County moves forward with proposed data center discussions

By John Watson Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

Proposed changes to the Goldfinch Industrial Area Structure Plan land use bylaws are progressing, though have yet to be finalized following Wheatland County council’s July 7 meeting. 

Three bylaws were brought before council over the course of the meeting, following presentations by the applicant, Diode Ventures, and members of the public. 

These included an amendment to the Goldfinch Industrial ASP, which would provide the appropriate language within the bylaw to facilitate the development of a data processing facility as a legal and appropriate use case, land redesignation from Agricultural General to Industrial General for the subject lands, and the closure of a portion of Range Road 264 to public travel in order to consolidate the adjacent lands.

Though the former two both received up to their second readings, the road closure bylaw was defeated at the first reading stage. 

“This is a privately-funded venture that is going to bring some employment and some tax base to Wheatland County, and I think that when someone has their own skin in the game, whether it’s Diode or Diode’s partner, those people are going to do more things to make sure the thing works than it would be, say, if it was a taxpayer-funded venture,” said Coun. Berle Hebbes.

Coun. Glenn Koester weighed in prior to the vote, noting the emphasis from members of the public on water use and noise pollution from the facility being among their primary concerns. 

To this point, he said he felt satisfied with the answers which had been provided by Diode Ventures and would be interested in observing changes made prior to third readings, or in the development permit stages of the project in order to further quell public dissent. 

Because permission was not granted unanimously by council to hold third readings for the ASP amendment, nor the land redesignation during the same meeting, both bylaws will have to be brought forward during a future meeting. 

“I am not in favour of this project. I won’t be voting for this … the reason is there was so much opposition and that is on the industry,” said Biggar. “I feel bad that the industry – maybe they are doing everything they can to mitigate things that have happened in the past, but they are there, and they have to get out in front of the public and make sure this information is out there that changes are being made, and they are good changes.”

Coun. Keith Clayton spoke to the merit in inviting the estimated 100 jobs into the community which would be provided upon the completion of the facility campus, making a comparison to the opportunities offered by Cameco since their development in Canada.

“We are not taking this decision lightly, but we must consider the needs of the whole county along with the needs of the local community,” added Coun. Shannon Laprise. “Even if we approve all of these (bylaws), no buildings will be built, no earth will be moved, nothing will be happening until all of the issues raised are resolved at the next stage.”

She reiterated the county will reserve the ability to quash the application at any stage prior to groundbreaking should council feel an application is inadequate or inappropriate.

Laprise added the advent of industrial taxpayers keeps prices low for municipal residents, and further that the county is not responsible for the preservation of farmland. 

“We can’t direct an owner to use their land for farming. We protect (agricultural) land as much as we can by directing development to dedicated areas such as Goldfinch and limiting the amount of non-agriculture subdivisions on every other quarter section,” she said. “I appreciate the desire to protect (agricultural) land as much as we can, but the reality is that the tax revenue off of (agricultural) lands is not enough to sustain our county.”

Reeve Scott Klassen and councillors Laprise, Hebbes, Clayton, and Koester voted in favour of passing the motions for first and second readings, with Coun. Biggar and Coun. Rick Laursen opposed (5-2 in favour).

The Road Closure bylaw was defeated by council, 5-2 against, with only Klassen and Laprise in support. This was largely due to safety and fire response on a road which actively sees significant local traffic numbers. 

Bylaws 2025-32 and 2025-34 will be returned before council, Aug. 11, for further discussion, debate, and potential approval of third readings.