Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents at St. Louis County listening session urge board to oppose proposed data center, question NDAs
Loading...
Summary
Residents near the proposed Greater Duluth data center told the St. Louis County board they oppose the project because of traffic, noise, environmental and property-value impacts. Several speakers also criticized commissioners— use of nondisclosure agreements and called for more transparency after a contentious prior meeting.
St. Louis County residents urged the County Board to oppose a proposed data center in the Greater Duluth area and criticized commissioners— use of nondisclosure agreements at a listening session Monday morning.
Jeffrey Donahue, who said he lives at 5540 Pine Hill Road in Midway Township, told the board, "I am against the data center," and urged officials to survey northern residents about the project. Donahue said related preparatory work — including property purchases and a new substation — suggested the development was being advanced without adequate public input and that signed nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) by commissioners were "unethical."
The speakers said the facility would be "heavy commercial," not "light commercial," and listed anticipated local impacts: loss of wildlife habitat, increased noise and traffic, and lower residential property values. Donahue, who said he worked as an appraiser for 23 years, said property values near Midway Township, Hermantown, Solway, Adolph and Proctor could fall while corporate investors would benefit.
Noel Donahue, a recent resident who moved from Southern California, said she chose the area for its rural character and does not expect to receive the economic benefits developers have promised. "I don't see any benefit to adding another 20% of cars on Midway Road," she said, and added that wetlands and natural areas would be lost. She also criticized elected officials who sign NDAs and said she would not vote for commissioners who withhold information from constituents.
John Ramos, publisher of the Duluth Monitor, addressed the board about conduct at a previous meeting and asked that a board member publicly respond to what he described as "smearing and disparaging" of him; he said he had seen no one call members to account. Other commenters repeated calls for greater transparency and said decisions should not be "arbitrary and capricious," referencing a court opinion and the Marketable Title Act in their remarks.
No formal action or votes were recorded during the listening session. The board—s facilitator said the session would end and the board would reconvene for its regular meeting at about 10 a.m.
Speakers at the session framed their concerns as local and immediate: traffic and noise increases on Midway Road, possible declines in property values, and the loss of wetlands and habitat. Several speakers urged the board to increase public engagement, including surveys and town meetings, before allowing further project development or accepting confidentiality agreements.
The comments at the listening session did not include staff presentations or formal responses from commissioners during the recorded segment. The County Board did not announce a timeline for any formal review or vote on the project during the session.
