Same project. Same questions.

On July 27 Monolith amended its application. It no longer asks to write "data center" into Hallam's zoning code — it asks the Board for a special use permit for this one project. That is a real improvement, and we'll say so plainly. But it is the same 35 megawatts on the same ten acres. The sound study still isn't finished. The operator still isn't named. And there is still no water number anywhere in the file.

Take action Read the record Follow on Facebook

—

Days until the Board vote

AUG 19

Requested Planning Commission date — confirm with the Clerk

35 MW

Stated in the filed application

3/5

Board vote required to pass

Hearing one · the one people miss

Wed. Aug. 19 — Planning Commission

Site plan approval and a recommendation to the Board. This is the date Monolith's letter requested. [Confirm the date, time and place against the Village's posted agenda — Village Clerk, (402) 787-0505.]

Hearing two · the vote

Mon. Sept. 14, 7:00 p.m. — Village Board

Hallam Auditorium, 315 Main Street. The Board holds its own public hearing and votes. A special use permit is granted by resolution, so it is decided the night it is introduced.

First, the honest part

What changed on July 27 — and what it's worth

Monolith withdrew the zoning text amendment and asked for a special use permit instead. The application credits feedback from "Board of Trustees and Planning Commission members, residents and a local advocacy group." We asked for this exact change on this exact page. We're not going to pretend it didn't happen.

WHAT WE ACTUALLY WON

The code is not being rewritten

No permanent change to Hallam's zoning ordinance. No definition of "data center" written into our code. And the phrase that worried us most — permitting one "on a parcel adjacent to" an industrial use — is gone with the amendment that contained it.

Farm ground keeps every protection it has today. A data center on agricultural land would still need its own rezoning: notice to neighbors, a public hearing, a vote, and the protest right that comes with it. That was the whole fight, and it is still intact.

WHAT DIDN'T CHANGE

The project, and the questions

Same ten acres. Same up-to-35 megawatts. Same modular units, backup diesel generators, fuel storage, and battery storage. Same unnamed operator. Same sound study that has been commissioned but not finished. Same absence of a water figure.

The Board is being asked to approve all of it on September 14 — with a Planning Commission hearing before that. What's in front of those two bodies is a project, not a paragraph. It still has to be answered for.

A better way of asking is not the same thing as a better answer.

Read this part twice

The first vote isn't September 14

A special use permit runs through two public bodies. The Planning Commission holds its own public hearing, approves the site plan under §11-602(D), and sends the Board a recommendation. Only then does the Board hold its hearing and vote.

Monolith's letter asks the Planning Commission to approve the site plan and recommend approval on August 19. [That date is what the applicant requested and what has been reported — confirm it against the Village's posted agenda, and check weekly.]

By the time this reaches the Board in September, there will already be an approved site plan and a recommendation on the record. The room that matters first is the Planning Commission's.

One thing that got faster, not slower A zoning amendment is adopted by ordinance — and Nebraska law asks that an ordinance be read on three separate dates unless the board votes to waive it. A special use permit is granted by resolution. Section 17-614's three-readings rule applies to ordinances, so on our reading there is no second night to wait for here — the night it is introduced can be the night it is decided. The application arrived with a resolution already drafted, findings written and signature lines waiting. There is no second reading to wait for: the night it is introduced is the night it is decided. Whatever anyone plans to say has to be said before the gavel, at one of the two hearings — not after the first one goes badly.

Phase 1 is the door. Phase 2 is what walks through it — and we are fighting both.

Our position

Vote no on the special use permit

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 and real numbers before anyone comes back.

Why no is the only responsible vote

REASON ONE

The Board has to make eight findings

Section 11-1006 doesn't let the Board simply vote yes. It must find that eight standards are met — and the applicant's own draft resolution recites each finding as "based on substantial evidence in the record." The sound study isn't finished. No water figure has been filed. You cannot find a fact that nobody has put in front of you.

REASON TWO

Hallam has no rules for this

Our code doesn't define a data center, set a setback for one, or say a word about its water or its cleanup. Counties across Nebraska have paused this year to write data center rules before deciding individual projects. Hallam's comprehensive plan was adopted in 2011 — and §11-1006 requires the Board to find this permit conforms to it.

REASON THREE

The promises belong to a company nobody has named

Decommissioning, the community benefit agreement, the cooling method — every commitment is made by "the Project Operator," described only as a partner Monolith is "in active conversations with." And proposed Condition 1 lets the permit be assigned on written notice alone, with no Board approval of who gets it.

Granting 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.

What the amended application says — and doesn't

The new filing arrived. Here's the scorecard.

Monolith amended on July 27. Some questions got answered. Three weeks after the first filing, and six weeks before the vote, the ones that matter most still haven'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 operator. But no bond posted.
Will it need new water rights?	ANSWERED — no. It runs inside the existing permits.
How loud will it be at the nearest homes?	Study commissioned. Still not finished. Not in the file.
Who will actually operate it?	Named at the town hall: Crusoe. Still unnamed in the application.
How many gallons of water a year?	Stated at the town hall: ~770,000. Still no figure 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

The sentence to read carefully

Their draft resolution says the Board already has the numbers

The application arrives with a resolution already written for the Board to adopt — findings of fact complete, signature lines for all five trustees, and a blank line for the Village attorney to sign "approved as to form." Nobody has signed it — it is a draft, submitted by the applicant. Among the findings it asks the Board to adopt:

"Applicant disclosed the Project's anticipated power draw, water usage projections and cooling methodology in the Application and at public hearings."

We have read the application. The power draw is there. The cooling methodology is there. There is no water usage projection in it — not a gallon figure, not a range, not a maximum daily withdrawal. The only number anyone has ever given for this project was spoken aloud at the July 23 town hall.

We are not suggesting anyone did this on purpose. Drafts get written early and facts catch up late. But a trustee is being asked to certify, in a signed public record, that a disclosure was made. Before you sign that, ask to be shown the number. If we have missed it, tell us and we will correct this page the same day.

Why 35 megawatts matters Nebraska's 2026 data center law (Neb. Rev. Stat. §70-1506) places real duties on facilities above ten megawatts: public reporting of electricity and water use, responsibility for all decommissioning costs, and a community benefit agreement with affected communities. At 35 megawatts, every one of those duties applies. Monolith's application acknowledges this and accepts them in writing. The question now is whether those promises end up in the permit with numbers and deadlines attached, where they can be enforced — or stay as sentences, where they can't.

The problem with the findings

Eighteen times "substantial evidence"

This is the most technical point on this page and also the most important one, so we'll take it slowly. It is not an accusation. It is a question about what is in the file.

Section 11-1006 does not let the Board simply decide it likes this project. Before any special use permit issues, the Board must find — on substantial evidence — that eight specific standards are satisfied. The draft resolution submitted with the application uses the phrase "based on substantial evidence in the record" fifteen times, and "the Board finds" fourteen times.

Here is what one of those findings rests on, quoted from the draft resolution the Board is being asked to adopt:

"All operations will occur within enclosed structures. Sound levels will comply with the Zoning Ordinance thresholds of 55 decibels at residential buildings… The Board finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the Project will not injure neighboring property or diminish property values."

Whether sound levels will comply is exactly what the sound study was commissioned to determine. That study is not finished and is not in the record. So the finding offers, as its evidence, the very thing that has not yet been established. It assumes the answer to the question it is meant to decide.

The same shape appears elsewhere. The project will not harm public welfare because the operator "will comply with all Ordinance performance standards." It will have adequate utilities because the operator "will secure" them. Each of these is a commitment about the future, written in the place where evidence about the present is required.

A promise to comply is not evidence of compliance. It is the thing that needs proving.

We want to be fair about this: applicants routinely draft proposed findings, and there is nothing improper about submitting one. Nor is there anything improper about a company describing its own project favorably — that is its job. The job of the Planning Commission and the Board is different. They are the ones who have to be satisfied, on a record, that each of the eight standards is met.

What to ask at either hearing Not "will it be quiet?" — ask "what is in the record right now that supports this finding?" A finding of fact supported only by the applicant's assurances is a thin record, and a thin record is a risk the Village carries, not the applicant. The remedy costs nothing and delays little: put the completed sound study, a stated water figure, and the operator's name in the record before anyone votes. Then the findings have something to rest on.

July 23 town hall · a full auditorium

What they said. What's actually filed.

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 the amended application filed four days later. Every quote in the left column can be checked against the full transcript posted on this site.

Said into the microphone, July 23	In the July 27 application the Board will vote on
Monolith's Chief Development Officer: "We are committed to going back… looking at potentially an alternative route than doing the zoning amendment, uh, looking more at a special use permit … I want to tell you, we've heard you on that."	KEPT. Filed July 27 as a special use permit under §11-605(B)(33). No code change.
Monolith's Chief Development Officer: "We will treat that separately and come and ask for that separately. And so the village has every right to say no to both, or yes to one, and no to the other, or or yes to both."	KEPT. "Any future data center… will require a separate special use permit application."
Monolith's Chief Development Officer: "In terms of water stewardship, uh, we can commit 100% to closed-loop systems."	Condition 7: "a closed-loop water cooling system or air-cooled system… where practicable"
Monolith's CEO: annual water use "would be… upwards of, uh, or or 770,000 gallons or less per year." Crusoe's representative: "about 500,000 gallons for the initial fill."	No water figure appears anywhere in the application.
Monolith's CEO: "Crusoe's committed to doing a sound study… on their existing, uh, modular data centers to to find out what those noise levels are, and then… we'll provide that back to the village."	Monolith "has commissioned a sound study." Not finished, not attached. Both hearings requested anyway.
The partner is Crusoe — named from the podium by Monolith's CEO, present with a booth, answering questions on the record. "When Crusoe's coming to the site, the entire project is is their project."	"active conversations with a strategic partner." Named nowhere in the filing.
Monolith's Chief Development Officer, asked whether 35 MW would increase: "would that increase? No, it's it's a 10-acre site with 35 megawatts used for power."	"Up to 35 megawatts" in the narrative. No condition states a megawatt limit.
Monolith's CEO on the revenue model: "it's it's kind of a structured power power land-type sale… but we're still kind of working out that that model, we don't really have that all finalized yet."	An industrial approval that runs with the site, requested for a deal that isn't final.

One answer worth reading twice Asked from the floor about the closed-loop system, Crusoe's representative said: "there are times where we have to drain the system to refill it for maintenance purposes or if there's leaks… we capture all the water, we containerize it on site, and we would truck it to a treatment facility." That is a candid and useful answer, and we're glad it was given. It is also the reason "closed-loop" needs a definition and a number in the permit rather than a word in a sentence — and the application separately acknowledges wastewater discharges from cooling regulated under an NPDES permit.

Two of those answers are now in the filing. The four that would require a number in writing — the water figure, the cooling method, the operator's name, the finished sound study — are still spoken words.

Where this comes from Left column: the verbatim transcript of the July 23, 2026 town hall at the Hallam Auditorium, posted in full on this site with the complete audio. Speakers are identified as they identified themselves — Monolith's CEO and Chief Development Officer, and a Crusoe representative answering from the floor. Right column: Monolith's amended application dated July 27, 2026 — "Amendment to Application Filed July 15, 2026" — and its proposed conditions of approval, available from the Village Clerk. Attendance was reported by 10/11 News and other outlets. If anything here misstates what was said or what was filed, tell us and we'll correct it the same day.

The strongest thing we can ask for

Twenty conditions. Not one number.

Monolith proposed its own conditions of approval — twenty of them — and under §11-1007 the Board may impose them. We are not disputing a single one. We're asking that they be made measurable, because a condition nobody can measure is a condition nobody can enforce.

What the proposed conditions say

Condition 18: the operator "will enter into a community benefit agreement with the Village of Hallam" — no terms, no value, no deadline
Condition 17: the operator "shall bear all costs of decommissioning" — the words "bond," "escrow," "surety" and "financial security" appear nowhere in the document
Water-efficient practices — "closed-loop or air-cooled… where practicable"
"Adequate" infrastructure, "appropriate" road capacity, "sufficient" water and electrical service
Compliance with setback, buffer, sound and height requirements — the ones already in the code
An emergency response plan filed before operations begin

Why that isn't enough yet

Read them in order and a pattern appears: most restate duties the ordinance already imposes, and the rest turn on words — adequate, appropriate, sufficient, where practicable — that only the applicant gets to define. Not one condition sets a measurable limit. No gallons. No decibels at a stated distance. No feet of setback. No dollars posted.

Take the community benefit agreement. Proposing it as Condition 18 is real and we credit it. But the condition does not say what goes in the agreement, what it is worth, when it must be signed, who signs it if the operator is never named, or what happens if no agreement is ever reached. An obligation to enter an agreement, with no terms and no deadline, is an obligation to negotiate later — after approval, when the Village has nothing left to trade.

This is the one place the Board has real power. Section 11-1007 lets it write the conditions. Ask it to write them with numbers in them.

The four conditions worth asking every trustee for 1. Name the operator before the vote, and require Board approval before the permit is assigned to anyone else — not the written notice proposed in Condition 1. 2. Put the sound study in the public record before the Planning Commission votes, not after. 3. Write the water number into the permit as an enforceable annual cap, metered and reported. 4. Post a decommissioning bond in an amount set by the Village. Distance, meters and money enforce themselves. Promises require somebody to sue.

Their own evidence

A vote for ten acres is not a vote for ten acres

This is the clearest reason to vote no — and it comes from Monolith's own materials, not from us.

In materials Monolith presented to residents in July 2026, one of the operator's existing facilities 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.

Two sentences from two Monolith documents

Both of these are true at the same time

THE JULY 27 APPLICATION

Each phase stands alone

"Any future data center on the Property or elsewhere in the I-2 Heavy Industrial District will require a separate special use permit application, a separate Planning Commission recommendation, a separate public hearing and separate Board of Trustees approval."

THE JULY 31 FAQ

And the next phase is needed

The economic value Phase 2 creates "is necessary to support the long-term viability of the company." The same FAQ confirms Monolith holds the adjacent 135-acre parcel "under option."

We are not calling that a contradiction, because it isn't one. A company can genuinely intend to file separately for each phase and still describe later phases as necessary to its future. Both things can be honest.

But read together they tell a trustee something useful: the ten acres in front of you is described by the applicant's own documents as the first of several, and the company has said in writing that it needs the rest. A separate hearing later is a procedural protection, not a practical one, once the infrastructure, the workforce, the road, the power interconnection and the precedent are all already here.

Ask what the second application looks like from a village that has already said yes to the first.

And it gets worse in the fine print

Nobody ever reviews what actually gets built

Proposed Condition 3 asks the Board to approve this in advance: the operator builds "generally in the locations represented in the approved Site Plan," but "specific components of the facility may change, and their locations on the Site Plan may shift during final design" — 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.

What this decision sets

The precedent is the part that outlasts the project

A permit decides one project. It also answers a question the Village has never answered before — and that answer is available to whoever files next.

WHAT THIS PERMIT DOES NOT DO

It does not permit anything out there

It covers ten acres of one industrial parcel and nothing else. It changes no zoning district and defines nothing in the code. Farm ground west of the village is untouched — a project out there would still need its own rezoning, with notice to neighbors, a hearing, and a vote. That protection is real, it survived, and we want it kept.

WHAT IT DOES DO

It answers the question once

Granting it requires the Board to determine that a data center is "of a heavy industrial nature similar to" the uses already listed for our industrial district. That determination is the precedent — made once, cited afterward. 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 a data center belongs in Hallam. We'll have already answered that.

To be fair to Monolith: their own draft resolution says future applications "may or may not be appropriate uses" under that section, and each one needs a separate permit, a separate hearing and a separate vote. We take that at face value — the discretion stays with the Board, and that matters.

But discretion is exercised by people, and people are influenced by what is already there. A request is a different thing after September 14 than before it. Before: a use this village has never approved, with no rules on the books, decided from scratch. After: a use already approved once, already built half a mile up the road, on terms set before the Village had rules of its own. 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.

From the Village's own minutes

What's already been done

Everything below comes from the Village of Hallam's published board minutes and agendas, and from Monolith's own filings. Read together, they show a project moving steadily through our village for months while the public conversation was still at an early stage.

April 6, 2026 · Board meeting

The board votes to survey a street easement across Monolith land

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."

Why it mattersHallam's possible second exit road and its future water options both run across ground controlled by the applicant. Not an accusation — just a fact five trustees carry into the room.

Source Village of Hallam Board of Trustees minutes, April 6, 2026. Available from the Village Clerk, (402) 787-0505.

April 22–23, 2026 · Auditorium bookings

An engineering firm starts renting the village meeting room

Burns & McDonnell booked the room, then asked for ongoing standing approval with a rolling deposit. They appear again in May.

Why it mattersWe do not know who this firm was working for. The auditorium is rented by many parties, including for projects unrelated to this one, and we are not going to guess. We note it only because it is in the record and the Village can answer it: ask the Clerk who booked the room and for what.

Source Auditorium rental entries in the Village board minutes, April and May 2026. We have not confirmed who the firm was working for and do not assert it.

May 4, 2026 · Board meeting

"Monolith looking at data centers, but no decisions have been made"

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 originally planned. Monolith's July 31 FAQ now describes the carbon black expansion as going from one unit to four.

Why it mattersIn May the village was told nothing was decided. Four weeks later a prospective partner was presenting to the board. The timeline is worth asking the board to walk through.

Source Village of Hallam Board of Trustees minutes, May 4, 2026.

June 1, 2026 · Board meeting

A partner is in the room. A road is offered. Fifteen ordinances pass in one night.

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.

Why it mattersBenefits are being floated informally — a paved road, land for a village well — with nothing in writing. And the board demonstrated exactly how fast an ordinance becomes law here.

Source Village of Hallam Board of Trustees minutes, June 1, 2026. The quoted phrases are the minutes’ own wording.

June 29, 2026 · Health Department

A room is booked for an air quality permit hearing

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."

Why it mattersA second regulatory track with its own public comment. Under Hallam's code (§11-603(G)), that permit is required before a building permit can issue.

Source Auditorium rental entry, Village board minutes for June 2026, quoting the booking description. [We have not confirmed what the hearing concerned or its status.]

July 6, 2026 · Board meeting

Monolith presents. No ordinance on the agenda yet.

Monolith appeared under "Petitions–Communications–Citizens Concern," where the agenda states no action can be taken. The agenda lists "RESOLUTIONS & ORDINANCES: NONE."

Why it mattersAs of July 6 nothing had been formally introduced. What arrived nine days later was an application — and what the Board will now vote on is a resolution, decided the night it is introduced.

Source Village of Hallam board agenda and minutes, July 6, 2026.

July 15, 2026 · The application

Monolith files — the version that was later withdrawn

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. This is the application Monolith replaced on July 27 — it is no longer what the Board will vote on.

Why it mattersThis is the version that put 35 megawatts on the record. It was withdrawn and replaced twelve days later — but the project it describes is the project still being asked for.

Source Monolith’s application to the Village of Hallam dated July 15, 2026, obtained from the Village Clerk under the Nebraska Public Records Act (§84-712).

July 23, 2026 · Town hall

A packed auditorium. Real answers. None of them filed.

Monolith's Chief Development Officer committed "100% to closed-loop systems"; its CEO put annual water use at "770,000 gallons or less per year," and Crusoe's representative added "about 500,000 gallons for the initial fill." Crusoe was named from the podium as the partner — "when Crusoe's coming to the site, the entire project is is their project" — and answered questions from the floor. Asked whether 35 MW would rise: "would that increase? No." Phase 2 would be "treated separately," with the village free "to say no to both." And on the mechanism: "looking more at a special use permit… we've heard you on that."

Read the full transcript and listen to the recording →

Why it mattersFour days later two of those answers became a filing: the special use permit, and Phase 2 requiring its own separate approval. The rest — the water number, the cooling commitment, the operator's name, the finished sound study — are still only spoken words. The distance between the two is the whole question in front of the Board.

Source The July 23, 2026 town hall at the Hallam Auditorium. Full transcript and audio are posted on this site; every quote can be checked against them.

July 27, 2026 · The amended application

The zoning amendment is withdrawn. A special use permit takes its place.

Monolith files an "Amendment to Application Filed July 15, 2026" with the Village Clerk. It withdraws the text amendment entirely and instead requests a special use permit under §11-605(B)(33) — the provision already in Hallam's code that lets the Board approve a use it finds similar to those permitted in the heavy industrial district. The cover letter says so directly: this "does not amend the Zoning Ordinance or add data centers as a permitted use." Elsewhere the application credits feedback from "Board of Trustees and Planning Commission members, residents and a local advocacy group."

The project itself is unchanged: up to 35 megawatts on roughly ten acres of the Olive Creek campus, modular units up to 25 feet tall, backup diesel generators with on-site fuel storage, and battery storage. The operator remains unnamed — "active conversations with a strategic partner." The sound study is "commissioned" and not attached. No water figure appears anywhere. On water the filing adds one genuinely new commitment: the project will operate "within Monolith's existing permitted water allocations" and will not seek any new water rights.

It asks the Planning Commission to act August 19 and the Board to grant the permit at its September meeting. It arrives with twenty proposed conditions of approval and a resolution already drafted for the Board to adopt, findings of fact written and signature lines waiting.

Why it mattersThis is a real improvement and we say so on the front page: no permanent code change, no new definition, farm ground untouched. It is also the same project with the same gaps, now on a two-hearing track that ends in a resolution — and resolutions have no reading requirement, so there is no second night to be heard. Read the eight findings in §11-1006 and ask what evidence the Board has for each one.

Source Monolith Materials, Inc., “Amendment to Application Filed July 15, 2026,” dated July 27, 2026, addressed to the Village Clerk and signed by its Vice President, Capital Projects — including the project narrative, the 20 proposed conditions of approval, and the draft resolution submitted with it.

July 31, 2026 · Monolith's written FAQ

Phase 2 is "under option" — and "necessary" to the company

A written FAQ dated July 31, available at Monolith's office, puts in writing that Monolith holds the adjacent 135-acre parcel "under option," and says of Phase 2 that the economic value it creates "is necessary to support the long-term viability of the company." The same document promises "the Village will have the opportunity to evaluate each phase independently."

Why it mattersPhase 2 — the phase on farm ground — is described by the applicant itself as essential to its future. That parcel is zoned agricultural and would need its own rezoning, which is exactly the protection that survived last week. Both of those sentences are theirs. Hold on to both.

Source Monolith’s “Expansion Frequently Asked Questions” handout dated July 31, 2026, distributed to residents and available at its office.

Ahead · The decision points

What's still coming

August — a second town hall, promised in the application. Date not yet announced.
Aug. 19 — the Planning Commission hearing: site plan approval and a recommendation to the Board. This is the date Monolith requested. [Confirm against the Village's posted agenda.]
Mon. Sept. 14, 7:00 p.m. — the Board vote. Hallam Auditorium, 315 Main Street.

Why it mattersTwo hearings, two chances to be heard, and the first one is the one people miss. Keep checking the agendas weekly — an item can appear with 24 hours' notice, and a resolution is voted the same night it is introduced.

What we haven't seen The sound study, which was commissioned before the application was filed and is not attached to it. The Village also posts only the most recent months online: minutes before April 2026, the minutes of the July board meeting, and all Planning Commission minutes are not published, though the Village states they're available on request. With the Planning Commission now holding the first hearing, those records matter more than they did a week ago.

What we know

The land, and the rules that govern it

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.

The Phase 1 site

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.

Who decides

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.

What's being asked for now

Section 11-605(B)(33): the Board may grant a special use permit for "any similar use that is determined by the Village Board of Trustees after referral to and recommendation by the Planning Commission to be of a heavy industrial nature similar to the above listed uses." This one attaches to a project, not a district — which is the improvement.

The Phase 2 ground

The parcel east of the campus is zoned AG — Agriculture District, classed as agricultural and unimproved and totalling roughly 135 acres, per Lancaster County Assessor records. It was acquired by a Lincoln limited liability company in August 2025. Monolith's written FAQ dated July 31, 2026 states the parcel is land "that Monolith has under option." At the July 23 town hall its Chief Development Officer described "a piece of land across the street" the company "did look at … as an option, as a potential."

The permit as filed covers ten acres of one industrial parcel. 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. For weeks this page argued that the earlier version reached too far, because it would have permitted a data center on a parcel merely "adjacent to" an industrial use — language broad enough to worry about. That language is gone. It went out with the amendment that contained it. Whatever else is unresolved, the ground east and west of the village keeps every protection it had.

The argument this page made — and what happened to it

They didn't need the amendment. They took that route.

From the day this site went up it pointed at §11-605(B)(33): Hallam's code already lets the Board consider one industrial project on its own merits, without writing anything permanent into the ordinance. We asked why the applicant wouldn't use it.

On July 27 they did. Credit where it's due — that argument worked.

So the fight moves to where it should have been all along: the standard and the conditions. Section 11-1006 requires eight affirmative findings before any special use permit issues — that it won't endanger public health and welfare, won't injure the use and enjoyment of nearby property, has adequate utilities, and five more. Those eight are listed and answered one by one in Monolith's own application, and recited again in the draft resolution it submitted. Section 11-1007 then lets the Board attach any reasonable condition it considers necessary.

Findings need evidence. The sound study isn't finished and no water figure has been filed. Ask what the Board is finding on.

And note what the applicant is not proposing to condition: no bond, no metered water cap, no stated setback distance, no requirement that the operator be named before the permit issues. Twenty conditions, and the Village would still be trusting rather than measuring. That is the gap a trustee can close, and only before the vote.

Water

The number nobody has mentioned

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 in carbon black manufacturing and anhydrous fertilizer production. That was approved after nearly a year of testing and study.

THE STATED FIGURE

What they say it will use

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.

THE FILED FIGURE

What the application commits to

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.

New in the July 27 filing

"Will not seek any new water rights"

The amended application states the project will operate "within Monolith's existing permitted water allocations and will not seek any new water rights." Taken at face value, that is a meaningful commitment and we'll treat it as one.

It also has a consequence almost nobody has noticed. The application does not say which allocations it means. The permits on record at this site are the three wells approved in 2021, estimated at about 420 million gallons a year. [We have asked the District to confirm whether those are the allocations in question.] If no new permit is sought, then there is no new application to the Natural Resources District — and the independent review, the public open house and the written-comment period that came with the 2021 permits would have no occasion to happen again.

If no new water permit is sought, there may be no NRD review at all — which would leave the Village Board's vote as the only public decision anyone gets to make about water here. We have asked LPSNRD to confirm. [Not yet answered.]

There is one open question worth a phone call. The 2021 permits were granted for a carbon black plant, after nearly a year of study, with the District reserving authority to add requirements if the operation diverged from the application. Running a 35-megawatt data center on that same allocation is a different use than the one reviewed. Whether the District considers that a divergence is a question only the District can answer — and somebody should ask it before August 19. [Not yet answered. LPSNRD, (402) 476-2729.]

Where these numbers come from The 35 megawatt figure and the water-rights language are stated in Monolith's amended application of July 27, 2026. The 420 million gallon figure is from the Natural Resources District's 2021 permit approval. The 770,000 and 500,000 gallon figures are what Monolith and Crusoe stated at the July 23 town hall — read the transcript. We would rather rely on a number written into a permit than one spoken into a microphone — which is the entire point.

The commitment that isn't one

"Where practicable"

The application commits to water-efficient practices "including a closed-loop water cooling system or air-cooled system, and water-saving fixtures within the facility where practicable."

Two conditions in one sentence that the applicant alone gets to interpret. "Or" keeps both designs available. "Where practicable" applies the commitment only when the applicant decides it does. Meanwhile the same application contemplates wastewater discharges from cooling operations, saying the state "will regulate any wastewater discharges from cooling operations" under an NPDES 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.

The water ask

Give us the same process Monolith got

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.

Disclose before deciding: peak megawatts, cooling method, projected annual water use, and maximum daily withdrawal.
Air-cooled or fully closed-loop cooling written into the permit — the method named before the vote, not left to "where practicable."
An enforceable cap on maximum daily withdrawal, metered, reported quarterly.
Baseline monitoring of neighboring wells before operations begin.
An independent review and a public input session — the 2021 standard.

One thing to understand about the Natural Resources District It is not a veto. Under its own rules, if the district finds no detrimental effect on the aquifer or on nearby wells, the permit "shall be granted." Showing up angry does not stop a well permit — evidence does. That's why neighbors with their own wells matter more here than anyone else, and why an independent hydrologist is worth more than a full room.

Noise

The limit on paper isn't the limit you'll live with

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. (55 Leq is the ordinance's number, not ours; the everyday comparisons are standard published reference levels.)

PROBLEM ONE

Nobody knows yet whether it can be met

The sound study has been commissioned and is not finished. The application says the operator "will implement necessary recommendations" — whatever those turn out to be, decided after the vote. The Board is being asked to find that noise is acceptable before anyone has measured what it will be.

PROBLEM TWO

Enforcement is a bill the village pays

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 whose general fund is roughly $344,000, per the Village's own budget figures.

A promise you have to sue someone to collect isn't a protection. It's a hope.

So what should we ask for instead? Conditions that don't depend on the village policing them later: a hard setback distance written into the permit, mandatory noise testing after construction paid for by the applicant with a required fix if it fails, and money posted up front to cover enforcement and removal. Distance and bonds enforce themselves.

Other levers in the same chapter

What the board can require, if it won't deny

§11-1006: eight standards the Board must find are satisfied before any special use permit issues — public health and welfare, effect on neighboring property, orderly development, appearance, adequate utilities, ingress and egress, the comprehensive plan, and conformance with district regulations. These are findings, not preferences. A finding needs something in the record to rest on.
§11-1007: the Board "may impose reasonable conditions on the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation" of the use. This is the broadest authority the Board has, and the applicant has already invited its use by proposing twenty conditions of its own.
§11-602(D): a site plan must be filed for every industrial use, and "the Village Board of Trustees may require additional standards as are necessary… for the maximum protection of the environment and the health and safety of the citizens of the village."
§11-603(G): a Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department air permit is required before a building permit issues.
§11-110(E)(2): an industrial yard adjacent to residential use must be increased to 75 feet with screening — a floor, not a ceiling. Section 11-1007 lets the Board require a greater distance, and a distance written into the permit is the one condition that enforces itself.

One question we've asked a lawyer A zoning amendment carries protections a special use permit may not: the formal protest right that raises the threshold to four votes out of five, the one-year bar on refiling something that was denied, and §11-1304's rule that "the burden of proof for any zoning change shall be upon the applicant." Those live in Article 13, which governs amendments. This is now an Article 10 application. Whether any of them still apply is a real legal question and we are not going to guess at it in public. [Referred to counsel. We'll post the answer when we have it.]

Find yourself on this list

Exactly what to do, based on who you are

Not opinions — assignments. Most take under fifteen minutes.

If you live in the Village of Hallam

Call one trustee. Then fill the room — twice.

Granting this requires a 3/5 vote of the Board, and there are two public hearings: the Planning Commission first, then 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

Start by giving them the credit. Monolith withdrew the zoning change and asked for a permit instead. Say so. It's true, it's what we asked for, and a call that opens honestly gets listened to.
Ask them to vote no. The reason: the sound study isn't finished, no water figure has been filed, the operator isn't named, no removal bond has been posted, and §11-1006 requires them to make eight findings on evidence that isn't in front of them yet.
Ask how they intend to vote, then thank them either way and send us the answer.
Show up twice. The Planning Commission hearing comes first — that's where the site plan gets approved and the recommendation gets written. Then the Board, September 14, 7:00 p.m., Hallam Auditorium. An empty room reads as consent.

It takes a 3/5 vote to grant this.

If a trustee tells you they're voting yes Don't argue. Ask for the four conditions instead: name the operator before the vote and require Board approval to transfer the permit; put the finished sound study in the record before the hearing; write the annual water number into the permit as a metered cap; and require a posted decommissioning bond. Every one of those is something the Board can do under §11-1007. Write down what they say and get it to us — that answer matters a great deal, and it's the kind of thing a trustee will say to a neighbor on the phone that they won't say at a microphone.

If you own ground out by the site

Your protest right survived for Phase 2. Get ready to use it.

Nebraska law (§19-905) lets the owners of 20% of the land next to a proposed rezoning file a formal protest, forcing four of five trustees instead of three. That right plainly applies to the rezoning of farm ground that Phase 2 would require — and this filing left that intact.

Be straight about this one: the protest petition is a tool that attaches to rezonings, and this is now a special use permit application. Whether any protest right survives that change is a live legal question we have put to counsel, and we'll post the answer here the day we have it. Don't plan around a petition for September. Do plan around it for Phase 2. [Referred to counsel.]
Get in touch now so we can map qualifying parcels and acreage before there's a deadline. The threshold is 20% of land area, not 20% of owners.
Confirm you're the owner of record with the Lancaster County Assessor. Trusts, LLCs, and estates need the right signer.
If you have a well, tell us. Effects on nearby wells are the legal standard at the Natural Resources District. Your well is evidence.
Come to both hearings anyway. You can testify without a petition, and the §11-1006 finding about "injury to the use and enjoyment of other property" is about your property.

Monolith says Phase 2 is "necessary" to the company. Phase 2 needs a rezoning.

If you farm or live in the township

Water is your ground to fight on

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.

Call LPSNRD at (402) 476-2729. The application says the project will use Monolith's existing allocations and seek no new water rights — so ask directly: does a 35-megawatt data center count as the use those 2021 permits were granted for? Those permits were issued for a carbon black plant.
Ask about the divergence condition. The District kept authority to add requirements if the operation diverged from the application it approved. Ask whether this qualifies, and what would trigger a review.
Ask to be notified if anything opens for public comment — and get the answer in writing before August 19.

If no new water rights are sought, the Village vote may be the only one.

If you can spare an hour and a phone

Go get the documents

Under the Nebraska Public Records Act (§84-712) the village must respond within four business days.

The sound study. Village Clerk, (402) 787-0505. It was commissioned before the application was filed. Ask for it, and ask that it be in the record before the Planning Commission votes.
The Planning Commission agenda for August 19 — and confirmation of the hearing date, notice, and whether the site plan is on it.
All Planning Commission minutes and agendas, 2025–2026. Not online. Nobody on our side has read them.
Zoning Chapter 11, Article 10 in full — the special use permit procedure and the eight standards in §11-1006. The version posted online truncates.

Facts win hearings. Somebody has to go get them.

If you want to stay in the loop

Follow along on Facebook

Meeting dates, new documents as we get them, and any corrections go up on our Facebook page. Following it is the easiest way to get involved and know when it's time to show up.

Follow the page so the September 14 reminder reaches you before the vote, not after.
Share it with one neighbor who hasn't heard about this yet.
Not on Facebook? Email us at HallamSaysNo@gmail.com and we'll keep you posted the same way.

Hallam Says No on Facebook

Sixty people in that auditorium is over 20% of the village standing in one room.

For reporters, trustees, and anyone checking our work

Every document we rely on, and how to get it

We would rather you read the primary sources than take our word for any of this. Nothing on this site is based on an anonymous source or a private conversation.

Document	What it is and where to get it
Amended application July 27, 2026	"Amendment to Application Filed July 15, 2026." Requests a special use permit under §11-605(B)(33). Contains the project narrative, the compliance analysis, 20 proposed conditions of approval, and a pre-drafted Board resolution. Village Clerk, (402) 787-0505. This is the document the Board will actually vote on.
Original application July 15, 2026	The withdrawn text amendment and site plan review. Obtained from the Village Clerk under the Nebraska Public Records Act. Superseded, but it is where the 35 MW figure first appears.
Monolith's written FAQ July 31, 2026	"Expansion Frequently Asked Questions," distributed to residents and available at Monolith's office. Source of the "under option" and "long-term viability" quotes.
July 23 town hall Hallam Auditorium	Full verbatim transcript and the complete audio recording are posted on this site — read and listen here. Every town hall quote on this site can be checked against it. Audience members are anonymized; company and public officials are named as they identified themselves.
Hallam Village Code, Chapter 11	The zoning ordinance. Article 10 covers special use permits (§§11-1002 to 11-1007); §11-605 covers the I-2 Heavy Industrial District; §11-603 the performance standards. Village website and Clerk. The online PDF truncates — ask the Clerk for the complete articles.
Village board minutes and agendas	Only the most recent months are posted online. Earlier minutes, the July minutes, and all Planning Commission minutes are available on request from the Clerk. Under §84-712 the Village must respond within four business days.
2021 well permits	Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, 3125 Portia St., Lincoln, (402) 476-2729. Source of the 420 million gallon figure and the 2021 conditions.
Parcel and title records	Lancaster County Assessor (orion.lancaster.ne.gov) for zoning class, acreage, owner of record and assessed value. Lancaster County Register of Deeds for recorded options and conveyances.
Nebraska statutes	§70-1506 (data center disclosure, decommissioning, community benefit agreements); §19-905 (protest petitions); §84-712 (public records); §84-1411 and §84-1414 (open meetings).

How to read this site Anything in [square brackets] is something we have not confirmed and are telling you so. Estimates are labeled as estimates and we show the arithmetic. Quotations come from the document named beside them. We do not publish material marked confidential, we do not name private individuals, and we do not report what anyone tells us privately. If anything here is wrong, tell us and we'll correct it the same day.

How we conduct ourselves Courteously, with every official and every employee. Monolith has been part of this community for years and we are not against business or jobs. When they moved our way on July 27 we said so on the front page of this site, and we'd do it again. What we're asking is that a 35-megawatt industrial use not be approved before anyone will tell us how loud it is, how much water it takes, who will run it, or who pays to remove it — and that farm ground keep the protections it has today. Stick to the sourced facts on this page. A single wrong number costs us more than it buys.