Press release


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 21, 2025

Alderperson Sydney Brennan Addresses Annexation and Rezoning Concerns Along CTH B (650th–690th Ave)

There has been growing concern in the community regarding the proposed annexation and potential development of land between 650th and 690th Avenue. I want to take a moment to share what I know, clarify where things currently stand, and help address some of the confusion surrounding the process and what may happen next.

First, I want to acknowledge the frustration many have expressed about the lack of transparency. Part of this stems from the fact that, so far, the only formal action the Council has taken is to consider annexing land into the city, at the request of the landowner. That request was referred to the Plan Commission for review and recommendation at the last Council meeting on 07/07/2025.

Today, the Council will enter closed session to discuss the following item:

a) Motion to convene in closed session under Wisconsin Statutes 19.85(1)(e) for the purpose of deliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds, or conducting other specified public business whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session.

i) Discuss and consider a proposed Development Agreement with Balloonist LLC.

During this session, I will express that this remains an active discussion and that the Council is not yet ready to make a final decision.

To be clear, there has been no vote or agreement confirming that a data center will be built. That decision is still under discussion. The land in question is already designated in our city’s comprehensive plan as part of the Technology and Industrial Park. Regardless of the specific project, the land is not intended to remain agricultural but to support industrial or tech development.

To support informed consideration of a potential development, the company currently expressing interest in the land arranged individual meetings with each council member. These meetings were intended to give us time to ask questions, voice concerns, and fully understand the proposal before it comes to a public vote. This gave me time to do independent research, come prepared with questions, and reflect on what this development could mean for Menomonie.

In my meeting, I raised concerns about water use, energy demand, and environmental impact. The business represented by Balloonist LLC responded with detailed information, which helped ease some of my concerns. While I believe these issues still warrant public discussion, I left the meeting feeling more reassured. I will raise these points again during the council meeting to ensure they are addressed on the record.

The proposed type of land use aligns with our city’s long term comprehensive plan. It is also standard industry practice for companies to use LLCs like Balloonist during early stages of site planning and negotiation.

Regarding concerns about transparency, I want to acknowledge how challenging it has become to keep residents informed in the absence of consistent local journalism. Without reliable news coverage in Dunn County, it is increasingly difficult for local officials to share accurate and timely information. This is why we often rely on social media and informal channels to communicate directly with the public.

I remain committed to open dialogue and welcome continued input from residents. If you have questions, concerns, or would like to talk more about this issue, I am always available and happy to have that conversation.

 
 


 

Sydney Brennan Alderperson, Ward 9

Memberships


Comments

Anonymous (not verified)

How does the city's comprehensive plan designate land commercial/industrial that isn't part of the city and also privately owned and currently designated agricultural?  Is this comprehensive plan a future wish list?  What else is on this list? 

Anonymous (not verified)

Dear Alderperson,

Why hasn't the company behind the LLC been named? We'd all like to do our due diligence before giving our support to this proposal.

Thank you.

SL (not verified)

Who owns Balloonist LLC?

Steve Hanson

Baloonist is essentially a shell LLC that is negotiating with the city and belongs to a company registered in Delaware which represents companies in negotiations. I think your question really is "Who will be building and will own the proposed data center?". Which at this time really is not known, but should come out later in the process when there is an actual developer plan and negotiations begin with the city. This is not unusual for this sort of land acquisition, even though I understand it is frustrating. 

Citizen A (not verified)

Regarding this statement,

"In my meeting, I raised concerns about water use, energy demand, and environmental impact. The business represented by Balloonist LLC responded with detailed information, which helped ease some of my concerns. While I believe these issues still warrant public discussion, I left the meeting feeling more reassured. I will raise these points again during the council meeting to ensure they are addressed on the record."

Is this to say that your meeting was/is 'off the record'? As an elected government official was this meeting 'off the record' and if so, doesn't this constitute a 'walking quorum' of sorts? Were these series of meetings announced and designated as official 'closed door' sessions?

Meeting Individually: If elected officials are meeting individually to gather information and deliberate on matters relevant to their governmental body's responsibilities, even if they aren't all together at one time, it could still be construed as a "meeting" if it meets the purpose and numbers tests described above.

This paragraph also raises other questions about transparency. Allegedly, the business/builder of the proposed data center is not known, yet in your press release, you assert that "the business represented by Balloonist LLC responded...". Were the responses from (a) the LLC personnel or were they from (b) the 'represented business' personnel. If (a) were they merely canned statements? If (b) under what assurances were you operating that these were in fact real statements from the alleged business/builder and a reliable, accountable commitment?

I would like to state that I appreciate your willingness to make this press release. These questions are about the city government as an entity, not aimed and any singular representative. I feel that these are legitimate questions that deserve a response from the governmental body at large.  

Patrick A Thibado (not verified)

I believe that this is what is meant when they refer to Menomonie as a news desert. No one answers the tough questions, they don't have to.  This guy is right, looks like an illegal set-up to me. A walking quorum where you divide, feed the answers to the questions you want them to ask and wrap it up in a bow for the kickbacks. I'll be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Menomonie has a new Data Center already. The mayor just hasn't cut the ribbon in public yet. Is there not one of the elected representatives of this city willing to answer these questions and stand up for the people they are supposed to represent? If not, then this is what we get because nobody in the city of Menomonie government has to answer to any media or to the public or the law it seems. News isn't just about reporting, it is also about holding people accountable for the news they make.

Steve Hanson

At this point, there is not even a plan for a data center other than a few rough concepts. There is no proposal. There are a few rough figures on water and power consumption if the building moves forward. All that has happened so far is that the land has been annexed and rezoned to commercial. 

As soon as there are actual facts to report on rather than conjecture and rumor, we will happily report on it. 

Patrick A Thibado (not verified)

Thank you for the reply, Steve. I am curious as to how anyone can do 'rough figures' without knowing the size and complexity of the proposal. The 'facts' as given to the citizens of this community are that the water and sewer utility demands are less than the glass plant and Stout, etc. Where did those figures come from if there is only a rough draft and who is to be held accountable if those figures are later proven to be wrong? Was there some comparable analysis based on rough draft? I have never, ever seen such a study that was even remotely valid. What was the criteria for the annexation? How did the city council members meet privately with anonymous persons regarding a concept and get any kind of basis for approving the annexation? How long ago did this process start and who was involved in bringing it along this far? Did these landowners just wake up one morning and decide collectively that they needed to have the city annex these X number of acres without an offer to purchase? Were the city council member meetings actually a walking quorum and if not are they on the record for public disclosure? Those questions are not about rumors and I might add that the way rumors spread and become 'common knowledge' is because of a lack of transparency. Doesn't the lack of transparency deserve questioning? Rumor has it that there were NDA's signed, is that not a valid basis to ask or do we have to wait until it becomes fact? Journalism is about asking the questions that should concern us all not just reporting the 'facts' as they are fed to us. I appreciate, very much, that this forum exists. This is not a critique of what you do or are working at, these are just more of the issues that we don't have access to. If I personally went to the city officials and asked these questions, I would not get answers and no one would even know. As a journalist, with a public forum, at least people would know that they refused to answer or what those answers were. Transparency.

Steve Hanson

There will at some point be another public hearing that directly addresses building a data center. By that time there will be a work proposal for construction and operation of the center. I also assume that at some time the land will be purchased. I would assume Balloonist has approached the land  owners with some sort of offer.  Although i understand the frustration of not knowing more about the proposed data center, this is all fairly typical of a large land acquisition for commercial purposes. We wish we knew more as well. 

Certainly, there have been NDA's signed, and there have been some discussions between individual board members and representatives from perhaps Balloonist LLC and maybe Quarles and Brady.  That is not the same thing as a walking quorum, which would happen if members of the City Council were meeting together in small groups to avoid having a quorum. As far as I know, this has not happened. 

We will at some point consider filing an information request with the city after the process moves along far enough that it makes sense to do so - that is a strain on our resources and we typically only do so when we believe there is actually something to find out. 

The city promised at their last board meeting to produce a series of documents answering those questions that can be answered at this time. The annexation and rezoning is not an approval of a data center. Yes, I am sure that a proposed data center helped to move that annexation along, and indeed the city is planning to use it for a commercial purpose, but that vote did not in any way approve building anything on the property. Please keep in mind that this is a project that might take place in 2027 so there is still a lot of time to figure this out. We are at the moment working on the belief that the city council is working in good faith - and if you attend the meetings, you will see that many of the council members also feel they are in the dark and are also more than a little frustrated - 

 

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


Eye On Dunn County Staff
About

Press releases and other content not written by a specific Eye On Dunn County author are listed as Eye On Dunn County Staff.