Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use And Data Centers topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents question proposed data center and nearby bitcoin operation; county officials point to zoning limits

Des Moines County Board of Supervisors · March 31, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Public commenters asked the board about a proposed bitcoin operation near an ethanol plant and whether battery storage is covered under the Wind & Solar Ordinance; county officials said battery references apply to wind/solar fields and noted the county lacks countywide zoning, and a resident urged drafting a data-center ordinance.

Residents raised concerns about a potential bitcoin operation near the ethanol plant and the broader question of whether the county’s Wind & Solar Ordinance covers standalone battery storage for data centers during the public-input portion of the March 31 Des Moines County Board meeting.

Bob Hanson asked the board about the bitcoin operation near the ethanol plant. Vice Chair Tom Broeker responded that "with no county wide zoning, they can build whatever they choose," reflecting the county’s current land-use framework.

Tracey Lamm of The HawkEye asked Assistant Land Use Administrator Jarred Lassiter whether the Wind & Solar Ordinance’s references to battery storage include battery installations that would serve a data center. Lassiter replied that battery-storage references in the ordinance apply only to battery storage associated with wind and solar fields, not to standalone battery facilities for other industrial uses.

Rose Fischer urged the Land Use Office to work with the County Attorney to draft an ordinance for data centers should one be needed. The exchange reflects public concern about large energy- and compute-intensive facilities and whether current county land-use rules and ordinances address those uses explicitly. The meeting record shows these issues were raised during public input and no formal zoning change or ordinance was adopted at this session.