Multiple residents used the public comment period to press council for more independent analysis and transparency about a proposed data center and the county’s May 18 information session.
Stephen McKeen, a 34-year resident and former planning commissioner, urged the council to protect water rights and noted that much of the county relies on well water. "Where is the water coming from and who hurts the worse when we take it away from?" he asked, warning that farmland converted to development "can never be farmland again." He also said the county needs clarity on the scale of projects ("60 megahertz vs. 60 gigahertz" in his phrasing) so officials know what class of facility they are approving.
Jamie Johnson said he was concerned the May 18 panel included two people who are pro–data center (an economic development consultant and a utility executive) and that the county had stated it would not include panelists opposed to the project. "We need to know the downside of a data center," Johnson said, urging the county to present both sides and to avoid a session that simply markets the project.
Other speakers echoed concerns about water, electricity and long-term economic benefits. Julia Pinkney asked specifically for an environmental element to the May 18 session and for clear answers about who would pay for water and infrastructure costs. Another resident urged councilors not to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) with developers because NDAs limit public scrutiny.
Why this matters: Residents say data centers can place sustained demands on water and power infrastructure and that secrecy or one-sided presentations could produce decisions that do not reflect local interests or long-term costs.
What happens next: Council postponed the third reading of the data-center ordinance until after the May 18 public information session; staff reiterated they will take questions submitted via QR code and the public may submit questions the night of the session that the moderator will present.