The proposed data center emerged as the focal point of the meeting, drawing considerable attention from both proponents and opponents. Jason Reed, a resident with 25 years of experience in electrical construction, advocated for the project, outlining its potential to create up to 1,200 jobs, with an emphasis on local spending. He was joined by Jason Sevenaller, who highlighted the economic impact on local families through steady work over two to three years. Jason George, representing Ames Construction, added that the project would offer rare local opportunities in heavy civil construction, which he described as beneficial for families wanting to work closer to home.

However, opposition was equally vocal. Nora Felton expressed skepticism about the projected tax benefits, arguing that the land’s location in Dakota County might not result in direct revenue for Cannon Falls. She questioned the sustainability of the proposed permanent jobs and urged the council to thoroughly consider the long-term impacts. Dallas Larson, who previously supported the data center, acknowledged emerging opposition and suggested a city delegation visit an operational data center to assess its impact.

The council meeting saw a turnout of concerned residents, some of whom presented a petition signed by nearly 600 people opposing the data center. Critics such as Luke Lundall warned of the project’s limited long-term employment opportunities and potential economic burdens on current residents. Shamaya Spec called for an environmental impact statement to ensure transparency and accountability, while Anne Boozer criticized the council for initially framing the project as a “technology park,” which she considered misleading. John Wilcox raised concerns about noise pollution and air quality, drawing on his professional experience to highlight the potential negative impact on children and animals.

In response, Joshua Kina from the Iron Workers Union defended the project, citing successful data center developments in other regions like Des Moines, which had spurred ongoing construction and job creation. He argued that rejecting the project would simply shift opportunities elsewhere.

The council’s decision-making process included a resolution to approve a conditional use permit for data centers, substations, and overhead transmission lines. While one member supported the project, acknowledging that all required conditions had been surpassed, others expressed concerns about noise and the lack of recent residential development in the city. Ultimately, the resolution failed to pass, with a 3-2 vote against it.

Despite the setback for the data center proposal, the council proceeded with other agenda items, such as a proposal for a plan update, which was last approved in 2003. The only bid for the update came from CEDA, with the project expected to cost around $38,000 and take six months to complete. The council expressed enthusiasm for the update, noting positive feedback from similar projects in neighboring communities.

Additionally, the council addressed a resolution to rezone property from urban reserve to general industrial, a move recommended by the planning commission despite some council members’ hesitations due to proximity to residential areas. The resolution was part of a broader discussion on balancing development with community concerns, emphasizing the importance of setbacks and environmental considerations.

In other council business, members acknowledged the retirement of several local firefighters and discussed ongoing infrastructure projects, such as the next phase of the Hardwood Estates development and improvements in the industrial park. They also noted challenges with potholes and preparations for winter.