Dunn County committee reviews draft housing goals and intergovernmental strategies as residents urge pause on proposed data center

The Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee on Oct. 1 reviewed draft elements of the county comprehensive plan focused on housing and intergovernmental cooperation while residents urged action to slow or block a proposed data center annexation.

Regional planner Susan Badke presented updated housing data and draft plan language, including a housing goal that she read to the committee: “Dunn County will support a balanced, adaptable housing market that meets the needs of residents at all life stages and income levels while supporting responsible growth, protecting productive lands, and preserving rural character.” The presentation summarized countywide housing statistics, needs-assessment findings and draft objectives, policies and grouped strategies intended to guide implementation.

Why it matters: the comprehensive plan informs county policy, coordination with municipalities and implementation strategies that influence where and how new housing and other development occur. Residents and local officials said the committee’s decisions on intergovernmental cooperation and plan implementation could affect whether large nonagricultural projects, including data centers, are allowed to proceed near productive farmland and residential neighborhoods.

Badke told the committee the county’s most recent housing snapshot shows about 33% of units are rentals, 65% owner‑occupied and about 2% seasonal. She said rental vacancy estimates have fallen from roughly 5% in 2020 toward about 4% (with a cited margin of error), and owner vacancy is very low (0.8% in 2020; recent estimate about 0.2%). Median sale prices in the county rose about 42% over the period presented and median two‑bedroom rents increased about 25%, according to the sources Badke cited. She also reported roughly 48% of county housing stock was built before 1980.

Badke and county staff said the draft housing element includes 14 objectives, about 11 policies and a set of more detailed strategies grouped for implementation (regulatory review; partnerships and education; incentives and demonstration projects; sustainability and energy; monitoring and advocacy). She said the next steps include focus groups with villages and continued work with the county housing work group and housing action team to refine implementation details.

Public comments and intergovernmental concerns

Multiple members of the public and municipal leaders addressed the committee on the subject of a proposed data center and related annexation. Bob Cook, town chair of Red Cedar, asked the county to “propose a moratorium countywide just as they have done with the sand mines, to buy us time to look into more information about these things.” Several residents raised water‑use, noise and environmental concerns, and some questioned the long‑term local benefits of a data center.

Randy Knack, mayor of the City of Menomonie, described the annexation procedure that led to the pending proposal and said the timing and confidentiality around that proposal strained intergovernmental relations. "When the land owners themselves come and ask for annexation, we are bound over to have to take that to the city council," he said, describing how state annexation procedures limited the city’s discretion and surprised neighboring townships.

Resident Michael Waller said he and neighbors living about a mile from the proposed site “are very upset” and cited worries about well water, septic and noise. Jody Cromery, who said she has been researching data centers, told the committee she has found residents near other data centers report severe local impacts and that promised job and revenue benefits do not always materialize: “my life is hell now that this data center has came into our community,” she said.

Committee response and next steps

Committee members said the question of whether to block or pause the current proposal requires legal review and clarified the committee lacks direct regulatory authority over the annexation that led to the present proposal. The chair told the public the committee will seek clarity on the process and options for county action and that staff will brief the committee on how a future proposal would be handled procedurally. The chair said the committee will consider whether changes to county regulations or clarified intergovernmental agreements are warranted for future proposals; formal staff and town outreach were proposed as next steps.

On intergovernmental cooperation, staff presented a draft goal to strengthen communication, cost‑effective service sharing, coordinated land‑use and infrastructure planning, and joint efforts that promote orderly growth “while respecting the unique identity and decision making authority of each community.” Several supervisors noted the county could encourage — and, where appropriate, actively engage municipalities on — formal cooperative boundary agreements and other tools to avoid surprises along municipal borders.

The committee did not adopt any moratorium or immediate regulatory change at the Oct. 1 meeting. Staff said they will continue focus groups with villages and towns and will return with implementation details and potential regulatory options for committee consideration at a future meeting.