The Village Board is being asked to write "data center" permanently into Hallam's zoning code. Under this board's normal practice, that ordinance can be introduced and given final passage at the same meeting — no second reading, no second chance. If you wait to see how the first vote goes, there is no second vote.
Nebraska law normally requires an ordinance to be read on three separate dates before it passes. That rule can be waived by a vote of the board — and this board waives it as routine practice.
At the June 1, 2026 meeting, the board introduced fifteen ordinances, voted to "waive the statutory rule requiring reading on three separate dates," and passed all fifteen the same night. Every vote was 5–0.
Assume this ordinance gets introduced and finally passed at a single meeting. Everything — the phone calls, the turnout, the testimony — has to happen BEFORE that gavel.
The practical deadline is not the vote. It's the meeting before the vote.
Phase 1 is the door. Phase 2 is what walks through it — and we are fighting both.
That's it. That's the ask. Not a delay, not a compromise, not a list of conditions — a no vote on September 14, and then real rules written before anyone comes back.
The noise study hasn't been done yet — it's been commissioned. The operator who would run it isn't named. And the site plan is stamped "test fit subject to change." Hallam's code puts the burden of proof on the applicant. It hasn't been met.
Our code doesn't define a data center, set a setback for one, or say a word about its water or its cleanup. Twelve-plus Nebraska counties paused this year to write those rules first. And no Hallam comprehensive plan — old or new — so much as mentions one.
The amendment permits a data center on the same parcel as an industrial use "or on a parcel adjacent to" it. That's the code changing, not one site being approved — and it's written broadly enough to reach ground nobody is talking about tonight.
Passing this requires a 3/5 vote of the Board. We are working all five trustees, and we are asking every one of them for the same thing: vote no.
Monolith filed on July 15. Some questions got answered. The ones that matter most didn't.
| Question | Where it stands |
|---|---|
| How many megawatts will it draw? | ANSWERED — up to 35 MW |
| Who pays to remove it if it's abandoned? | ANSWERED — the owner. But no bond posted. |
| How loud will it be at the nearest homes? | Study commissioned. Not finished. |
| Who will actually operate it? | Named at the town hall: Crusoe. Still not in the application. |
| How many gallons of water per day? | Stated at the town hall: ~770,000 gal/yr. Not in the application. |
| Air-cooled or liquid-cooled? | Both kept open. "Where practicable." |
| How large is Phase 2? | Not disclosed |
| What tax incentives are being sought? | Not disclosed |
At the July 23 town hall, Monolith and Crusoe answered many of the questions on this page — out loud, on the record, in front of a packed auditorium. We appreciated the answers. Here is each one, next to what the filed application actually says.
| Said into the microphone, July 23 | In the application the Board will vote on |
|---|---|
| "We can commit 100% to closed-loop systems." | "closed-loop or air-cooled… where practicable" |
| Water use: ~770,000 gallons a year or less, plus a one-time ~500,000-gallon fill. | No water figure appears anywhere in the application. |
| Sound study "completed prior to permitting approvals" (their own slide). | Study "has been commissioned." Not finished. Vote scheduled anyway. |
| The operator is Crusoe — introduced on stage, staffing a booth. | "a digital infrastructure operator… active conversations." |
| 35 MW is the agreement and "would not increase." | "Up to 35 megawatts." No cap in the ordinance text. |
| Phase 2 will be requested separately; the Village can say no. | "…or on a parcel adjacent to" stays in the code either way. |
| Open to a special use permit instead of the zoning amendment. | The text amendment is what's filed. Nothing has been withdrawn or replaced. |
| The data center revenue model: "still kind of working out that model… we don't really have that all finalized yet." | A permanent code change, requested for a deal that isn't final. |
A commitment made into a microphone is not a commitment made into an ordinance. Every row above costs them nothing to write down — if they meant it.
Page 12 of the application makes a series of written commitments, citing Nebraska's new data center law. We are not disputing a single one of them. We're asking that they be binding.
Every one of those promises lives in a letter to the Village Clerk. A letter binds nobody after the vote. None of it carries a dollar figure, a deadline, or a posted bond, and none of it appears in the ordinance the Board is being asked to adopt.
A community benefit agreement with no terms is an agreement to negotiate later, from a much weaker position — after approval, when we have nothing left to trade.
If you meant it, write it into the ordinance. That costs you nothing.
This is the clearest reason to vote no on the amendment itself — and it comes from the Monolith's own materials, not from us.
In those materials, the operator's Iceland facility is offered as a reason for confidence. The detail given is that it scaled from 33 megawatts to 57 megawatts as demand grew.
That's not our claim about expansion. That's their case study.
The modular design is marketed on exactly this quality — units arrive prefabricated and get added as demand requires. That's a sound business model, and nobody should fault them for it. But it means the ten acres in front of the Board is a starting point, not a ceiling. The only moment a community gets to set that ceiling in writing is before the first approval, not after.
Approving the door is approving what comes through it.
The site plan attached to the application is labeled "TEST FIT SUBJECT TO CHANGE." The application says building placement, orientation, quantity, and layout may all change during design.
And the proposed ordinance language says plans submitted for approval "may be preliminary with final as-built drawings submitted after completion of construction."
Approve a sketch now. See the real drawings after the concrete is poured.
That is not a small drafting detail. It means the Planning Commission approves one thing and the Village receives documentation of another, with no review in between and no opportunity to object. Ask that final construction drawings be required before a building permit issues — not after the building exists.
Other companies have been optioning farm ground around the village — and once "data center" is written into Hallam's code, whoever asks next isn't starting from scratch. That is the fullest scope of what the Board is deciding, and it isn't in the application.
In February, March and April of this year, a company called Sagebrush Infrastructure Partners recorded twelve option agreements and one memorandum of agreement with landowners on farm ground west and northwest of the village. Those are public records, filed with the Lancaster County Register of Deeds.
In June, Stark Power Ltd. announced an agreement to acquire that company — describing it as a developer of hyperscale data centers with co-located natural gas power plants, and listing five campuses in development across the central United States.
We are not saying these are connected. Nothing in the public record links that company to this application, and we are not suggesting it does.
As filed it covers the I-2 industrial district only, where a data center co-locates with existing industry. Farm ground west of the village is not in it. A project out there would still need its own rezoning — with notice to neighbors, a hearing, and a vote. That protection is real, and we want it kept.
It writes a definition of "data center" into Hallam's code for the first time. It establishes that Hallam permits the use. And it sets the standard for what Hallam asks in return — which today is a sound study that isn't finished, a water figure nobody has disclosed, and no removal bond.
The next applicant won't have to argue that data centers belong in Hallam. We'll have already said so.
A rezoning request is a different thing after September 14 than before it. Before: a use this village has never defined, with no rules on the books, decided from scratch. After: a use already defined, already permitted, already built half a mile up the road, on terms the Village already accepted without asking for much. That is a harder request to refuse — and refusing it becomes the job of whoever is sitting in those five chairs in 2027 or 2028.
Write the rules first. Then decide.
Everything below comes from the Village of Hallam's published board minutes and agendas. Read together, they show a project moving steadily through our village for months — while still being described publicly as undecided.
Long-term planning for a second route out of town, east toward 42nd Street. The minutes record that Monolith agreed if it involves land they own, and that a survey was needed — 70 feet requested. Approved 5–0. Also discussed: identifying land for a future well site "should we ever need one."
Burns & McDonnell booked the room, then asked for ongoing standing approval with a rolling deposit. They appear again in May.
The Chairman summarized: 2025 was a bad year, the company sought investors to expand the carbon black plant and did not get them, so it changed direction — one reactor built of twelve planned, now needing four more, construction running to 2030.
Monolith brought new leadership to the board. Per the minutes, the CEO "thanked the village board for being supportive." The minutes also record that the company Monolith may partner with "has an interest in paving 42nd street to the Sprague highway," and that Monolith is willing to let the village use their property to test for another well site.
In the same meeting, the board introduced fifteen ordinances, waived the three-separate-readings requirement, and gave them all final passage. 5–0.
The June minutes list an auditorium rental by the Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department, 6–8 p.m., "anticipating a Public Hearing need on an air quality construction permit."
Monolith appeared under "Petitions–Communications–Citizens Concern," where the agenda states no action can be taken. The agenda lists "RESOLUTIONS & ORDINANCES: NONE."
A 15-page application arrives at the Village Clerk's office: a text amendment making data centers a principal permitted use in the I-2 district, plus site plan approval. It confirms up to 35 megawatts on roughly 10 acres, with backup diesel generators, fuel storage tanks, and battery storage. The operator is described only as "a digital infrastructure operator" the company is "in active conversations" with.
The letter requests the Planning Commission act August 19 and the Board adopt the amendment September 7.
The auditorium filled past capacity — the start was delayed half an hour to add chairs. Monolith and Crusoe committed verbally to 100% closed-loop cooling (~770,000 gal/yr), named Crusoe as the operator, said 35 MW "would not increase," promised Phase 2 would be requested separately, disclosed that Monolith holds an option on the ~135 acres directly east, and said they're open to a special use permit instead of the zoning amendment. Their own slide: sound study "completed prior to permitting approvals."
Read the full transcript and listen to the recording →
Aug. 3 — regular board meeting.
Aug. 19 — reported target for the Planning Commission hearing and vote.
Mon. Sept. 14, 7:00 p.m. — the Board vote. Confirmed with the
Village Clerk. Hallam Auditorium, 315 Main Street.
From Hallam's zoning ordinance (Village Code Chapter 11), the Lancaster County Assessor, and public reporting. The details matter, because this is where it gets fought.
Monolith's Olive Creek campus on SW 42nd Street, about half a mile north of the village. Roughly ten acres on the northeast portion, on ground already zoned for industry.
Section 11-204: the Village Board controls zoning for all land inside the village and within one mile of it. This is a village decision, not a county one.
Section 11-104(B): uses "may be added to a district upon application by a landowner and upon proper amendment of the district regulations." The change attaches to an entire zoning district — not to one parcel.
The parcel east of the campus is zoned AG — Agriculture District, classed as agricultural and unimproved, per Lancaster County Assessor records. It was acquired by a Lincoln limited liability company in August 2025 — and at the July 23 town hall, Monolith stated publicly that it holds an option on those approximately 135 acres. Their statement, at a public meeting, on their own slide.
The amendment as filed covers the I-2 industrial district only. Farm ground is not in it — a data center on agricultural land would still need its own rezoning, with notice to neighbors, a hearing, and a vote.
That is the good news, and we should say so plainly. Here is the part that isn't settled. The amendment permits a data center on the same parcel as an industrial use "or on a parcel adjacent to" it. Nothing in that sentence says the adjacent parcel has to be zoned I-2, or owned by the same company. Read narrowly, a future project on farm ground still needs a rezoning and the neighbors keep their vote. Read broadly, adjacency alone may be enough. Nobody from the Village has said on the record which reading is intended.
Nine words fix it: "or on a parcel adjacent to and under common ownership with." It permits this project exactly as proposed and closes the door behind it.
A fix that small costs the applicant nothing, which is what makes it worth asking for — and makes a refusal informative. Ask the Village attorney to state the intended reading on the record, and ask the Board to write the narrow one into the text before it votes.
Hallam's ordinance already contains a mechanism for exactly this situation. Sections 11-604(B)(14) and 11-605(B)(33) allow the Village Board to approve "any similar use that is determined by the Village Board of Trustees after referral to and recommendation by the Planning Commission to be of an industrial nature similar to the above listed uses."
The board can already consider this one project, on its own merits, without writing "data center" into our code forever. Ask them why they won't.
There is already a very large permitted groundwater draw at this site. In 2021 the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District approved three wells at Olive Creek estimated to pump about 420 million gallons a year, used primarily for cooling. That was approved after nearly a year of testing and study.
The data center will be air-cooled or closed-loop — those are the only designs on the table. At the July 23 town hall, Monolith put the number on the record: about 770,000 gallons a year or less, plus a one-time fill of roughly 500,000 gallons. Their own comparison: a year's use equals about 16 hours of a center pivot running.
No water figure appears anywhere in the application. The 770,000-gallon number exists as spoken words and a slide. If that's the real number, writing it into the permit as an enforceable cap costs nothing — and protects everyone, including them.
The application commits to water-efficient practices "including a closed-loop water cooling system or air-cooled system, and water-saving fixtures where practicable."
Two escape hatches in one sentence. "Or" keeps both designs available. "Where practicable" means the commitment applies only when the applicant decides it does. Meanwhile the same application acknowledges there will be wastewater discharges from cooling operations, regulated under a state permit — which is not what "closed loop" suggests to anyone reading it plainly.
Strike "where practicable." Name the cooling system. If the plan really is closed-loop, writing it down costs nothing.
Before those 2021 wells were approved, the Natural Resources District commissioned an independent review of the groundwater modeling, held a public open house in Hallam, held a separate public input session, and took written comment. It then attached conditions: flowmeters on every well, quarterly reporting, groundwater monitoring before and after startup, and authority to add requirements if the operation diverged from the application.
That was good enough for their own wells five years ago. It should be good enough now.
Hallam's code does set a noise limit. Section 11-603(E) caps industrial noise at 55 Leq where the receiving property is residential, measured at the property line nearest the source. For scale, 55 is about steady rain, or a conversation ten feet away. A vacuum cleaner is around 70 — and because decibels aren't a straight scale, that's roughly three times as loud, not a little louder.
The 55 Leq standard is just another line in the same ordinance being amended right now. Nothing makes it permanent. A future board can raise it, write an exception, or grant relief — through the same process being used to add "data center" in the first place.
A limit only means something if somebody measures it. Who drives out at 2 a.m. with a sound meter? Who buys the meter, hires the consultant, pays the attorney when a violation is disputed? Those costs land on a village with a general fund of roughly $344,000.
A promise you have to sue someone to collect isn't a protection. It's a hope.
Not opinions — assignments. Most take under fifteen minutes.
Passing this requires a 3/5 vote of the Board. These are neighbors — be courteous, be specific, write down what they say.
| Trustee | Committee | Term ends |
|---|---|---|
| Gary Vocasek — Chairman | Finance / Personnel | 2026 |
| Jason Burianek | Park / Auditorium | 2026 |
| Brad Niemeyer | Utilities | 2028 |
| Sheila Taylor | Public Safety | 2028 |
| Bob Wink | Streets | 2028 |
Nebraska law lets the owners of 20% of the land next to a proposed zoning change file a formal protest, forcing four of five trustees instead of three. That protection is real for a future rezoning of farm ground — and how much of it survives depends on how broadly "or on a parcel adjacent to" gets read.
Groundwater here is regulated by the Lower Platte South NRD, and large wells need a permit. In 2021 that board put flowmeters, quarterly reporting, and monitoring on the existing wells after a year of study and two public meetings.
Under the Nebraska Public Records Act (§84-712) the village must respond within four business days.