlands, grasslands) weakens the area's ability to respond to climate-related stresses, such as floods, droughts, and extreme temperatures. Natural ecosystems act as buffers, reducing the intensity of floods, improving water retention, and providing shade that mitigates heat. The construction of a data farm could have mixed effects on the nearby residential area. There may be concerns about property value declines due to the perceived impact on quality of life (increased traffic, noise, and heat) & large-scale changes to local ecosystems. Concerns about health, noise, and environmental impacts could lead to local opposition for numerous reasons. The use of green technologies (e.g., renewable energy, cooling through natural methods like geothermal or lake water, and energy-efficient hardware) can help reduce the data farm’s carbon footprint and mitigate some of the heat island effects, however this project has already been suggested is utilizing obsolete technology From: Mary Egan Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 6:52 PM To: Development Services Subject: Data Center I would like the planning commission to consider if a data center will be detrimental to existing community members both in home values near the site as well as noise impacts. Also please perform due diligence investigating impacts to water tables and how surrounding farms may be impacted for irrigation. Last impact to homeowners who rely on well water for their homes. Appreciate your attention to this matter Mary Egan From: Gabe & Hannah Graveldinger Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 8:06 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Public comment on the proposed data center Hello, I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal for a data center to be built in Mon2cello Township. Such a thing would be a horrible waste of space! It would not serve the residents of Mon2cello area nor will it contribute to the health, beauty and culture of our area. Please REJECT this proposal and seek a use for the area that will profit many, not minimal, interests. Thank you, Hannah Graveldinger Davern Ave, Mon2cello From: Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:32 AM To: Angela Schumann Cc: Rachel Leonard; Lloyd Hilgart; Development Services Subject: Further Comments with ques,ons A achments: Review of Planning Commission August 19th.pdf Importance: High Angela, Please review and answer the questions in the attached review document. Please include this document in the stack you have for both the Planning Meeting tonight and the Development meeting for the 3rd. Very best, Scott Harper Monticello, MN 55362 From: Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:32 AM To: Angela Schumann Cc: Rachel Leonard; Lloyd Hilgart; Development Services Subject: Further Comments with ques,ons A achments: Review of Planning Commission August 19th.pdf Importance: High Angela, Please review and answer the questions in the attached review document. Please include this document in the stack you have for both the Planning Meeting tonight and the Development meeting for the 3rd. Very best, Scott Harper Monticello, MN 55362 Review of Planning Commission August 19th, 2025 Special Meeting Item 1. This meeting did not appear on the official city website calendar. Every other meeting function of the city is in this location. –Is the Planning Commission going to extend the Data Center Comment Period to compensate for the error? - Yes or No - - Further to public notice… Is the Planning Commission aware that the home development and home builder communities are only recently coming to understand their potential issues with property value loss, Most people contacted at any of these entities do not have any knowledge about the proposed data center including the agents selling homes. – Yes or No – -If these developers slow or stop their activities all together because of the uncertainty and ambiguity of the project, is the city prepared to lose those potential homes and the jobs and tax base that they represent? – Yes or No- Item 2. Per ANALYSIS / Context / 3, “Monticello’s supply of industrial land is limited by service considerations, including high-capacity road access, sanitary sewer and water capacity, and land use compatibility.” -Would the Planning Commission permit this type of industry directly adjacent to a public school? – Yes or No – -Would the Planning Commission permit this type of industry directly adjacent to a pre-existing high density residential neighborhood where those same students study and sleep? – Is this considered compatible? Yes or No – Item 3. The Planning Commission was asked and warned several times by multiple people at the August 19th meeting to consider the potential legal liability of creating a firm framework with parameters that a declared zoning ordinance would create. Such an ordinance would effectively eliminate the ability of the city to ever have the ability to say no to any application without facing significant and expensive litigation from multibillion dollar entities. -Has legal been consulted in this regard? – Yes or No – Item 4. The Planning Commission was asked and warned several times by multiple people at the August 19th meeting to consider the potential legal liability to the city from its own residents. The damage to property values could produce situations where the resident may lose significant amounts of property value and equity as a direct result of the actions of the city. This could be measured by an inability to refinance at a lower interest rate or not being able to access equity that formerly existed for any reason at all. (i.e. medical expenses, education expenses or remodeling costs, etc.) In the extreme, if the resident wished to relocate due to internal or external circumstances, the possibility that the loss of equity might be large enough that they could not divest themselves of the property because the debt owed is more than the current deflated value of the property. Whatever the reason might be, the possibility of the resident being forced to pursue action against a municipality that made “informed decisions” about the potential damages to their citizens with little or no regard to the domino effects that those decisions created is a very real one. If even one of those actions becomes successful, this liability alone could result in millions of dollars of loss to the city. - Was legal consulted about the potential for civil liability from affected citizens? – Yes or No – - Was legal consulted about the possibility of personal liability (reference the term of art “Piercing the Veil”) and what that might mean to members of the city government that may have (willfully or not, knowingly or not) crossed a legal boundary in the pursuit of a project that might result in a civil or even criminal action? – Yes or No – - The city was specifically asked to provide an impact study regarding the potential for impact to home and property values. Is this study moving forward? – Yes or No – - These projects are becoming more well known. The specter of the potential issues of living next door to a major construction project for 3 years and following it up with a permanent or semi-permanent facility that will most likely have issues that will make the neighborhoods undesirable is already manifesting. The damage is already being done. Is the city going to immediately revalue the property surrounding this potential project at 50% of current rates? – Yes or No - Item 5. Per ANALYSIS / Context / 7 and 8 “7. The City’s primary goals for industrial development include both employment and tax base. Data Centers can meet the tax base goal. However, they are typically more limited with regard to employment – especially employment density.” “8. Data Centers remain a relatively new land use in many communities, and studied impacts remain to be fully comprehended.” - Is the Planning Commission aware of the growing “Gig Economy” where people work from home or other locations and do not normally have to go to a brick and mortar facility to work? – Yes or No- - Is the Planning Commission aware of how many jobs are actually being done within the residential areas of Monticello? – Yes or No - - Is the Planning Commission prepared to trade homeowner taxes and hundreds of high paying stay at home jobs that require no extra infrastructure for millions of dollars of overhead to support the same number of workers who may not even live within the city limits of Monticello? – Yes or No – - Item 8 is stating that studies are needed to firmly comprehend the impacts. Is the commission going to commission the studies that its own document says are needed? – Yes or No – Item 6. Errors and Omissions are a fact of life. There are several glaring issues within this document alone. The online version for instance, has (2) complete copies of the MPCA Sound Level Document. - Are the growing amount of errors such as missing postings, mislabeled items, duplicate submissions and so forth an indication that the city’s staff is moving too quickly and needs more time to properly review and address all areas of concern without so many errors? – Yes or No – Item 7. Examples of Data Centers - Waco Street, Elk River MN – Is the Planning Commission aware that recent measurements of the sound levels at this facility were recently recorded at 3-4 dBA above the limits established by the MPCA guidelines? – Yes or No – - Waco Street, Elk River MN – Is the Planning Commission aware that there are only (6) small cooling towers at this facility and not the dozens of larger units that would be required for a much larger installation? – Yes or No – - The photos provided are not clearly labeled and in some cases mislabeled completely. - 3482 S 11th Street and 1430 Veterans Memorial Drive are the same facility - The facility located on White Crane Road has its photo in place of 1430 Veterans Drive. - Most every example has a distinctive absence of high density single family housing in close proximity. - The State of IA is prominent in the examples. IA is strongly considering completely reevaluating their sound level rules. MN is significantly more stringent. - As a cursory estimate, the 1430 Veterans Memorial Highway facility has approximately: 33 each 5’ fans 144 each of 4’ fans 193 each of 3’ fans 28 each of 8' fans on open cooling towers 4 each of 12’ fans on open cooling towers - Total of 633 Industrial Cooling Fans and 32 Cooling Towers - There may also be as many as 56 generators - Has anyone in the Planning Commission been looking at the possibilities of Legionella or other bacteria getting into one of the many cooling towers and causing significant health issues or death? – Yes or No - Number of Sources Per MPCA Document Item 8. Technological Advancements are a nature of industrial development and design. There is a constant change and improvement in the available technologies. The Planning council has been made aware of adiabatic cooling which would reduce the water consumption by about 60 to 90%. Google, Meta and other large Data Center Operators have been looking into 12-mile-deep geothermal technologies that in some cases do not use water at all. Mandating this type of technology would greatly benefit the city by reducing the size and scope of the utilities involved. A facility could be placed anywhere on earth and not be required to have proximity to electrical, water or sewer utilities. - Is the Planning Council going to require such technology to be used to absolutely minimize the burden placed on the city and its taxpayers for ever larger infrastructure? – Yes or No – Item 9. Water Wells at this time have a total capacity of just over 10 Million Gallons per day. (MGPD) The Firm Capacity is adjusted for redundancy and other factors as a measure of safety margin. The Monticello Water Treatment Feasibility Study shows that is about 6.2 MGPD. Demand is listed as being an average of 1.4 MGPD and a peak of 3.06 MGPD in 2019. At that time, the projection for 2025 was 1.81 MGPD and 4.53 MGPD respectively. Peak demand was determined to be 6.19 MGPD in 2045 and new wells would be needed at this point at the latest. - Does the added drawdown of the normal aquifer water level bring water in any amount from the area of the tritium leak at the Monticello Nuclear Plant by creating a gravity flow from the 40’ depth of the known Tritium level to the slightly deeper 100 to 200’ deep city wells? - Does that same drawdown pull water away from other sites such as farmsteads and rural houses with their own wells? - What is the difference in cost to the city to accommodate millions of gallons of water each day through the wells and the new water plant that needs to be built in any case to deal with the magnesium issues? Item 10. How many Non Disclosure agreements (NDA) or Memorandum Of Understanding (MOA) or any other types of agreements does the city currently have with any and all data center developers and development companies? Conclusion: The city has admitted in writing that they need more time to do more studies to better understand the data center issue in its entirety. Not to do so would be an egregious rush to judgement for some unknown reason(s) and is certainly not within the requirements of 7030.0030. We should as a community find no reason to subject each other to the known or unknown perils that this industry brings. There may be a place for a data center somewhere around Monticello, but that place is not next door to high density population areas. Scott Harper Monticello, MM From: Leandra Iverson Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:07 PM To: Development Services Subject: Monticello Data Center Concerns Dear City Planning Commissioners, This letter is written with concern for the proposed amendment of the city code and zoning ordinance that would create land for development of two data centers in the city of Monticello. I am a citizen of Monticello Township. My address is My home would be very close to the land that would be used for the 85th Street and Highway 25 data center. I have significant concerns for the placement of data centers in my city, especially so close to my home. These include: extreme water usage, massive land development, a decrease in property values, a decrease in our natural resources, higher energy costs, increased taxes (especially to local small businesses that truly keep our country running), and a small number of jobs that will most certainly be replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the near future. As members of the City Planning Commission, you have a huge responsibility. Do you truly know the impact this will have on the quality of life of Monticello’s residents? Who will pay for the increased water usage and waste management? What about water pressure? Who will regulate this usage by the data center? Would the waste water treatment plant need to be expanded to accommodate the data center? If so, who would pay for it? I am not okay with paying higher taxes in order for the data center to use the CITIZEN’S resources for waste management, water and energy. We already have regular blackouts in the township, where we are informed by internet companies of the planned or unplanned power outage before Xcel or the City. This is after the power has already been out for hours and these blackouts are extremely frustrating as a citizen. I fear that this would only be made worse with the building of even one of these data centers due to their high energy needs. What if this happens on a cold winter night? What about all the beef that I purchase from local farms in my freezer? These are major concerns that I have for the safety of our people and my own family. The idea that these data centers would offer high paying jobs for many people is poorly researched. The amount of people they would employ does not offset the high cost that our residents will have to sacrifice in decreased resources like water and energy. I understand the jobs it will create in the building of the data centers, but what then? The employees of these data center companies will also not likely live near the data center, possibly not even in Monticello. Therefore, the theory that this will bring many high paying jobs is not to be considered as a positive impact on our city. Also, these employees will surely be replaced by AI in the near future. It is a well known fact by anyone who currently works in any kind of AI engineering or research. Regarding property taxes, I also do not believe this will increase the property value of homes. Most of the people I talk to would NOT WANT TO LIVE NEAR a data center and the people I know who currently live near one, do not like it. How does this increase property value? I am also very worried about the homes and farms currently on Davidson and Edmonson. What will happen to these families? Will they be forced to move? How will this impact their homes and ways of life? I urge you to think of the long term effects on our beautiful city. With no one to hold these large companies accountable, in the future, I believe the company will always win. Once our city lets them build, we, the citizens of Monticello, will have no say on what happens with our taxes and natural resources. Please take your time on making this extremely impactful decision. We do not need to let these big companies/data centers be built in our city. Sincerely, Jeremy and Leandra Iverson From: Leandra Iverson Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:57 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data Center Concerns Dear Angela Schumann, This letter is written with concern for the proposed amendment of the city code and zoning ordinance that would create land for development of two data centers in the city of Monticello. I am a citizen of Monticello Township. My address is My home would be very close to the land that would be used for the 85th Street and Highway 25 data center. I have significant concerns for the placement of data centers in my city, especially so close to my home. These include: extreme water usage, massive land development, a decrease in property values, a decrease in our natural resources, higher energy costs, increased taxes (especially to local small businesses that truly keep our country running), and a small number of jobs that will most certainly be replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the near future. As the Community Development Director, you have a huge responsibility. Do you truly know the impact this will have on the quality of life of Monticello’s residents? Who will pay for the increased water usage and waste management? What about water pressure? Who will regulate this usage by the data center? Would the waste water treatment plant need to be expanded to accommodate the data center? If so, who would pay for it? I am not okay with paying higher taxes in order for the data center to use the CITIZEN’S resources for waste management, water and energy. We already have regular blackouts in the township, where we are informed by internet companies of the planned or unplanned power outage before Xcel or the City. This is after the power has already been out for hours and these blackouts are extremely frustrating as a citizen. I fear that this would only be made worse with the building of even one of these data centers due to their high energy needs. What if this happens on a cold winter night? What about all the beef that I purchase from local farms in my freezer? These are major concerns that I have for the safety of our people and my own family. The idea that these data centers would offer high paying jobs for many people is poorly researched. The amount of people they would employ does not offset the high cost that our residents will have to sacrifice in decreased resources like water and energy. I understand the jobs it will create in the building of the data centers, but what then? The employees of these data center companies will also not likely live near the data center, possibly not even in Monticello. Therefore, the theory that this will bring many high paying jobs is not to be considered as a positive impact on our city. Also, these employees will surely be replaced by AI in the near future. It is a well known fact by anyone who currently works in any kind of AI engineering or research. Regarding property taxes, I also do not believe this will increase the property value of homes. Most of the people I talk to would NOT WANT TO LIVE NEAR a data center and the people I know who currently live near one, do not like it. How does this increase property value? I am also very worried about the homes and farms currently on Davidson and Edmonson. What will happen to these families? Will they be forced to move? How will this impact their homes and ways of life? I urge you to think of the long term effects on our beautiful city. With no one to hold these large companies accountable, in the future, I believe the company will always win. Once our city lets them build, we, the citizens of Monticello, will have no say on what happens with our taxes and natural resources. Please take your time on making this extremely impactful decision. We do not need to let these big companies/data centers be built in our city. Sincerely, Jeremy and Leandra Iverson From: Rachel Leonard Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:27 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: FW: Data Center Concerns Please see below. Rachel Leonard City Administrator 763-271-3275 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362 MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Leandra Iverson Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:11 PM To: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Data Center Concerns Good Afternoon Rachel, Will you please forward the following letter to the City Planning Commission regarding the building of the two data centers in Monticello? I do not have their direct contact/emails but was informed that these individuals are currently on the planning committee regarding this issue: Andrew Tapper, Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark and Kip Christianson. I have already emailed letters to the mayor, city council members, and the county commissioner but wanted this letter to be seen by these people as well. I sent an email to the Community and Economic Development Department as well. Thank you, Leandra Iverson Dear City Planning Commissioners, This letter is written with concern for the proposed amendment of the city code and zoning ordinance that would create land for development of two data centers in the city of Monticello. I am a citizen of Monticello Township. My address is 3363 87th St. NE. My home would be very close to the land that would be used for the 85th Street and Highway 25 data center. I have significant concerns for the placement of data centers in my city, especially so close to my home. These include: extreme water usage, massive land development, a decrease in property values, a decrease in our natural resources, higher energy costs, increased taxes (especially to local small businesses that truly keep our country running), and a small number of jobs that will most certainly be replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the near future. As members of the City Planning Commission, you have a huge responsibility. Do you truly know the impact this will have on the quality of life of Monticello’s residents? Who will pay for the increased water usage and waste management? What about water pressure? Who will regulate this usage by the data center? Would the waste water treatment plant need to be expanded to accommodate the data center? If so, who would pay for it? I am not okay with paying higher taxes in order for the data center to use the CITIZEN’S resources for waste management, water and energy. We already have regular blackouts in the township, where we are informed by internet companies of the planned or unplanned power outage before Xcel or the City. This is after the power has already been out for hours and these blackouts are extremely frustrating as a citizen. I fear that this would only be made worse with the building of even one of these data centers due to their high energy needs. What if this happens on a cold winter night? What about all the beef that I purchase from local farms in my freezer? These are major concerns that I have for the safety of our people and my own family. The idea that these data centers would offer high paying jobs for many people is poorly researched. The amount of people they would employ does not offset the high cost that our residents will have to sacrifice in decreased resources like water and energy. I understand the jobs it will create in the building of the data centers, but what then? The employees of these data center companies will also not likely live near the data center, possibly not even in Monticello. Therefore, the theory that this will bring many high paying jobs is not to be considered as a positive impact on our city. Also, these employees will surely be replaced by AI in the near future. It is a well known fact by anyone who currently works in any kind of AI engineering or research. Regarding property taxes, I also do not believe this will increase the property value of homes. Most of the people I talk to would NOT WANT TO LIVE NEAR a data center and the people I know who currently live near one, do not like it. How does this increase property value? I am also very worried about the homes and farms currently on Davidson and Edmonson. What will happen to these families? Will they be forced to move? How will this impact their homes and ways of life? I urge you to think of the long term effects on our beautiful city. With no one to hold these large companies accountable, in the future, I believe the company will always win. Once our city lets them build, we, the citizens of Monticello, will have no say on what happens with our taxes and natural resources. Please take your time on making this extremely impactful decision. We do not need to let these big companies/data centers be built in our city. Sincerely, Jeremy and Leandra Iverson From: Charlotte Gabler Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 10:43 AM To: Leandra Iverson Cc: Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject: Re: Data Center Concerns Good Morning Leandra- Thank you for the email. I am including City Administrator Rachel Leonard on this as well as Community Development Director Angela Schumann. I appreciate your feedback. There are a lot of unknowns at this time but please know we are doing our diligence to make sure we understand pros/cons/impacts. No formal applications have been submitted. We have had 2 interested parties reach out since 2024-one was interested in a site within the Otter Creek Business Park and the other is in the orderly annexation/growth area south of town-the 500+/- acre area. No decisions have been made about any specific projects, just relating to land use/zoning codes. Land use/zoning codes help us better regulate. Because of the interest in the 500+/- area, this also triggered a much bigger review for environmental, city infrastructure (water, sewer, roads), and those interested parties also have to work with Xcel to see if Xcel is able to provide the necessary power. The Xcel analysis can take a while as well. Please continue to share feedback as you see items on the city website for public notices/meeting agendas. Any questions please give City Hall a call 763-295-2711 Thank you! Charlotte Thank you and have a productive day! Charlotte Gabler Monticello City Council Member Term Expires Dec 31st, 2026 Pronouns: she, her, hers NOTICE: Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Leandra Iverson Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:01 PM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Data Center Concerns Dear Charlotte Gabler, This letter is written with concern for the proposed amendment of the city code and zoning ordinance that would create land for development of two data centers in the city of Monticello. I am a citizen of Monticello Township. My address is My home would be very close to the land that would be used for the 85th Street and Highway 25 data center. I have significant concerns for the placement of data centers in my city, especially so close to my home. These include: extreme water usage, massive land development, a decrease in property values, a decrease in our natural resources, higher energy costs, increased taxes (especially to local small businesses that truly keep our country running), and a small number of jobs that will most certainly be replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the near future. As a Council Member of this city, you have a huge responsibility. Do you truly know the impact this will have on the quality of life of Monticello’s residents? Who will pay for the increased water usage and waste management? What about water pressure? Who will regulate this usage by the data center? Would the waste water treatment plant need to be expanded to accommodate the data center? If so, who would pay for it? I am not okay with paying higher taxes in order for the data center to use the CITIZEN’S resources for waste management, water and energy. We already have regular blackouts in the township, where we are informed by internet companies of the planned or unplanned power outage before Xcel or the City. This is after the power has already been out for hours and these blackouts are extremely frustrating as a citizen. I fear that this would only be made worse with the building of even one of these data centers due to their high energy needs. What if this happens on a cold winter night? What about all the beef that I purchase from local farms in my freezer? These are major concerns that I have for the safety of our people and my own family. The idea that these data centers would offer high paying jobs for many people is poorly researched. The amount of people they would employ does not offset the high cost that our residents will have to sacrifice in decreased resources like water and energy. I understand the jobs it will create in the building of the data centers, but what then? The employees of these data center companies will also not likely live near the data center, possibly not even in Monticello. Therefore, the theory that this will bring many high paying jobs is not to be considered as a positive impact on our city. Also, these employees will surely be replaced by AI in the near future. It is a well known fact by anyone who currently works in any kind of AI engineering or research. Regarding property taxes, I also do not believe this will increase the property value of homes. Most of the people I talk to would NOT WANT TO LIVE NEAR a data center and the people I know who currently live near one, do not like it. How does this increase property value? I am also very worried about the homes and farms currently on Davidson and Edmonson. What will happen to these families? Will they be forced to move? How will this impact their homes and ways of life? I urge you to think of the long term effects on our beautiful city. With no one to hold these large companies accountable, in the future, I believe the company will always win. Once our city lets them build, we, the citizens of Monticello, will have no say on what happens with our taxes and natural resources. Please take your time on making this extremely impactful decision. We do not need to let these big companies/data centers be built in our city. Sincerely, Jeremy and Leandra Iverson From: Eloise Lee Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:29 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data Center Living in a neighborhood not far from where the Data center is trying to be built- I vote NO. This is "country" to us- farm fields nearby . The farm land near us is home to wildlife and waterfowl- why change that ? From my understanding, this could affect our power and our water supply eventually ...we all have wells. I voiced an opinion earlier on Facebook and was confronted by someone with no respect whatsoever...if this person is involved with the "Data Center" itself-Monticello does not need him or his business here. Monticello is growing....lets make sure its in a positive direction. From: Christina Johnson Koshiol Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 11:00 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data Center Concerns Hi Angela Sorry for the late email, but I'm hoping my written input can still be considered with other input in the next step of considering data centers in Monticello, I do share other concerns that Monticello has opened a door leading to eventual building of a data center by updating the comprehensive plan for zoning and now looking at ordinance changes for requirements. I understand it's a long process, but it does seem we are paving that road, without any convincing argument about what benefit it brings to Monticello and a level of defensiveness by some that looks like a red flag for its promotion. It is clear that there is significant opposition to these data centers. Knowing many people who spoke at the hearing, I am aware that this issue is far beyond politics. I know for a fact that there was a very wide range in the political spectrum, all uniting against building this in our community. Our surveys and plans have consistently shown that the people in Monticello want a liveable community for families and our parks are a significant priority. Monticello has prioritized protecting Bertam with significant resources over the last two decades. It was a priority to have this natural space, not even allowing motorized boats. It's clear it has been a draw as the campgrounds are full throughout the summer. Campers continue there each summer through Camp Manitou. The athletic fields development is an additional draw to people to Monticello and the park that is continuing to grow. And the Monticello School district prides itself on providing a nature based learning program at Bertram. All of these things are at significant risk with consideration of a data centers that have significant environmental concerns as detailed by many. All without any significant benefit to Monticello as Bertram is. It could undo years of efforts in the vision and protected space of Monticello, that would pull people away from our community and cause a ripple effect that undermines the entire vision of Monticello, I am no expert, but have been loosely following concerns about data centers across the country. And even people in other communities in Monticello are showing up to warn us. Since we are at the next step of updating an ordinance, I would hope that we would implement very strict environmental standards for these or any similar industrial businesses looking at building in Monticello, especially in relation to neighboring residences and Bertram Park. I'm using Google AI (below) to assist in outlining concerns and zoning/originance considerations that I hope are being discussed and addressed in the next step. But my hope is that a data center is not built anywhere near Bertram Park as well as residences in Monticello.. Thank you, Christina Johnson Koshiol Key environmental ordinance concerns for data centers near parks include excessive noise, high water consumption, air pollution, and significant energy use. Local zoning and specific environmental regulations are used to manage these impacts, especially for facilities located near sensitive areas like public parks. Noise pollution Data centers contain a large amount of continuously running equipment, such as cooling systems, fans, and backup generators, that can create significant noise pollution. This is particularly disruptive near parks, which are designated public spaces for recreation and relaxation. · Noise limits: Local ordinances often set specific decibel (dBA) limits at the property line, with stricter limits typically enforced during evening and nighttime hours. · Equipment screening: To minimize noise and visual impacts, outdoor equipment must be enclosed or screened from public view. · Studies: Acoustical impact studies are often required for new facilities to demonstrate compliance with local noise limits. Water consumption Many data centers use large amounts of water for cooling to prevent their equipment from overheating. This can stress local water supplies, and regulations have been developed to manage this impact. · High usage: Some large data centers can consume millions of gallons of water per day, equivalent to the usage of thousands of people. · Permit requirements: Jurisdictions may require water appropriation permits for large water withdrawals and may scrutinize sustainable practices and water availability. · Cooling systems: Regulations may influence the type of cooling systems used. Evaporative cooling uses significantly more water than closed-loop liquid cooling, which is a less water-intensive alternative. Air pollution Backup generators, which are typically diesel-powered, can release air pollutants during regular testing and power outages. This is a significant concern for air quality in areas frequented by the public, such as parks. · Generator regulations: Ordinances often require backup generators to meet specific emissions standards, such as the EPA's Tier 4 for new equipment. · Permits: Air quality permits may be required, with stricter regulations and potential emissions reduction requirements in "non-attainment areas" that do not meet federal air quality standards. · Testing limitations: Some ordinances restrict the frequency and duration of routine generator testing. Energy consumption and heat Data centers are massive consumers of electricity and can also generate considerable waste heat. This raises environmental concerns related to energy grids and localized heating. · Grid strain: The high energy demand of data centers can place a unique strain on local electrical grids. Some regulations prevent utilities from passing the cost of grid upgrades onto other consumers. · Renewable energy requirements: Some states require data centers to use a portion of their energy from renewable sources. · Waste heat: Environmental regulations may include requirements for reusing waste heat. Land use and zoning Local zoning ordinances are a primary tool for regulating where data centers can be built and how they interact with surrounding areas, including parks. · Setbacks and buffers: Ordinances often mandate setbacks from residential properties and environmentally sensitive areas. They may also require landscaping, screening, and visual buffers to minimize the center's visibility. · Dedicated zones: Some localities have created specific overlay districts to direct data center development to areas with suitable infrastructure and away from sensitive locations. · Environmental impact statement: An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or similar assessment may be required during the permitting process to formally review potential impacts. · Aesthetics: Rules regarding building height and design can be imposed to help facilities blend into their environment . From: Joseph Perrault Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 2:54 PM To: Angela Schumann Cc: Kip Chris)anson; Charlo+e Gabler; Lloyd Hilgart; Tracy Hinz; Lee Mar)e; Development Services; Darek.Vetsch Subject: data center Dear Mon)cello City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, This le+er is wri+en with concern for the proposed amendment of the city code and zoning ordinance that would create land for development of two data centers in the city of Mon)cello. My address is a few miles from the proposed data site. I have significant concerns for the placement of data centers in my city, especially so close to the homes of 2 of my daughters and their families. These include: extreme water usage, massive land development, a decrease in property values, a decrease in our natural resources, higher energy costs, increased taxes (especially to local small businesses that truly keep our country running), and a small number of jobs that will most certainly be replaced by Ar)ficial Intelligence (AI) in the near future. As members of the City Planning Commission, you have a huge responsibility. Do you truly know the impact this will have on the quality of life of Mon)cello’s residents? Who will pay for the increased water usage and waste management? What about water pressure? Who will regulate this usage by the data center? Would the waste water treatment plant need to be expanded to accommodate the data center? If so, who would pay for it? I am not okay with paying higher taxes in order for the data center to use the CITIZEN’S resources for waste management, water and energy. The idea that these data centers would offer high paying jobs for many people is poorly researched. The amount of people they would employ does not offset the high cost that our residents will have to sacrifice in decreased resources like water and energy. I understand the jobs it will create in the building of the data centers, but what then? The employees of these data center companies will also not likely live near the data center, possibly not even in Mon)cello. Therefore, the theory that this will bring many high paying jobs is not to be considered as a posi)ve impact on our city. Also, these employees will surely be replaced by AI in the near future. It is a well known fact by anyone who currently works in any kind of AI engineering or research. Regarding property taxes, I also do not believe this will increase the property value of homes. Most of the people I talk to would NOT WANT TO LIVE NEAR a data center and the people I know who currently live near one, do not like it. I urge you to think of the long term effects on our beau)ful city. With no one to hold these large companies accountable, in the future, I believe the company will always win. Once our city lets them build, we, the ci)zens of Mon)cello, will have no say on what happens with our taxes and natural resources. Please take your )me on making this extremely impacDul decision. We do not need to let these big companies/data centers be built in our city. Sincerely, Kelly Perrault From: Rylie Averill Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:40 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data center Regarding the ordinance change for the data center. I have done a lot of research about the approach the technology companies have been taking for installing these campuses. They push this on anyone and everyone. The testimonies of the residents surrounding these data centers are never good. The ordinance was put in place in 2020 to prevent builds exactly like this. This build is not sustainable. Monticello needs tangible resources like access to food and clean water. There is no reason we should be importing as much food from California as we do. California is not stable. The land being looked at is considered land of great importance to Minnesotas food supply under the United States Department of Agriculture. By placing the data center on an area of great importance in sustaining the biodiversity of this area. This area is crucial for pollinators, and general wild life that contribute to the healthy function of agriculture. We can not jeopardize the nuclear power plant not having the water it needs to cool. The Colorado river dried up. Why would anyone assume that there is zero risk for the same occurring to the Mississippi River. The drinking water is already contaminated by the nuclear power plant leak, and somehow they are not being held accountable, or fixing it. How are we going to hold these people accountable when it is already so apparent that they disregard all of the safety measures communities have put in place prior. There is a systematic approach of weakening communities occurring. Our congress and government is currently polluted with people who do not put america first. Anyone would be a fool to be naive enough to trust big companies in a time like this. This topic will not be pushed under the rug. There is no other option but to say no, for the safety, security, and strength of our community. From: Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 7:58 PM To: Development Services Subject: Data centers Please do not allow a data centers to be built in Mon cello. They are bad for property values. They are super noisy. They increase electric rates for residen al customers. Also they use a lot of water. We cannot afford to allow any data centers to be built in Mon cello! Please vote NO! Connie Carlson Mon cello, MN Sent from my iPhone From: Cutsforth, Sco M Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 1:40 PM To: Angela Schumann Cc: Sco Cutsforth Subject: Proposed Data Center - Comment Period Hello Angela, As being someone that will be living fairly close to the proposed Data Center project (Hunters Crossing), I do have a few concerns. I have spoken with a few of my neighbors and they are already not in favor of this project (Concerns are below). They feel like this comment period is moot as the petition to connect 87th Ave into the new neighborhood from Hunters Crossing basically did not matter and that the city council will do what it want anyways. Potential Cons ·Electricity – Will they have their own power line? o Will the increase in demand for this data center raise our electric bills? ·Water – I know these take a lot of water, how will it get water? o Will they drill their own well Does the water used in cooling get treated and pumped back into the ground? o If it comes from the city Will this increase our water bills Is the new water treatment plant able to process all this water? ·Noise – I was at the meeting when they asked for the rezoning o What are all the ways noise pollution will be reduced? I like that Hunters Crossing is very quiet from extra noise. Potential Pros ·What type of revenue would this bring to the city in the form of taxes? o Property Is the city considering giving a number of years in tax breaks Additonal Sales tax Feel free to respond with other benefits the city council believes would be beneficial to the residents of Monticello. Best Regards, Scott Cutsforth From: Teresa Dongoski Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:29 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Monticello Data center I beg of you, please rethink this, especially in that area. It will cause such a negative impact on the surrounding homes (like mine) with traffic, noise, construction (which, can you guys give it a freaking break for a little bit in town? we have been under construction now for it seems like Covid started) That is far too much and us as citizens have had enough. We moved here in 2018 for the smallish town atmosphere, light property taxes, and cheaper utilities, and now you (not you personally!) are trying to make us into something else. There are plenty of places that are not nearly as close to town. In our area, there are 1000's of acres of land that I'm sure some farmer would love to sell as the out in the middle of nowhere. Instead of throwing this monstrosity against our beautiful neighborhoods. Thank you for your time. I know my opinions do not mean anything, but I appreciate the ear. Thank you! Teresa Dongoski From: Adam Felix Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:06 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Monticello data center. Please, please do not build a freaking data center in my backyard. You are absolutely going to destroy my quality of life. I urge you go live next to one for a month before approving. My uncle lived 3 miles from one out of state and you could hear it plain as day. This is wrong and inappropriate for the area. Please think before looking at dollar bill signs. My electricity is high enough as we speak. Adam From: Annie Felix Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 3:46 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Comments on Monticello Industrial AUAR Scoping Document and Draft Order TO: Angela Schumann Please consider my following comments on the proposed Monticello Industrial AUAR scoping document. The scoping document does not provide enough information to provide comments on whether development scenario 1 and 2 is preferable. Both scenarios have the potential to be large water users. I am most concerned about the two items below. Page 29: Groundwater - "The AUAR will discuss any potential impacts to the Monticello wellhead protection area and DWSMA." However, the AUAR also needs to discuss any potential impacts to the domestic wells in the study area 1 mile buffer zone. Page 34: Water Appropriation - "Municipal wells, stored in a water reservoir or water tower, are the source of drinking water for the city. The City will be initiating a comprehensive utility study for the study area relative to capacity and demand concurrent with the AUAR. The AUAR will evaluate the existing and proposed infrastructure needs and will discuss the viability of supplementing City water with alternative water sources. The AUAR will address water appropriations permitting generally and under new state laws adopted in 2025, as applicable. Evaluation of impact on surrounding supply/wells will be reviewed. Appropriate mitigation measures or system improvements will be identified, if needed." The comprehensive utility study for the study area needs to be conducted first in order to determine if there is an adequate water supply for the potential industry/scenario. Any alternative water sources would need to be identified, and impacts evaluated. Regards, Annie Felix Monticello, MN From: Barb Gaddo Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 11:32 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Public Comment on the Monticello Tech LLC Technology Campus AUAR Ms. Schumann, I have heard about the AUAR for a proposed data center and would like to share my concern as a resident of Monticello. I have lived at Monticello since October 2024. My residential neighborhood is next to the proposed site of the data center. Given the proximity of this development to my home, I am very concerned about the potential impact on my neighborhood. As you consider the potential impact of this project on our community, I ask that you strongly weigh the impact of the residents in the immediate area: Visual impact — A very large building would visually dominate and not complement the adjacent residential area. This could impact property values. Noise impact - The noise from data center generators and equipment would be disrputive to the adjacent residential area. This could impact property values. Water/Waste Water/Treatment Facility - The amount of water required for a data center is extremely high and could severely impact all city residents, not only in terms of supply/demand but potentially additional cost each of us would incur for additional city infrastructure. Electricity/Power Grid - The amount of electricity required to operate a data center is extremely high and could severely impact all city residents, not only in terms of supply/demand and power outages (which already occur on a regular basis) but potentially cause higher electric costs passed on to residents by Xcel. The proposed site would be a much better fit for residential land use or mixed use that provides a buffer or transition to commercial or industrial use further outside the proposed site. Thank you, Barb Gaddo From: Gabriel Graveldinger Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:19 AM To: Charlotte Gabler; Angela Schumann; Rachel Leonard Subject: Data center comment Hello, I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal for a data center to be built in Monticello Township. Such a thing would be a horrible waste of space not to mention the noise and light pollution it will cause! Also quite an eye sore. This data facility will not create many jobs for our community and will only decrease property values in the area while driving up electricity and water costs. I would rather this area being zoned for residential single family homes for families to raise their kids in a wonderful community and environment. Or light industrial use for small businesses and to create more jobs for the local community. A data center would not serve the residents of Monticello area nor will it contribute to the health, beauty and culture of our area. Please REJECT this proposal and seek a use for the area that will profit many, not minimal, interests. Thank you, Gabriel Graveldinger Davern Ave, Monticello township From: Harlan Hamson Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:43 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration I would guarantee you that if this was put to a vote or straw poll, not many people would be for having Data Center built here. Especially if they knew the bad ramification on the city of Monticello. From: Harlan Hamson Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 4:11 PM To: Angela Schumann <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov>; lloyd.hilgart@monticellomn.gov <lloyd.hilgart@monticellomn.gov> Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration https://www.facebook.com/reel/1301648375032057 From: Harlan Hamson Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 9:02 PM To: Angela Schumann <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov> Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration Here's a post from a friend who is fighting the same battle in another state. Might be worth looking into if this would be true here as well. "Getting ready for our likely last shot at stopping this data center within eyesight of our house. The list of reasons this is a bad idea is very long, but the latest I just learned is that the legal language includes a free pass for destroying the local wells and water table. If everyone living in the area suddenly loses water, as has happened with other data centers, they have no legal liabilities. The city wants this for tax revenue. Which is why they're offering fifty years of zero taxes to the data center. From: Harlan Hamson Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 10:35 AM To: Angela Schumann <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov> Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration In general, Omaha, Nebraska is a popular location for data centers due to factors like reliable and affordable electricity, open land, and a robust fiber optic network. However, some challenges and concerns are associated with the growth of data centers in Omaha and elsewhere: · Environmental Impact: Data centers are energy and water-intensive, consuming significant electricity and water for operation and cooling. This can put a strain on local resources and raise concerns about the environmental footprint of these facilities. For example, the Omaha Public Power District has faced increased demand and delayed the shutdown of a coal plant due to data center expansion, particularly Google's investments in the area. · Grid Reliability: The increasing demand from data centers can impact the stability and reliability of the electrical grid. There have been concerns raised about the potential for data center behavior to contribute to cascading power outages, according to NERC reports. · Infrastructure Demands: Building and maintaining data centers requires substantial infrastructure, including power, cooling, and fiber optics. Keeping up with the rapid growth in demand for these resources presents challenges for utilities and communities. · Local Concerns: Residents and communities may have concerns about the environmental impact, noise levels, and potential strain on local resources posed by data center development. · Outages: While many data centers prioritize reliability and redundancy to prevent downtime, outages can still occur due to power issues, equipment failures, or even software updates. These outages can affect various services and businesses, as seen in a global IT outage that impacted Nebraska residents. Despite these challenges, data centers play a crucial role in supporting the digital economy and provide significant benefits, such as job creation and the provision of essential services. Ultimately, the development and operation of data centers in Omaha involve a balancing act between the benefits they offer and the need to address the associated environmental and infrastructure concerns. From: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 9:44 PM To: Harlan Hamson Subject: Automatic reply: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration Thank you for your email. I am currently out of office, returning on Monday, August 25th, 2025. If you need immediate assistance, please call our front desk at 763-295-2711. From: Lysa Holmstrom Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:21 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Data center Please do not approve this! While I support growing our community, this company doesn't care about our resources since they are not local people. It's not healthy for our water and electrical supplies period. I don't support this, I don't want it in my backyard. Concerned property owner From: lisa Keenan Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 5:15 PM To: Development Services Subject: Fwd: Sept 2 Planning Commision Meeting Lisa Keenan Attachments: Sept 2 Planning Commision Meeting Lisa Keenan.docx Hello, Attached is the document I read from at the Sept 2nd meeting and was requested toward the end of the meeting. I am also including links to the pages or documents I pulled the data from. If any of the links don't work please let me know and I will try again. I would also like to point out the JLARC has a section that states "Data centers provide positive economic benefits to Virginia's economy, mostly during their initial construction". datacenter - Community & Environmental Defense Services Board of Supervisors Approves New Data Center Zoning Ordinance Amendment | News Center DataCenterGuidelinesComprehensivePlanAmendment.Adopted.6.10.25.pdf Microsoft Word - O2516 JLARC | Data Centers in Virginia Monticello has been a great community we have been happy to be a part of for the past 27 years. A data center is simply not what Monticello needs. Thank you for your time, Lisa Keenan I am opposed to a data center in Monticello. My hope is you would all vote to turn down the data center ordinance. However, if the DCPUD is approved I hope at a minimum you create stricter regulations. The DCPUD draft lists setbacks of 100’ from the property lines and 200’ from any residential property lines. The Community Environmental Defense Services website suggests the following as part of the zoning ordinance. • To minimize noise impacts diesel generators should be in heavily sound-proofed enclosures, • Data center buildings should be at least 300 feet from residential property lines, • To prevent glare into nearby homes, data center lighting should conform to the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting from Dark Sky International, • To reduce diesel pollution generators should be Tier 4 or possibly Tier 2 generators with selective catalytic reduction systems. NOTE – I have now spoken with someone who works at data centers with generators and they said we would not want Tier 2 generators for multiple reasons. Tier 4 is what is recommended. Since Virginia has a large number of data centers I did some research on issues they are having and ordinances they are implementing. or updating. From JLARC : Joint Legislative Audit & Review in Virginia The industrial scale of data centers makes them largely incompatible with residential uses. One -third of data centers are currently located near residential areas, and industry trends make future residential impacts more likely. With a neighborhood across the road from the proposed sight this does not seem like a wise choice. Henrico County, Fairfax County and York County Virginia Two have setbacks of at least 300' from residential areas and 1 has 500'. • They require Noise Studies: Pre- and post-construction noise studies must be submitted to ensure compliance with the Noise Ordinance. York County, VI • . (3) An acoustic barrier (e.g., an exterior solid or louvered wall containing soundproofing materials) shall surround all exterior mechanical equipment. Such acoustic barrier must be shown on the approved site plan and shall be maintained on the premises of the Data Center for the operational life of the facility. They all have restrictions on how often, time of day and how long the diesel generators can be tested The timeline is listed in the draft as 3 years, Mr Frattalone is asking for a minimum of 5 years. That would be 5 years of construction noise and traffic congestion. He also asked if perhaps there should be a different set of standards for the substation. If this happens I would hope they are strict standards as no one wants to see an ugly substation on a daily basis or hear the buzzing from their yard. In addition to noise, water and electricity usage is a big concern. We recently asked a friend of ours who is an environmental attorney if he had any suggestions of questions to ask. He stated we should ask about the environmental review regarding groundwater levels and quality in the surrounding area and who reviewed that analysis. Then he stated WHEN that analysis comes to be wrong who will carry the liability for the affected landowners? The city or the data center owner? He didn’t say IF, he stated WHEN it's wrong. From my perspective that is a very telling stateme nt of what he has seen. From: Bernard Lang Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:02 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Proposed Development of local acreage Hello, My name is Bernard Lang, I'm a husband, father, and local resident of Monticello, I love Monticello and love where I live. I live just blocks away from the proposed development area. One of the reasons Monticello drew me in was the vast area of farmland and nature. The local lakes, like Pelican lake and others, the parks, and the wild life. I moved here to raise a family and be proud of my city. The recent proposal of land development poses several major issues, and facts, that I will stand by to oppose any further development of a Data Center. Wild life is being pushed further and further out of its natural habitat, I see birds of all kinds living and prospering in that area. Geese roost there before flying to the Mississippi or Pelican lake. Deer and other mammals feed off that field. Along with the animals, the plants and trees are healthy. Overall the environment is already prospering. Flattening out that land and building a structure, takes that completely away from those things. Adding a massive structure there takes healthy ground water from those animals and that habitat. As for the people, the same facts hold true. Our land WE pay to live around will be taken away. Our water sources and habitat will be forever changed. Adding this on top of a Nuclear Plant, I receive emergency protocol every year for. I'm sure I would be receiving something of the same. The electrical grid would be put under more pressure. Now we also have noise, traffic, construction, and I'll be honest a total eyesore, getting installed a peaceful place of land I get to drive by every day. I drive through Monticello for hours per day. There are vacant buildings and spaces scattered across the area. Why not utilize those first for maybe a small data center or light industrial? Before tilling up land and ruining the habitat for creatures and people. I would consider contacting local business real estate agents and seeing what is already on the table. I watched a friend who small business trying to survive, the private owned cost of the new building drove to close. New building space, now vacant, and a professional adult looking for work. This proposal of land use goes right up to local farms, homes, water sources for wildlife, and wild life management areas. All of those would be permanently changed. We already have so much construction that is taking longer than expected, and creating a hassle for every resident and visitor of Monticello. Let's take care of what we have first! Please consider the visual, electrical stress, construction hazards and inconvenience, ground water hazard, nature, along with every econimic challenge, and the especially people and community you represent, to be a voice for our concerns. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this, Bernard From: Annie Miles Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 1:22 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: data center / AUAR Hello Angela, I'm writing in regards to the data center. I've lived in Monticello for nearly twenty-five years. I've seen a lot of the change that has happened, and so much of it has been beneficial to this community. I do not believe the proposed data center is one of those changes that would be beneficial to Monticello. In what I have read about data centers, the environmental impact, the water use, and the electricity demand from these centers is a significant problem. It especially seems significant to note that the proposal includes parts of Pelican Lake area. I live near this area and see the wildlife that lives there. Preserving the areas around Pelican lake, preserving the agricultural areas, and possibly adding some other smaller industrial or residential growth to this space seems to be a much more beneficial option for our community than a data center. Annie Miles From: Lisa Murphy Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:07 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Re: Data center Also: they use on average 528,355 gallons per DAY, average 50 employees. Water reclama,on is any where from 22% to 50%. If aquifers are depleted, wells fail, rivers and lakes dry up and can cause sink holes. Prolonged deple,on can PERMANENTLY damage the aquifers ability to hold water leading to irreversible loss of water resource impac,ng EVERYTHING that depends on it. There is SIGNIFICANT noise from cooling towers and HVAC which can leave a significant impact on residents nearby. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 2, 2025, at 3:50 PM, Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@mon,cellomn.gov> wrote: > > Thank you for emailing your comments related to the considera,on of data center development in the community. > > Your comments will be forwarded to the Mon,cello Planning Commission for their considera,on as part of this evening’s public hearing on the dra> zoning ordinance regula,ng data centers. The data center ordinance being discussed at Planning Commission is not specific to a par,cular data center project. The ordinance would set the requirements for any data center development in the city. The report and dra> ordinance item can be found on the City's website. > > An Alterna,ve Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Scoping Document has also been prepared as related to development of an approximately 546 acre area south of 85th Street NE. More informa,on can be found at Environmental Reviews | Mon,cello, MN. Your comments will also be included in the public comment documenta,on for the AUAR Scoping Document. If you would like to make addi,onal comment specific to the AUAR Scoping Document, the comment period is open un,l September 4, 2025. If you do not wish for your prior email to be included in the AUAR document, please email me that you do not wish for your comment to be included in the AUAR Scoping Document comments. > > Angela Schumann > Community Development Director > Development Services > 763-271-3224 > 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Mon,cello, MN 55362 > > hJps://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=hJps%3a%2f%2fMon,celloMN.gov&c > =E,1,IGCJ28G5xcmKfa2NXkMIGf4vis0EUpGkZWeBPQCdld9WVPeqL,jwCcZ3_G2FrahLbbgw_Ufr3QbTFtoP ibdi-Y0vtWXqO4W9qsnVfNnt01abBIMl2tpQJ8,&typo=1 | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News Email correspondence to and from the City of Mon,cello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Prac,ces Act and may be disclosed to third par,es. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Murphy > Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2025 4:02 PM > To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@Mon,celloMN.gov> > Subject: Data center > > > Do I want an AI data center in your backyard? NO > > > Mon,cello Tech LLC is owned by Mon,celloam LCC. The co-founder of Mon,celloam LLC is Johnathan LiJ who is the Assistant Treasurer Black Rock Mon,cello Debt Real Estate Investment Trust. > > This report is spoJy, and over looks many environmental factors that are unique to our loca,on, and our farming prac,ces. This scope is covering 546 acres of land (only 10acres of this is currently paved) everything else is water sources, and farmland (the vast majority of this land is considered 'prime farm land', or 'farmland of state wide importance'. There are 8 wetlands in this area of study which are crucial for endangered species like the monarch, and the western regal fri,llary buJerfly and the whooping crane. There are also bald eagles in this area that are protected un,l MBTA and the Golden Eagle Protec,on Act. This build is not in compliance with Wright County Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan of 2007 nor City of Mon,cello 2040 comprehension Plan of 2020; it is appalling that Kimley Horn half heartedly aJempts to jus,fy it. Data Centers need significant amounts of water. There has been alot of flooding occurring in the United States. We already have a nuclear power plant to keep cool. It is NOT a good idea to place a data center in Mon,cello MN. > > PLEASE, DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN HERE. > Sent from my iPad From: Dwayne Olson Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:35 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: AUAR Scoping Document The city needs to make sure of three things in it's review. First the Data Center needs to be at minnimum 1000 yards from the nearest houses, second that the light pollution from the Center be regulated as I have seen videos of Data Centers that light up neighboring housing like christmas trees, and last that the Data Center is held accountable for any wastewater they produce dosen't contaiment ground water. The other thing is energy consumption, however I believe that is something the state would need to requlate. I work for a company that does business with Data Center, however they do need requlation to protect the community Dwayne Olson Monticello resident. From: leah.schmitz Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 9:43 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Annexation/Rezoning Dear Angela and Whom All it May Concern, My name is Leah Schmitz, I live at in the Monticello Township. I am extremely concerned with the current "talk" of re-zoning portions of the Township for potential future commercial/data center use. Myself and many residents feel this was a "hidden" agenda and the decision has already been made. You say it was/is posted but it's been very hush hush and not forthcoming with information. If you wanted the support or feedback of the community youb would have been working WITH the community to educate and advise us of the upcoming potential changes. Instead, we as a community found out and had to come to you. At the recent meetings, along with numerous letters and phone calls, the City of Monticello has heard of all the opposition and concerns. I stand behind them all. I live in the Township for many reasons, one, because I feel as though I live in the country or closest thing to it. Neighbors not on top of each other. We have large beautiful yards, our roads have limited traffic and the area seems mostly safe for children and people of all ages. Many of us walk these streets each day. We see have the peace and quiet of the country. The idea of a Data Center going in across the street makes me want to move. I realize that means nothing when it comes to the main focus of $$ for the city. I just wish that the "people" mattered more than the bottom dollar. If a poll was taken, I believe the people of Monticello would vote this down! Find other options for the growth of Monticello, supported by the residents to make this money needed for the city, not at such an expense and loss to so many of us resident. Thank you. Leah Schmitz Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone From: Matthew Schwinghammer Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 11:32 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Monticello Data Center Hello Angela, I’d like to formally document my opposition to the proposed Monticello data center off 85th Street and Highway 25. Countless news articles show how data centers destroy the peace and tranquility of a community and have negative environmental impacts to the land/water. Despite Monticello Tech LLC’s proposal, the data center will not add the number of jobs the company is pitching and will actually be a deterrent for new residence who plan on moving to Monticello. When making a decision on the proposed development, I ask that you look at what is best for our residents, and build a community you would be proud to have your kids to live in. Thank you, Matt Schwinghammer From: Sarah Scribner Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:24 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Citizen Comments Dear Monticello Planning Committee & City Council, My husband Chris and I attended the 8/19/25 & 9/2/25 meetings regarding potential changes to ordinances to allow a discussion for data centers. More specifically, recommendations or things to consider to include in any Data Center ordinances. We’ve lived in Monticello for 26 years. We specifically moved out of the twin cities area for a more quiet and beautiful landscape. We remodeled our home, deciding this would be our “forever home” where we have been blessed to raise our children, go to church, gather with neighbors, work and live life. We are 100% against the LOCATION of this data center and quite honestly any data center in Monticello. We beg the Planning Committee and City Council to make NO changes period. We DON’T need to change anything that would allow or invite a data center to come to our area. I know the City of Monticello needs money. Quite honestly, that is short-sighted and there are other ways to pay for the necessary improvements needed in Monticello. Quite honestly, and I mean no disrespect, but the City has not done a great job of being fiscally responsible regarding the past default of the City Bonds regarding the whole Fiber Net issue. Then there is the empty lower level of Block 52 which we were told would have restaurants and stores. I wish the City would try to attract home builders to be bigger / nicer homes, maybe with some acreage of 3-5 acres as that is very hard to find in this area. Ideally, I’d love to see nice houses be built on the property in question (off hwy 25 & 85th St) Or better yet, a natural area with a paved bike path but that indeed is a dream. Please think of how our actions today will affect the generations to come after us. Please don’t allow the City of Monticello to take a quick fix & basically sell it’s soul to the devil (aka hyperscae data centers). Monticello is is no expert when it comes to dealing with billion dollar businsses that want to use our resources and who honestly don’t care what gets ruined in the process. Our natural resources are our biggest assets and we must protect them. IF you absolutely must have recommendations, we would suggest the following conservative measures. 1. Land Use / Zoning Codes This was NOT part of the 2040 Plan so should NOT be changed. 2. “Light “ vs “Heavy” Industrial Categorization Hyper Data Centers are considered “Heavy Industrial” for a number of reasons. It simply is NOT appropriate to re-zone and put a “Heavy Industrial” site next to existing neighborhoods, city parks and schools. 3. Set-backs from schools Require at least a 2 mile set-back from any schools. (Little Mountain Elementary, Pinewood Elementary, Monticello Middle School, Monticello High School, Pumpkin Patch Preschool, Eastview Education Center, etc.) 4. Set-backs from city parks Require at least a 2 mile set-back from any city / county / state parks. (Namely, the City Parks of Hunter’s Crossing & Pioneer Park.) 5. Set-backs from existing neighborhoods Require at least a 2 mile set-back from any existing neighborhood. 6. Environmental Risks Request a FULL Environmental Impact Study (wetlands, plants, animals, birds, etc.) This must evaluate the effects of construction and operation on the local ecosystem. 7. Water Data Center is responsible for 100% of cost associated with bringing water to the site and 100% responsible for all water usage. Tax payers are not responsible to pay for any portion of it. Again, limit the size to only a SMALL data center and limit the amount of water they can utilize. 8. Wells Data Center is NOT allowed to drill wells on the property. Nor are they allowed to pump from existing wells on the property. (This would negatively affect surround land owners who utilize the same aquifers.) All water must come from city supplied water system for which they must pay for building it and using it. 9. MN DNR HYDROLOGIST Request a MN DNR Hydrologist (independent party) investigation & “Impact Study” of taking water from the area aquifers in Monticello area and the Mississippi River and areas. (James Bedell DNR Area Hydrologist covering Monticello area. 320-726-0978 James.Bedell@State.MN.US) 10. Water Cooling Demand CLOSED-LOOP water cooling system. (Or even demand they use wastewater & of course pay to build it) 11. Medical Concern Cooling towers can pollute air w/ chemicals, risk of Legionnaires Disease & other respiratory issues. Request data centers must pay to have an independent 3rd party perform annual tests on their pollution, fix problems and are financially responsible to injured parties. 12. Condensation on road Increased motor vehicle accidents due to sleet / icy from condensation Request an environmental / weather impact study regarding condensation on roads, ice, black ice & fog; along with utilizing risk mitigation strategies. Limit the size to only a SMALL data center. 13. Generators Limit the number of generators on the property to 20. Limit the time of day the back-up generators can “test”, say from 10 am – 12 pm. Limit the size to only a SMALL data center. 14. Emissions from generators Demand “Tier-4 Final” generators (present-day best emission standards) 15. Fire Risk If a disaster happens, is the Monticello Fire Dept. equipped to handle a Data Center explosion? Limit size to a SMALL data center. 16. Security Concerns There is increased terrorism threat given that data centers may contain gov’t. data. Limit size to a SMALL data center. 17. Construction process Require all construction be completed within 2 years. No exceptions. Limit size to a SMALL data center. 18. Pollution Air Pollution Noise Pollution Light Pollution Water Pollution Data Center must hire a third part vendor for monitoring it’s air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution and water pollution. Citizens could report concerns to investigate and these concerns must be addressed to a public satisfactory response. IF not, the data center must be immediately shut down permanently. Not just pay a fine. 19. Other Types Of Data Centers Do NOT allow “Bit coining / Bit Mining” at all. (Not just stating that it’s “not allowed as a primary use” but not allowed at all.) 20. Liability Insurance The Data Center must carry One-Hundred-Billion dollar liability insurance policy to pay damaged parties in Monticello Township and City of Monticello. . 21. Tax Incentives The City must not offer them any tax incentives. Data Center pays to get any and all utilities to the site 22. Life Span After a 15-20 year life span, the property must be put back to it’s natural state of grasslands and farm fields. Thank you. Chris and Sarah Scribner From: James Sta s Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:23 PM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Swans and wildlife Monticello is known for it’s Swans , hence sawn park where people come from all around to feed the swans and snap pics of them … With that being said I drove by the land 25 and 106 and what did I see , 80-100 Swans sitting in that field raising their young as they have done for 20 some years , also on that field were about 100-150 geese that have been using the field . Monticello decides to build there the Swans , Geese and other wildlife will find alternative land to feed and raise their young . I have been in Monticello for 55 yrs and have seen a lot of changes that have been made .. Building a Data Center that close to residential is just stupid of the city to even think about it , should be a hard NO go find some other place . As you can tell I don’t want it that close to where I live just down the road from where it would be built .. I would think that our voices should make a difference but I feel that in this case all the city council see is the dollar signs . In closing I would really hate to see the Swans and Geese disappear because of a decision that was made by people we trust with our town of Monticello . Thank you have a good day From: Jami Vokaty Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 11:35 AM To: Angela Schumann Subject: Database Monticello - Strong Public Disapproval Hi Ms. Schumann, I am deeply disheartened to believe that Monticello would risk ruining its resource pool for a privatized data center -- where we already have a nuclear plant! I think the ludicrous vote will irreversibly damage our agriculture, our tourism, and that this plan selfishly depleats what actually helps our town, in the name of financial greed. I am disgusted, and I expect better. Help us. With Great Concern, Jami Vokaty From: To:Angela Schumann Subject:AUAR Comments regarding Data Center Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 1:12:42 PM Hello, This is Bob Stein. I am a resident of the Monticello Community and would like to share concerns regarding the continued discussion of the Data Center proposals in our city. I do not understand why the city would choose to have their hands tied with 550 acres of a data center that will realistically only employ 50 people to operate. We don't need to rush to "fill" a map just to simply check a box and call it "growth" for our city. The environmental concerns regarding water use, air quality issues, increased utility bills, noise concerns, and increased traffic during the construction of such a facility all are valid concerns. We do not need this type of business in our community. I have yet to see or hear how this will have any kind of positive impact to our community, other than loose references to a tax base during its operations. Will it help lower my taxes? Monticello has sold numerous properties throughout the area and none of them have lowered my taxes. You've heard numerous concerns at your public hearings from people who live right across the road from the proposed 550 acre campus. None of them are eager to have this as their neighbor. Someone brought up a great point of saying "would you build this right across the street from a school?" The answer would/should be "No!" We continually endure issues with power and water during dry years. Xcel continues to want to increase their rates due to growing demand for power. Why would we choose to willingly strain both the power and water resources in our community? What if the Data Center would require additional power poles/lines direct to their campus? You'd be running even more power lines/towers through/over residential areas to serve their needs. I already dread the few that cut through the south side of our community. You can feel the buzz and hum as you stand near them. Please explore other options for this site. A company of this scale has no interest in servicing our community or adding any value to its members. All of this is new and emerging technology. You can try all you want to paint them into a corner with guidelines or regulations, but their pockets are far deeper than our city's pockets. If there are legal issues that arise, you can bet that the company would gladly take the city to court and negate any and all profits to the city. Look at Fibernet, great concept, but legally expensive due to court with Charter, and now managed by Arvig. I really don't understand why our city is rushing along this type of decision. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You are presenting conflicting messaging with your public hearings at Planning Meetings, where you direct/redirect people not to talk directly about this 550 acre proposed facility, but instead about data centers as whole. All while the elephant is clearly in the room, and that's what people want to talk about. Then you put information like this out on social media, when instead it should be a mass mailing campaign to every single home in From: To:Development Services Subject:Monticello proposed data centers Date:Friday, September 5, 2025 9:42:17 AM I am strongly against the proposed data centers in Monticello. Please do not allow them. Josh Neisch Monticello MN 55362 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: To:Development Services; Charlotte Gabler; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Kip Christianson; Rachel Leonard Subject:Fwd: Opposition to Proposed Data Center Development Date:Monday, September 8, 2025 10:41:53 PM ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jessica Kinney Date: Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 10:33 PM Subject: Opposition to Proposed Data Center Development To: <Lloyd.hilgart@monticellomn.gov> I am writing to respectfully express my concern regarding the consideration of a data center development in Monticello. While I recognize the need to encourage economic growth and technological advancement, I urge the city to carefully weigh the potential long-term impacts such a facility could have on our community and environment. Data centers are known to be extremely resource-intensive, particularly with water and energy usage. At a time when sustainable water management is critical, the significant demand for cooling such facilities poses a serious risk to our local water supply. In addition, the environmental footprint of data centers—ranging from increased carbon emissions to potential strain on surrounding ecosystems—could undermine Monticello’s commitment to environmental stewardship. Noise pollution is another pressing issue. The constant operation of cooling and backup systems can impact the quality of life for nearby residents, affecting health, well-being, and property values. This is not a short-term inconvenience but a lasting change to the character of our community. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the City of Monticello not move forward with approving a data center in our community. I urge you instead to consider alternative opportunities for development that align with sustainability goals, protect natural resources, and enhance the quality of life for residents. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your ongoing commitment to serving the best interests of Monticello’s citizens. Sincerely, Jessica Kinney Monticello, MN 55362