On the agenda: Harmony Agenda — Data Center (Aug 26)

AGENDA
HARMONY CITY COUNCIL
HARMONY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HARMONY PLANNING AND ZONING
Joint Planning Session

August 26, 2026
6:00 P.M.

Council Room
Community Center

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. New Business
a) Review Community Feedback – Regarding Proposed Data Center Ordinance
4. Adjourn

0123445
6787ÿ 8 ÿ 7 ÿ6 78ÿÿÿ 8ÿ
1ÿ03!"#ÿ$%2&4''%()*#+4!&+!,"4-.
678 /1ÿ012013435ÿ3678ÿ9:
; <3==*ÿ23>'31"ÿ$*3==*()*#+4!&+!,"4-.
 %)#=,)*)!(%?*1=*,%4+ÿ$%)#=,)*)!(%?*1=*,%4+.

@Aÿ>1B3%ÿ%4++!26
CDEFÿHIÿJKLMHNFOÿPQÿRÿSKEKÿCTNETLÿULVDNKNWTÿSLKIEÿRÿXYZ[DWÿCHMMTNEÿ\HLM
/)*!5ÿ&41ÿ'4#ÿ2*5!"ÿ2)ÿ2+ÿ24ÿ#-Aÿ2)ÿ]2&ÿ4'ÿ^*#+4!&_=ÿ̀#*'2ÿ̀*2*ÿ]!2#ÿ0#?!*!%,
/)ÿ]2&ÿ4'ÿ^*#+4!&ÿ=ÿ=5!"ÿabcdefgaehijÿljjmnoapÿ=>%'%*33&ÿ4!ÿ2)ÿ3*!"1*"qÿ%4!2!2qÿ*!?
=%4>ÿ4'ÿ2)ÿ>#4>4=?ÿ4#?!*!%,ÿÿsÿA3%4+ÿ&41#ÿ'?B*%5ÿ#3*2?ÿ246ÿÿ
9#4-=4!=ÿ2)*2ÿ+*&ÿ)*-ÿB!ÿ4-#3445?
<#*=ÿ2)*2ÿ!?ÿ%3*#'%*24!ÿ4#ÿ*??24!*3ÿ?2*3
942!2*3ÿ==1=ÿ2)ÿ]2&ÿ4'ÿ^*#+4!&ÿ=)413?ÿ%4!=?#
1""=2?ÿ#-=4!=ÿ24ÿ+>#4-ÿ2)ÿ4#?!*!%
tuvwxvÿyz{v|ÿÿÿ/)=ÿ'4#+ÿ=ÿ!2!??ÿ4!3&ÿ'4#ÿ%4!=2#1%2-ÿ%4++!2=ÿ#"*#?!"ÿ2)ÿ%4!2!2ÿ4'ÿ2)
?#*'2ÿ4#?!*!%,ÿ~2ÿ=ÿ€ÿ!2!??ÿ24ÿ%433%2ÿ4>!4!=ÿ'4#ÿ4#ÿ*"*!=2ÿ*334A!"ÿ*ÿ?*2*ÿ%!2#ÿ!ÿ^*#+4!&,
2,ÿ‚hfdeÿyoƒjÿ|ÿ1
uodeÿyoƒjÿ|ÿ03!"#
3,ÿwmmfjdd
xefjjeÿwmmfjddÿ|ÿ„„ ÿ2=2ÿ<-ÿ†
‡heˆÿ|ÿ^*#+4!&
xeoejÿ|ÿ:@
‰Štÿ|ÿ ‹7‹Œ5524
7,ÿvƒohÿwmmfjdd
=143!"#("+*3,%4+
„,ÿtŽbcj
5 43582 „3
,ÿtjodjÿxjjaeÿeŽjÿwfjodÿ‘bgfÿ‡bƒƒjceÿ’joejdÿ{b
`'!24!=
5,ÿtjodjÿ“fbihmjÿˆbgfÿ‡bƒƒjcedÿocmÿxg””jdehbcd
`*#ÿ]2&ÿ4'ÿ^*#+4!&qÿ:*&4#qÿ]41!=3ÿ:+B#=qÿ*!?ÿ•4*#?=,
~ÿA413?ÿ35ÿ24ÿ*??#==ÿ+&ÿ!2#=2ÿ!ÿ#"*#?ÿ24ÿ2)ÿ!'4#+*24!ÿ>#4-??ÿ*2ÿ2)ÿ3*=2ÿ+2!"ÿ4!
<1"1=2ÿ„qÿ3435,
~_-ÿ#*?ÿ2)#41")ÿ2)ÿ2A3-ÿ*!?ÿ*ÿ)*3'ÿ>*"ÿ?#*'2ÿ*!?ÿ?4ÿ)*-ÿ=4+ÿ–1=24!=ÿ2)*2ÿ~ÿ=!%#3&
)4>ÿ%*!ÿ*!?ÿA33ÿBÿ*!=A#?ÿA2)ÿ2)ÿ+*!!#=ÿ2)&ÿ*#ÿB!"ÿ*=5?ÿA2),

01ÿ34ÿ567ÿ895ÿ4ÿ  ÿ86 7ÿ567ÿÿ ÿ95ÿÿ86ÿ5859ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ34ÿ95ÿ9ÿ
 ÿ ÿ6 5ÿ7ÿ567ÿ57ÿ4ÿ7775
1ÿ ÿ567ÿ 5ÿ757ÿ7ÿ 9ÿ5679ÿÿ86 7ÿ4ÿ 57ÿÿ778598ÿ7ÿ5ÿ6 5ÿ57
ÿ85
1ÿ3ÿ9 57ÿÿ5 57ÿÿ89759ÿ4ÿ567ÿ 57ÿ567ÿ ÿ7!97
"1ÿ3ÿ567ÿ7#75ÿ4ÿÿ 7ÿ57ÿ ÿ567ÿ7975ÿ7#987ÿ7ÿ757ÿ747ÿ567ÿ 5
8757ÿ34ÿ 5ÿ6ÿ 5ÿ987ÿ5677ÿ9ÿ 7ÿ9ÿ567ÿ45ÿ56 5ÿ7ÿ4ÿ567ÿ6 #9
775
$1ÿ9ÿ5677ÿ7ÿÿ8959%7ÿ#7965ÿ895577ÿ&6 5ÿ#97ÿ597ÿ 57ÿ5ÿ95ÿ 7
 ÿ95ÿ7ÿ 7ÿÿ4ÿ ÿ 7ÿ56 ÿÿ875ÿ795ÿ944775ÿ ÿ77ÿÿ5ÿ75ÿ"
ÿÿ5ÿ9'ÿ8959%7(7975ÿ77ÿ4ÿ  
)1ÿ*987ÿÿ959 ÿ 7ÿ9ÿ ÿ 9ÿ5ÿ67ÿ ÿ4 ÿ9ÿ7#79ÿÿ9 87ÿ5
7ÿÿ7596ÿ759ÿ4ÿÿ 5ÿ757ÿ9ÿ  +ÿ,-ÿ6 5ÿ9ÿ567ÿ85ÿ4ÿ56 5
7#987
.1ÿ&677ÿ9ÿÿ5ÿ4ÿ989ÿ7 9ÿ567ÿ7#775ÿ4ÿ 5ÿ757ÿ9ÿ ÿ5ÿ8
567ÿ 591ÿ- 5ÿÿ4ÿ95ÿ9ÿ 1ÿ3ÿ485ÿ86ÿ4ÿ95ÿ9ÿ 97ÿÿ7ÿ4ÿ 74ÿ7751ÿ3
569ÿ4ÿ95775ÿ4ÿ567ÿ7769ÿ4ÿ  ÿ34ÿ 5ÿ77ÿ7'9ÿ6ÿ 5
3ÿ 5ÿ4ÿ987ÿ4ÿÿ/785ÿÿÿ759ÿ56 5ÿ9ÿ44785ÿ567ÿ5' 7ÿ4ÿÿ895ÿ
457ÿ4ÿ95ÿ79751ÿ35ÿ9ÿ ÿ6 7ÿ56 5ÿ9ÿ ÿ95775ÿ1
&6 ÿ ÿ4ÿ ÿ597ÿÿ7445ÿ9ÿ7 ÿ5ÿ5677ÿ!759ÿÿÿ567ÿ!759
9557ÿÿ7ÿÿÿ7899ÿ 7ÿ9# #9ÿÿ 5ÿ757ÿ9ÿ  +ÿ,3ÿ ÿ4 ÿ5ÿ679ÿ485 ÿ7ÿ5ÿ567ÿ!759ÿ79ÿ71
956ÿ6 7ÿ4ÿÿ5ÿ457ÿ4ÿ  +ÿ,*7ÿÿ097
 ÿ198ÿ29ÿ955
3 7ÿ 79ÿ4 ÿ,77
7ÿ597ÿ4ÿ59 7ÿ 5ÿ671
&9 ÿ4ÿ1 74ÿ& ÿ4ÿ 79#7
67ÿÿ7 577
89:;<ÿ>?@ÿA?Bÿ>?@BÿC;D@EF
Gÿ875ÿ9ÿ7ÿ7#977ÿÿ8977ÿÿ567ÿ95ÿ8597ÿ7499ÿ567ÿ 7ÿ 5
757ÿ09 871
01ÿHIÿKLLMNOO
0.1$)1010$P
QQQ
&69ÿ77ÿ ÿ75ÿ4ÿ655R((6  1 #1

Mayor Donney and Members of the Harmony City Council:
Thank you for your continued efforts and collaboration as MiEnergy Cooperative works with you to
create positive opportunities. We appreciate the work you, your team, and the community have
completed so far. We have had a chance to review the draft data center ordinance recently
released and wanted to provide some thoughts and suggestions that are impactful to potential
projects:
 We think the language requiring a closed loop cooling system is excellent and can be
accommodated by many developers.
 Creating a new zoning district for Industrial Technology uses and permitting existing
Industrial district uses in the new Industrial Technology zone provides great flexibility.
 Permitting data centers and managing the permitting process through a conditional use
permit (CUP) seems to be very manageable and straightforward.
 We are not opposed to reasonable setbacks for the building site, but up to 500’ setbacks on
all sides can create building layout and site development limitations. Especially in
situations where all site topography is not level/supportive/conducive for construction.
o From the draft ordinance it isn’t clear if supporting project elements such as parking
lots, storm water retention ponds, or similar items are also expected to meet such
setbacks. If they are also expected to meet the setbacks, that adds challenge to
finding sites (or making existing sites) and projects that are suitable.
o Initially, we had discussed the idea of utilizing land on the 60-acre site MiEnergy has
optioned, that would not be needed for data center development to be used for
typical industrial/commercial development (similar to what is found in the Harmony
Industrial Park); creating a few lots that could be sold for additional small business
development as well as potentially adding solar generation on a portion of the
northern side of the parcel. We are likely not able to accomplish this type of mixed
development opportunity on this site with such significant setback requirements.
o Greater setbacks would expand the footprint of the development, while tighter
setbacks would compact the development, which we believe was one of the
intentions for the project.

o Sample development scaled on the MiEnergy 60-acre site option is pictured on the
following page and visibly shows the limited ability to move the building to
accommodate a holding pond and other requirements. The graphic is the entire
property. Therefore, smaller setbacks are ideal and provide more flexibility with
building placement. The waterway poses challenges especially for expansion.
 We also support the construction of attractive and well-constructed buildings that meet or
exceed standards for noise and aesthetics.
o Is the intention for screening requirements to utilize multiple forms of screening
provided as options in all cases? Or is the intention to use at least one of those
screening options? For example, would a project be required to use a mixture of both
a berm and vegetation, or simply utilizing at least one form of the listed measures?
o If noise limits are met, the additional requirements of multiple forms of screening on
all sides (i.e. a berm + trees), screening to block 80% visibility, the 500’ setbacks, and
specific exterior finishes on all sides are limiting when combined and we see such
requirements as being too restrictive and would ask for alternate considerations.


Perhaps if noise limits are met, one of the screening measures (i.e. berm or
trees, or landscaping, providing blockage of 50% visibility), setbacks could be
200’ on all sides regardless of neighboring zone districts/uses, and specific
exterior finishes could be required on the front of the building provided the
remaining sides meet standards similar to what is found in the industrial park
currently.



In essence, if the noise levels can at least meet the proposed requirements,
the building is attractive aesthetically/not out of the norms of current new
development in the city, and at least one form of screening (i.e. trees) can be
planted to visually assist the site, the goal of having a developed property that
meets or exceeds community expectations should be met.

 The financial viability of a data center project/developer is driven by the amount of electricity
available for use. Placing an artificial limit of 55 MW on projects may not be the best longterm solution to limiting the physical size of a data center. Size of the building would be a
more viable option. For example, the city would also be able to limit the physical size of a
data center/exclude hyperscale projects by controlling annexation and parcel
combination/split requests, regardless of the exact electric need. As technology evolves
more electricity may be required some day at a site with or without physical changes to the
building on site, which would limit future opportunities and benefits.
o If a data center project requires system upgrades for additional capacity, it is
required to pay for such upgrades itself, preventing shifting of costs or risk to
ratepayers.

o Projects that are limited by their ability to generate revenue (i.e. use electricity) may
also be limited in their ability to accommodate the other development requirements,
site preparation, acquisition costs, and community benefit plan arrangements. If
requirements restrict projects to sizes that are too small, it could effectively
eliminate any data center development.
Again, we appreciate your hard work on this complex and important opportunity. We wanted to
provide some initial thoughts that will have an impact on the potential projects we will be able to
bring forward. We look forward to continued questions and dialogue, as well as ultimately bringing
forward a project that meets or even exceeds your expectations.

Graphic example on 60-acre parcel.

*At least 500 feet from residential property lines or the boundary of any residential, commercial or agriculture district.