Residents press commissioners for more information as county studies proposed data center

Dozens of residents, and several who identified themselves by name, used the public-comment period at the Oct. 7 Clinton County Commissioners meeting to press the board for more information about a proposed data center on rural land.

The commissioners said no vote would be taken at that meeting and that they were continuing a review period that could extend into November. “There are no, you know, there's no vote that's gonna be taken today,” a commissioner said during the meeting.

The speakers who addressed the board raised persistent concerns about economic impacts, transparency and the size of the project. Mary Lynn Peter questioned why the county had not disclosed who the eventual “end user” would be and criticized the developer’s use of a nondisclosure agreement. “Why don't we why aren't they telling us who is gonna be the end user of this?… It says there's an NDA signed to it. Why? We need to know why,” Peter said. Nathaniel Webb said he believed a data center would “do more harm than good,” arguing it lacked the productive value of traditional factories and could deter people from moving to the county.

Other speakers asked the commissioners to review both sides of the issue and to accept sworn affidavits as part of the record. One commenter said she had gathered 53 signed affidavits and asked commissioners to read them before referring them to county counsel. “There's 53 of these. So these are 53 of the people that signed under penalty of perjury to these claims,” the speaker said.

Commissioners reiterated procedural limits and timelines. The board said it had up to 90 days after the area plan vote to make a decision, and commissioners said they were conducting fact-finding and would not be rushed. One commissioner explained that meeting 1-on-1 with constituents is possible but that three-person or two-person meetings would require public notice. The board also noted that one commissioner, Brewer, was absent and that the discussion would continue at a later public meeting.

The public comments included suggestions for alternative economic development approaches (recreation or housing), and examples from nearby jurisdictions used as models for outreach. Several speakers asked the county to identify the developer’s proposed end user and to provide more public education about what a data center is and how it would affect the community.

Commissioners did not take formal action on the data center at the meeting. They told residents they would continue research and that a formal decision would be docketed when the board was prepared to vote; several commissioners suggested November meetings as likely next steps.

The discussion during public comment drew repeated requests for more transparency and for sworn affidavits to be considered under county rules. The board and staff advised residents to check county agendas posted online or to contact county staff for the most current docket information.

For now, the data center matter remains under study and no ordinance, contract award or other county action was adopted at the Oct. 7 meeting.