Residents from areas near the proposed site of a large data center urged Young County commissioners to proceed cautiously, citing water‑rights concerns, traffic impacts and potential loss of home values.

Multiple speakers during the public‑comment period said the project could span 10 to 12 years of construction and pointed to an existing waterline built for a flood facility that may be controlled by the city. One commenter told the court the petition circulated last week had been “vetted” to remove non‑registered voters, reducing signatory totals; another said neighbors had already canceled pending home sale contracts because of the proposed center.

The most detailed testimony came from a resident who described how construction traffic and three proposed entrances (two on FM 61 and one on Murray Highway) would put a new access road close to private driveways and a golf course, and warned of noise, dust and diminished quality of life. She said, “we're going to lose a lot of money for the value of our house,” and asked commissioners to weigh the “human side” of any economic incentives.

Commissioners and staff answered factual questions from residents about who is negotiating with the developer and what options the city may have over water or easements. The presiding official said the developer had told county leaders it expects to launch a website with frequently asked questions this week and open a local office in early December; he promised to distribute that link when it is available. Commissioners also clarified that project proponents appear to be operating under several related corporate names — the clerk described Headwaters as the development arm and Scribe (referred to in discussion as the operating company) as the operations arm.

Residents raised questions about tax abatements and whether the company would tap city utilities or build water infrastructure itself; commissioners said they had not yet seen a formal site plan and could not confirm contract terms. Several commenters urged the court to learn from neighboring counties’ experiences and to negotiate termination protections and limits on incentives if the county signs any agreements.

The public‑comment period closed with the court noting staff and the developer had indicated outreach materials were forthcoming; no formal county action on the project was taken during the meeting.