Residents urge Marion County to pause data‑center project, cite health, transparency and conflict‑of‑interest concerns

Residents urged Marion County Council on Thursday to delay decisions tied to a proposed data‑center project, saying the county lacks environmental studies and that secrecy around land deals and nondisclosure agreements has eroded public trust.

At the start of the public‑comment period, a resident raised conflict‑of‑interest concerns and asked the council for a moratorium, saying, "Let's slow down and let's see what's going on," and asserting overlapping board membership created opportunities for private gain. The speaker asked the council to "go home and mind before we make the final vote" if members had not completed due diligence.

Chelsea, who identified herself during the hearing, told the council many residents felt excluded after an NDA was signed and said the timing between the second and third reading limited community notice. "If you have not done your due diligence, then you owe it to us and everybody else in this town to do that," Chelsea said during her remarks.

Speakers repeatedly cited potential environmental and long‑term health risks tied to large industrial facilities and ancillary infrastructure, including concerns about disposal of solar panels and unspecified contamination. One commenter said the county already records high cancer rates and warned that adding another industrial source without fuller study could increase risks for future generations.

Several public commenters asked the council to require stronger contractual protections if the project proceeds. Suggestions included requiring long‑term performance bonds from major tenants (named by commenters as examples such as Meta or Google) so the county would not be left with abandoned industrial buildings and cleanup costs.

The public comments also queried recent land transactions connected to the project and asked why some property purchases were executed through a land‑subsidy group; speakers said overlapping participation on boards and related entities created the appearance of secrecy.

The council did not take a final vote on the project during the public‑comment period; later in the meeting the body moved into executive session and indicated no public action would be taken while in closed session. The matter will remain before the council for further consideration.