Residents urge Hermantown City Council to halt hyperscale data center, citing environmental and transparency concerns

Dozens of residents addressed the Hermantown City Council on Dec. 15, urging elected officials to halt proceedings on a proposed hyperscale data center and to demand more transparent, site‑specific environmental review.

At a public‑comment segment that consumed more than an hour of the meeting, speakers raised recurring themes: that the administrative record (AUR) understates local impacts, that city staff signed nondisclosure agreements with the developer, and that the city lacks regulatory language for hyperscale facilities. "Please be careful," Thomas Bates told the council, warning that "these guys are ruthless" and urging officials to research how similar projects played out elsewhere.

Kira Simmons, who identified her address as 5112 Eagle Lake Road, urged the council to "halt the proceedings with Mortonson" and said the state and city lack adequate regulation of hyperscale data centers. Simmons cited AUR passages she said show likely increases in impervious surfaces, higher stream temperatures, and the removal of about 150 acres of mature trees; she also said the record cites risks to designated trout streams and argued those impacts merit more thorough review than the council has required.

Emma Richman, 5215 Chris Drive, told the council she felt dismissed by officials and asked for at least one member to commit to voting "no" as a sign residents matter. Jeffrey Donahghue and Lynn Bradford described extensive local organizing and canvassing, with Bradford saying canvassers found roughly 20 supporters among 1,000 households contacted in the recent two‑week period.

Peter Haftton recounted a conversation with a local data‑center manager who, Haftton said, told him he would not support siting a facility that close to his home because of runoff and trout‑stream impacts. Noel Donahghue questioned why staff relied on the AUR rather than a site‑specific Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), saying the council retains the authority to require further study.

City staff previously notified council that a 150‑day extension request for the data‑center land‑use application was in the meeting packet. When asked later in the meeting about a waterline extension and its connection to the project, staff responded that the waterline work does relate to the data‑center need, but did not provide a decision or new mitigation commitments during the session.

Why it matters: Residents framed the issue as both an environmental and democratic one — arguing that large, single‑use development on hundreds of acres could change local hydrology, remove mature forest and habitat, and commit local land to uses residents oppose. Many asked the council to require a site‑specific study and to remove city staff NDAs that they said impede public review.

What happened next: The meeting record shows no final council vote on approving or denying the data‑center application that night; public comment concluded and the council proceeded with other agenda items, including routine licenses and multiple resolutions. Staff flagged a 150‑day extension request in the packet but did not record the council acting on that extension during the documented portion of the meeting.

Community impact and next steps: Opponents said they will continue outreach during any extension period and press the council to require additional environmental review. The council did not state a timeline for staff to respond to those requests during the meeting.