After being asked 100 questions by Owatonna, Northfield and Pine Island residents about data centers, the Owatonna Planning Commission moved forward with recommending its proposed ordinance amendments, including defining and regulating data centers.
“It’s a 0.001% area of what we’re doing,” Community Development Manager Greg Kruschke said about data centers during the open house before Tuesday’s planning commission meeting. “The code was last updated in the ‘80s. There’s been updates through there, but the last major overhaul (was in the 1980s).”
Changes to the Zoning Ordinance include cutting about 50 pages, updating zoning districts, adding a shoreland ordinance and modernizing home occupation standards, among others. …
During the open house, Planning Specialist Emma Bransford said Owatonna updated its comprehensive plan a few years ago, and with that comes updating the Zoning Ordinance.
The public chimed in…
The public hearing on the ordinance amendments during the meeting lasted over an hour.
“While you have a definition, which is substantially more than what Pine Island had, the definition in and of itself is insufficient and incomplete for a data center ordinance and will not provide the layer of protection that’s actually needed,” Aubree Derksen of Pine Island said. “You need to also remember that whatever is in front of you has exponential impacts that you might have no control over.”
Derksen and six others read the planning commission a list of 100 questions to ask before a data center comes in, which the city needs “solid answers for.” If officials didn’t have answers to the questions, Derksen said a moratorium was needed “so you have time to figure them out.”
“After living the last 13 months in a lawsuit dealing with Google, … I don’t recommend it. The burden that has been placed on residents has been immense and completely unfair,” she said. “You also have to take into account the stress, the mental health impacts on the residents when they have to do all the due diligence that wasn’t done first.”
The complete list of questions is available at stopthepineislanddatacenter.org/blog-1/request-a-moratorium, and spanned topics like understanding what a data center is, vetting the developer, legal preparedness, fiscal analysis/financial risk, infrastructure/utilities, public safety/emergency preparedness, zoning/land use/code readiness, construction impacts, end of life and decommissioning, transparency/process integrity, readiness/due diligence, tribal governments/ecological knowledge and water sustainability.
A substantial Texas land agreement has given Zone Frontier (NYSEAMERICAN:ZONE) another piece of its planned artificial intelligence infrastructure network. The company is pursuing large data-centre campuses in Texas and Minnesota following a strategic change in direction from its former cleaning-products activities.
Here’s what’s happening in Minnesota…
The company has also disclosed a Minnesota data-centre project with an executed tenancy arrangement involving Cerebras Systems. Its plans include approximately 55 MW of utility power and 40 MW of critical IT load, with Revenue expected to begin in 2027 subject to project progress. Management described a ten-year initial tenancy commitment valued at more than USD 800 mn, with extensions providing possible additional value. The potential extension amounts are conditional and are not present revenue.
Zone Frontier adopted its present name after moving toward AI infrastructure during 2026. It announced the sale of its legacy cleaning-products business in October as part of this shift. Its October 30 Shareholder update addressed Minnesota execution, Debt Financing progress and the Texas project. The company’s immediate tasks involve advancing project funding, tenants and construction schedules. Subsequent updates will show which proposed capacity reaches operation rather than remaining a development target.
Zone Frontier shares traded at USD 3.31 on November 11, 2026, advancing 21.25% during the session.
And…
Q: What Else Is Important for Its Business?
A: The company identified a Minnesota campus expected to support 55 MW of utility power and 40 MW of IT load.
This sounds very much like a CleanCore venture I wrote about in July but some names have changed.
The MN Task Force heard from Minnesota Public Broadband Alliance, which is a group of local government work who are working on getting better broadband. Each member has its own solution; they have learned a lot on the road that’s useful for other communities, policymakers and providers. There was also a big update on BEAD, which was mostly an explanation of where we are, where Minnesota has run into hiccups and what we expect in the future. December 7 is the next expected deadline.
The committees met in small groups to discuss their portions of the annual report. I listened to the Mapping, Policy, and Funding group until they were done; then joined the group I was recording, Affordability Economic Opportunity, and Workforce Development. Where they were talking about recommendations for education-related anchor tenants and about permitting.
10:00 a.m. – 10:05 a.m. – Welcome from Teddy Bekele, Chair, Minnesota Governor’s Task Force on Broadband and approval of minutes from October Task Force meeting.
10:05 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. – Minnesota Public Broadband Alliance presentation and overview of work.
Questions:
Looking at challenges ahead – how can the Task Force help?
We found out there was limited oversight for broadband with RDOF. There isn’t a clear regulatory agency in MN. We need one for things like ground station satellite permits in MN or RDOF.
Could we replicate programs where the state can work with the townships as counties are running out of money? We need more 0 interest payback loans over 10 years.
In your report – can you make others aware of the Alliance? We are happy for members and questions. We have expertise to share.
Is the ask that the state create a low interest loan program for townships to support broadband infrastructure construction?
Would be nice to have the state offer a zero interest loan – possibly to act as a border to boarder match.
Dep of Ag has a low interest loan. So there is a model for it.
10:50 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. – Office of Broadband Development (OBD) overview and updates from Bree Maki (Executive Director, OBD) and Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment updates from Jennifer Frost (State/Federal Programs and Compliance Manager, OBD).
OBD attends Alliance meetings regularly and finds it helpful
Economic Development, led my Kevin McKinnon and found out
People was reliable and continuous broadband coverage. Seems to be lacking
Need better coordination between infrastructure and housing – especially new housing and multi-unit dwellings
Local communities need local champions – like Blandin had
Need an alternative to Starlink for businesses
Questions Economic Development they had for OBD
Looking for more data on outages
Take rates
How do businesses escalate their need for broadband
Served communities forget about unserved areas – but the unserved areas feel it daily
Pew did research on locates – it’s a national issue but MN got cited for legislative work on the topic
Thinking about upcoming legislative changes. Expecting changes in the Ag committee.
Update on Border to Border
Closed 7 more projects
84 currently active projects – 33 are completing
51 projects still in the mix – most Line Extension and should be done by end of 2026
Treasury extended deadlines due to desk review – but hope to be done by end of June 2027
BEAD – still waiting on updates and changes. Providers are running into other issues.
We are a county-based system and that’s an issue when it comes to getting county participation meshing with federal policies and procedures.
Minnesota and Federal speeds goals are different and OBD is trying to work with that.
11:15 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. – Task Force updates and discussion on progress on the 2026 annual report including:
Share-out from subgroup leads, Melissa Wolf and Marc Johnson on where recommendations are at and other discussion from the meetings
Discussion on Task Force wide recommendation around speed goals and other items to include for “long term” goals for the report (i.e. Data centers, AI, etc.)
Notes from Mapping, Policy, and Funding Subcommittee:
Text shared:
Invest in mapping – Support data-driven and inclusive broadband deployment by continuing to invest in Minnesota ‘s broadband mapping efforts. Accurate, transparent data and continually updated broadband data are essential to inform policy decisions, identify remaining service gaps, and target investments where they are needed most. As federal and state broadband deployment programs advance and projects are completed, mapping and data collection are critical to evaluating broadband availability, service levels, adoption trends, and progress toward the state’s broadband goals. This information is necessary to assess the impact of deployment efforts, inform strategies that align with community needs, prioritize unserved and underserved areas, strengthen coordination among state, local (is this to imply the ISPs, or should they be specifically listed?), community, and nonprofit partners. Ongoing investment in broadband mapping and data collection is a critical need to provide policymakers, internet service providers, and communities with the reliable information necessary to assess progress, identify areas requiring additional attention, and guide future broadband planning and funding decisions.
Invest in state broadband programs – Invest (are we asking for a certain dollar amount? Should it be listed as to what the investment should be?) in Minnesota’s state broadband programs, including the Line Extension Program, which has demonstrated success in helping connect unserved households. Although the BEAD program is expected to expand broadband access throughout Minnesota, federal funding alone is not expected to address all remaining connectivity needs. As implementation progresses and federal funding is exhausted, gaps may emerge that require additional attention and investment. Ongoing state broadband funding is essential to addressing remaining unserved locations, respond to future connectivity challenges, and ensure continued progress toward universal access to reliable broadband service for households and businesses across the state.
Questions
We don’t have a dollar amount to suggest for mapping or programs – but that seems OK since the funding hasn’t been approved yet.
The Institute for Local Self Reliance is hosting a free, webinar on the FCC federal broadband data…
Next Wednesday, November 18th, the Broadband Data and Policy Forum – a coalition of policy researchers, data scientists, and academics – is hosting a conversation about what it’s like to work with this data that connects hundreds of millions of places with the providers that claim to serve them.
At 3pm ET, the two-part webinar begins. Led by ILSR’s Christine Parker and Washington State University’s Nick Pappin, they’ll talk about what we can know, what we can’t, and what happens when the data goes blind altogether.
The second half of the hour will feature a Q & A, so bring your questions!
Join us for the conversation next Wednesday, November 18th, for free, by registering here.
Are you a Spectrum customer? Did you experience any issues with your service your yesterday? You weren’t alone. The Sunday Guardian reports…
Spectrum outage today: Downdetector reports 345+ complaints as US customers experience slow internet, connectivity failures and service disruptions.
The latest figure represents approximately 3.35 times the normal reporting level, suggesting increased customer frustration. Reports from several US states indicate that the disruption may be affecting different regions.
· Meeting ID and Pass Code: 254 733 753 476 50 and V8hn3kW2
· Dial in by phone: +1 651-395-7448,,135225071# United States, Minneapolis · Join on a video conferencing device: Tenant key: mn@m.webex.com and Video ID: 117 416 054 4
Meeting Agenda
10:00 a.m. – 10:05 a.m. – Welcome from Teddy Bekele, Chair, Minnesota Governor’s Task Force on Broadband and approval of minutes from October Task Force meeting.
10:05 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. – Minnesota Public Broadband Alliance presentation and overview of work.
10:50 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. – Office of Broadband Development (OBD) overview and updates from Bree Maki (Executive Director, OBD) and Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment updates from Jennifer Frost (State/Federal Programs and Compliance Manager, OBD).
11:15 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. – Task Force updates and discussion on progress on the 2026 annual report including:
· Share-out from subgroup leads, Melissa Wolf and Marc Johnson on where recommendations are at and other discussion from the meetings
· Discussion on Task Force wide recommendation around speed goals and other items to include for “long term” goals for the report (i.e. Data centers, AI, etc.)
11:30 a.m. – 11:35 a.m. – Open the floor to other business, December’s meeting plans, and meeting wrap-up.
11:35 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. – Subgroup breakout, work time until the end.
The agenda item for Monday’s vote says the impact data centers have on public health and welfare is “not fully understood or known at this time.”
The listed potential impact areas include planning functions, public utilities, and the environment. Rochester’s Unified Development Code does not have specific regulations regarding data centers, according to the agenda item.
Staff is recommending the elected leaders enact a moratorium on data centers to allow for adequate time to allow for what the agenda item describes as a “meaningful study” to help learn more about data center impacts and to determine rules and regulations.
After months of debate, mounting opposition and unanswered questions, Monticello’s proposed data center moved another step closer to approval Monday night.
But the final decision will have to wait.
Following four hours of testimony, presentations and discussion Nov. 9, the City Council voted 3-1 to direct staff to prepare approval documents for the controversial 547-acre development. The council will consider them at a special meeting Nov. 30, just eight days before a state-imposed deadline.
The votes did not approve the data center or authorize construction. Instead, they directed staff to prepare approvals for annexation, a preliminary plat, rezoning and a conditional use permit.
The Harmony City Council tabled a proposed data center ordinance Tuesday over the wording of its sound regulations. KTTC confirmed this information with Harmony Mayor-elect Kerry Kingsley.
The council will take up the proposal at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
The draft would allow data centers, data center campuses and cryptocurrency mining facilities only in an Industrial Technology zoning district. Each would require a conditional use permit.
The proposal calls for noise studies before and after construction, as well as annual and quarterly studies during operation. Facilities would also have to comply with Minnesota noise standards and use sound mitigation measures.
The City of Eagan is suing Eagan Capital, a data center company in business along Pilot Knob Road, alleging they’ve been operating “temporary chillers” without proper permits. This comes months after Eagan Capital sued the city over a data center moratorium, calling it “unlawful.”
This latest lawsuit focuses on “chillers,” which cool the data center and prevent overheating. During a city council meeting on Nov. 2, Mayor Mike Maguire announced the legal action and claimed the company was operating “without the required permits and approvals”. The court document shows aerial pictures from 2025 showing no chillers on the property and from 2026 showing the chillers in place.
In May, a representative for Eagan Capital told the council the company didn’t think they needed a permit for installing the chillers but applied for one as soon as they were notified. The representative also said Eagan Capital designed a sound barrier around them.
The city denied an interim use permit and later denied an application for a mechanical permit for permanent chillers in part because “data centers are not a permitted principal use in the Research and Development zoning district,” the lawsuit explains.
The Minneapolis City Council is scheduled to consider a data center regulations ordinance on Thursday.
According to the city’s website, the ordinance would amend “regulations for certain uses associated with distribution and use of electric power, including data centers, electric or gas substations, backup generators, utility boxes, and battery energy storage systems.”
On June 25, the City Council approved a five-month pause on data center development, temporarily halting new data center projects to allow city staff to study regulations and examine concerns about environmental impacts, energy use and public safety. The moratorium expires on Nov. 21, according to city officials.
The proposal, in part, says a new data center may only be established in a building existing on Jan. 1, 2027, and that the floor area of a facility “shall be limited to no more than (50,000) square feet on any zoning lot.”
The Harmony City Council is preparing to consider final language on its proposed data center ordinance at its meeting Tuesday at 7 p.m. at the community center.
The review follows months of discussions among councilmembers and the community about how to address a possible data center in the region. According to the city, the goal is to protect public health and welfare, as well as the environment around the town.
The proposed ordinance would limit data centers to a new industrial technology zone in the city and limit each data center to 55 megawatts of power. Any building would have to sit at least 500 feet from residential areas. Evaporative cooling, which uses large amounts of water, would also be banned.
Unlike the planned Google data center development in Pine Island, there has been no public announcement about a specific project in Harmony. However, the city website says there has been interest from developers.
The MN Star Tribune posts a piece from Iron Range columnists Aaron Brown…
Voters across the nation rebuked data centers in last Tuesday’s election, vaporizing paper billions on Wall Street. But this isn’t just a national story about money. It’s an extremely local story about human beings.
One tumultuous week in Hermantown, Minn., reminded us how quickly political fortunes can change when the public loses trust in their leaders. Politicians, take warning. Transparency is not negotiable in projects so consequential to the economic lives of your constituents.
The Benton Institute for Broadband and Society partnered with Duke University to look at communities with data centers in North Carolina and came up with a roadmap for dealing with data centers for other communities. The study uses good examples and more. I’ve just pulled out the high level steps…
Step 1: Engage Independent Expertise at the Start of Negotiations
At the beginning stages of negotiations for a large digital infrastructure project, local governments should consult with independent, unbiased experts who can assess the technical, environmental, and economic impacts. This may require maintaining pre-approved consultant lists or establishing accountability mechanisms for developers. In the Apex case, this step may have reduced concern that the developer was misrepresenting the energy use associated with the facility by providing a trusted evaluation for all stakeholders to review.
Step 2: Inform the Community and Gather Their Priorities Early
Local governments should establish formal processes for gathering community input on the proposed data center infrastructure, such as through public forums. Community engagement should begin as early as possible—ideally before plans are officially filed—and continue consistently and transparently throughout all stages of zoning and approval. We also recommend that local leaders proactively seek input on the areas of resource use, pollution, financial investments, transparency, and governance. Current practices that shroud data center negotiations in secrecy produce distrust in the community; opening the process to the community offers greater opportunity for residents’ participation and to gain buy-in.
Step 3: Consider the Full Range of Policy Tools
Local governments should evaluate multiple policy mechanisms, drawing from existing toolkits and best practices like MediaJustice’s Site Fight Guide.[7] Policy interventions include but are not limited to community benefits agreements (CBAs), moratoriums, conditional use permits, zoning ordinances, and strict water and energy use regulations. There is not necessarily one solution for all communities when it comes to data centers: consider those protections that assuage community concerns. While the Apex case ended in a withdrawn proposal, a set of policy interventions may have created conditions that residents could live with.
Step 4: Tailor Policy Tools to Local Context
Once a policy choice is identified, the choice should then be carefully tailored to reflect the specific priorities identified through community engagement. Any regulatory framework should directly incorporate local preferences into concrete demands and requirements. This step was not part of the Apex case, where it would have allowed local officials to bridge the gap between abstract community feedback and enforceable zoning regulations.
Step 5: Use Community Priorities to Evaluate and Choose From Policy Options
Local governments should make their ultimate decision by evaluating all policy options in the context of the community’s biggest priorities. This can be done by referring back to each of the top priorities identified in Step 2 and deciding—such as through explicit criteria—whether they are reflected by the policy. Where feasible, governments can conduct a full cost-benefit analysis that reflects the local harms and benefits to the community. In the Apex Case, this approach would have provided a structured mechanism to weigh the project’s projected economic benefits against the community’s concerns.
Researchers at the University of Minnesota’s Hormel Institute in Austin have created a tool to predictively model viruses.
In a Wednesday, Nov. 4, news release, the institute says the FoldaVirus tool has modeled the probable structures of nearly 700 viruses so far. Though there are more than 280,000 known viruses, just 156, as of 2024, have had their structures confirmed through cryoEM bioimaging.
“If we know the structure of a virus that causes a devastating disease, we can use the structural information to identify the regions that virus uses to interact with cells, and more,” said Vijay Reddy, the associate professor at the Hormel Institute whose lab created FoldaVirus. “We can use this information to develop therapeutics like vaccines, neutralizing antibodies, or as viral vectors to deliver specific genes to the cells to prevent the spread of harmful viruses.”
The FoldaVirus tool, which utilizes the Google-developed AlphaFold artificial intelligence system, uses existing information about a particular virus and its family of viruses to predict that virus’s structure. Each model is scored for how likely its predictive structure matches the real thing.
