Hermantown council faces heated debate over rezoning for proposed data‑center campus

Hermantown City Council on the second reading of Ordinance 2025‑17 heard multi‑hour presentations from city staff, developers and utilities about a proposed rezoning of roughly 220 acres in the Adolf area — a step developers say is needed for a master‑planned data‑center campus — and then heard more than 100 public speakers both urging and opposing the change.

City staff and the developer described the land‑use case and the project in detail. "The comprehensive plan guides these parcels for business and light manufacturing," said Eric Johnson, the city’s community development staff, describing the April 2025 update that steered the southwest quadrant toward business and light industrial uses. Economic development director Chad Ranchetti told the council the campus could include up to four 300,000‑square‑foot data‑center buildings built over 8–10 years and estimated a minimum of $650 million in private investment; he said construction could create high‑hundreds of trade jobs and the campus about "at least 40" permanent full‑time positions.

Engineers from Kimley‑Horn and the development team outlined technical details. "At full campus buildout we studied up to 50,000 gallons a day," said Brian Werdean, citing the project’s modeled water demand and noting that the developer expects to avoid using water for server cooling. He and other consultants said that represents the equivalent of roughly 160 single‑family residential units at full buildout and estimated traffic at about 1,920 daily trips when the full campus is complete. Kimley‑Horn’s noise modeling team said it designed mitigation to meet Minnesota residential noise limits (60 dB day / 50 dB night) and modeled the site to meet a conservative 50 dB criterion, using berms and noise walls where needed.

Representatives from Minnesota Power described the utility process for interconnection, the multi‑step grid studies required for very large customers and legal protections the state enacted in 2025 to prevent existing customers from being harmed by new big loads. "If there's any needs for the system to be upgraded, there is a very rigorous process to identify what those are," said Julie Pierce, Minnesota Power vice president of strategy and planning; she added that interconnection customers typically pay for required upgrades.

Public testimony was lengthy and sharply divided. Opponents repeatedly raised transparency concerns tied to non‑disclosure agreements and to the timing and scope of the alternative urban areawide review (AUR). "Why are you withholding information from residents and neighbors?" asked speaker Frankie Flegi. Neighbors stressed potential long‑term impacts on wetlands, trout streams, property values, water supply, traffic and noise; several asked the council to pause the rezoning and require a full environmental review (an EAW/EIS) before changing zoning on the parcels.

Supporters and union construction representatives emphasized jobs and local economic benefits. "Data centers require some of the most advanced and precise electrical work in the industry," said Kyle Bukovich of IBEW Local 242, urging the council that dense multi‑year construction would retain and employ local trades.

Councilors pressed the project team on sightlines to existing homes, whether air permits might be needed, enforcement pathways for noise limits, and how water and tax projections would be secured in development agreements. Staff said tax‑and‑valuation modeling is ongoing with the county and a public finance consultant and that development agreements would include minimum assessed value and enforceable conditions. The city also said it is planning project‑funded public infrastructure, including an elevated water tower to expand capacity.

By the time the meeting recessed the council had not taken a final vote on the rezoning. Next procedural steps the city described include planning‑and‑zoning review of special‑use permits and the development agreement process; staff also said a public hearing on the annual fee schedule is scheduled in two weeks. Councilors and staff acknowledged several outstanding analyses — including detailed interconnection studies, refined tax projections, and any formal environmental review beyond the AUR — would be completed later in the public permitting process.

What’s next: the rezoning remains before the council. Residents advocating for a pause said the council should require additional environmental review and public disclosure before any final vote; supporters said the project and its infrastructure would bring long‑term jobs and broad tax base benefits if built with enforceable protections.