Special Meeting on Data Center Ordinance – September 14, 2026

This was the third of three informational meetings held by the Aberdeen City Council to gather public input for drafting an ordinance that limits, prohibits, or regulates data centers within city limits. The meeting took place at 5:30 PM in the historic civic theater, with Deputy Mayor presiding (Mayor Shahneman absent). No action was taken; the council listened to 18 registered speakers. A moratorium on data center permits remains in effect until November 18, 2026.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Peggy Cootermarsh asked council members to declare their position on data centers and urged them to consider the long-term consequences for grandchildren.
• Clark Thares recommended the ordinance prohibit direct grid connection, mandate independent noise/vibration studies (including tonal noise), prohibit tax breaks or TIF funding, limit campus size to 5 MW, restrict foreign ownership, and extend the moratorium by six months with a citizen task force. He cited examples from Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, and Mandan, North Dakota.
• Ryan Clay (owner, One-Legged Pheasant Brewery) raised economic concerns: data centers consume far more electricity than all Aberdeen households combined; his business already saw a 34% electric bill increase; and residential bills in other areas rose up to 267% due to data center activity. He urged prohibition.
• Don Shepherd detailed four noise types—ambient, vibrations, infrasound, and tonal noise—and their health impacts (heart attacks, blood pressure, sleep disruption). He urged strict noise provisions requiring modern equipment.
• Kirby Fessler (case manager, Northeastern Mental Health Center) warned about “AI psychosis”—psychotic symptoms triggered by AI interactions—and argued that allowing a data center would support these harmful technologies.
• Tasha Wells opposed data centers, calling for a comprehensive task force and industrial hygienist studies on sound and health, and recommended prohibiting permits within city limits due to impacts on vulnerable populations.
• Lindsay Marzanell (born and raised Aberdonian) opposed on grounds of water cost, morality of data content (e.g., child porn, Flock cameras), and AI risks. She questioned why Aberdeen would host data for surveillance technologies rejected by the community.
• Marion Callis (from Watonka) shared experience with the Leola data center proposal, stressing that developers may not disclose tonal noise issues. She urged careful vetting and warned of misinformation from promoters.
• Janelle Meyer strongly opposed, listing threats to water (300,000–500,000 gallons/day), wildlife, local hunting tourism ($287 million pheasant, $160 million deer), housing (price out renters), and agriculture (livestock stress from noise).
• Tony Jones favored good corporate citizenship but cautioned against excessive tax breaks that shift burdens to residents. He suggested requiring data centers to give back a percentage of their capacity (e.g., for education or GIS).
• Rich Hilgeman raised transparency concerns, warning against overuse of executive sessions, NDAs, and attempts to avoid quorum (e.g., dinner invitations).
• Lisa Ronin questioned why an ordinance was being drafted without first asking citizens if they want a data center. She cited environmental impacts (flooding, wildlife, water use up to 5 million gallons/day), health risks (asthma, premature deaths from emissions), and called for full disclosure of any NDAs.
• Ann Stein expressed general concern for health, land, and wildlife.
• Natalie Vernon opposed, emphasizing the housing crisis (renters already struggling with Ellendale workers filling hotels); she recommended extending the moratorium.
• Janet O'Connell opposed, detailing air pollution (2.2% of national greenhouse gas emissions), water (human priority over data centers), noise, and light pollution (disrupts circadian rhythms and wildlife).
• Aaron Redner offered five principles for the ordinance: 40% local jobs at prevailing wages with apprenticeships; annual environmental disclosures; fairness for impacted residents (13% below poverty); independent audits and subsidy clawbacks; and a community benefit fund tied to project scale.
• Denzel Eisenbach spoke in favor of data centers, proposing mitigation technologies such as using waste heat for geothermal energy, integrating wastewater treatment, and burning garbage for energy (Swedish model). He offered a 45-point plan.
• Brody Mueller (operations director at Midwest Street Medicine, speaking as citizen) opposed, citing loss of half of Section 8 housing, lack of shelter, rising hotel prices (tourism down), and strained resources; he also noted AI leaders calling for a slowdown.
• Brooke Whitney (Lakota, mother of four, caregiver) opposed, stressing that water is life, high costs would fall on residents, and demanded transparency on council NDAs. She feared inability to pay for husband’s cancer medication or electric bills.

Key Outcomes

• No votes or decisions were taken at this listening session.
• The council will consider public input along with prior presentations from industry and business leaders (August 17 and August 31).
• Draft language for a data center ordinance will be presented at a city council meeting on September 28, 2026.
• A public hearing and first reading of the ordinance is scheduled for October 26, 2026.
• Final approval is expected on November 2, 2026, with the ordinance potentially taking effect on November 25, 2026.
• The existing moratorium on data center permits expires on November 18, 2026.