One notable issue discussed was the proposed data center and the handling of its approval process by the Planning Commission. Several residents voiced their frustration and skepticism regarding the decision-making process. Esther Varga, a resident, criticized the commission for what she perceived as a predetermined decision-making process. Varga questioned the purpose of zoning regulations if decisions appeared to be made without genuine community engagement. She stated, “if you are the one who are making these decisions, what are the point of the rules and the zoning and the regulations.”

Nancy Arad raised concerns about the rezoning of land adjacent to residential neighborhoods and criticized the Planning Commission for ignoring overwhelming opposition from residents. She described the commission’s actions as a “setup” and accused them of lacking empathy, stating, “they in unity just quickly dismissed all of our research and data.” Arad emphasized the potential negative impact on property values and called for adherence to zoning plans.

Kathy Johnson echoed these sentiments, accusing the council of treating residents as expendable and describing the proposed rezoning as “illegal spot zoning.” She criticized a previous statement from the mayor, suggesting that residents unhappy with the council’s actions could simply move, calling it “self-serving.”

Other residents, like Denise and Terry Pearson, also spoke out against the proposal. Denise highlighted the struggle between quality of life and economic interests, questioning the rationale behind placing data centers near residential areas. Pearson raised concerns about the physical proximity of the development to her home and the potential decline in property values. Pearson characterized the residents as “collateral damage” in the proposed plans.

Nick Nelson criticized the city’s notification process for residents about the proposed data center. He called for greater transparency and fairness in the decision-making process.

The council also addressed concerns related to a proposed housing development project. A speaker questioned the rationale behind the placement of certain structures and the potential impact on noise pollution, with 273 employees and an average of 2,200 daily vehicle trips associated with the project. They demanded more transparency about impartial studies related to noise levels and the motivations of businesses involved, questioning the projected revenue of $325 million over 20 years and its impact on local services such as schools and parks.

Water usage was another point of contention, with the speaker comparing the estimated water needs of the project—60 to 70 million gallons per year—to the average consumption of a golf course. They also raised concerns about the utility infrastructure and the assurances regarding the use of generators, emphasizing the need for concrete agreements rather than verbal assurances from developers.

In response to these concerns, the council moved to approve the final plat and planned unit development for Vermillion Commons, consisting of 67 single-family lots over nearly 26 acres. Concerns about access points and the implications of narrower homes within the local housing market were discussed, particularly regarding the need for emergency vehicle access.

The council then discussed the preliminary 2025 general fund budget and tax levy. The city administrator presented the budget framework, highlighting four pillars guiding budget preparation: quality business growth, community engagement, infrastructure support, and employee engagement. Due to concerns about the financial impact on taxpayers, departments were asked to review their requests to identify potential reductions, leading to adjustments in the preliminary budget proposal.

The administrator outlined general fund revenues, noting a projected decrease from 2024, primarily due to a reduction in non-property tax revenues. Expenditures were detailed, with the police and fire departments expected to see increases due to personnel costs and contractual services. Planned infrastructure improvements, including street reconstruction and equipment replacements for public works and parks, were also addressed.

Council members expressed gratitude for the comprehensive work involved in preparing the budget, acknowledging the challenges of balancing financial needs with taxpayer impacts. The council moved to approve the resolution adopting the preliminary 2025 budget and set a public input meeting for further discussion.