Residents press Mason County fiscal court for answers about confidential data-center project

Max Moran and several other residents used the fiscal-court public-comment period on July 15 to press elected officials for public information about a proposed data-center project they say is being negotiated in private.

"Have you signed a nondisclosure agreement in any aspect?" Moran asked, citing constituent concerns and documents he said came from the electric cooperative. Residents attributed a range of claims to those documents, including that the project could require about 2.2 gigawatts of electricity, use "millions of gallons" of water daily and need as much as 5,000 acres. Moran also said landowners had been offered up to $60,000 per acre, and he and others asked whether the county intended to use eminent domain to acquire land.

Judge McNeil and the court did not accept those assertions as county policy; they said no formal county action had been taken to acquire land and that eminent domain would not be invoked in advance. The county attorney said public officials try to be transparent but noted statutory exceptions: "Unfortunately, there's times when government can't be transparent. The statutes recognize that," he said, explaining that businesses often request confidentiality during early prospecting because public disclosure can expose proprietary information or affect stock prices and land values.

Tyler McCue, identified in the record as a Mason County Industrial Development Authority representative, told the court he had not been contacted by a prospect on this issue in his office hours: "I haven't had anyone come and see me or talk to me or call about this issue with my office right here." The statement was offered as the IDA's on-the-record response to residents' claims; the transcript contains inconsistent spellings of Tyler's last name (see attribution note below).

Residents raised several categories of local concern: possible water-supply impacts, changes in property values and taxes if large acreages convert to industrial use, noise from large facilities and the potential displacement of families living on parcels being marketed. One commenter said some peer communities had publicly answered questions at early meetings and provided direct contact lines; the fiscal court encouraged residents to submit written questions and suggested the court would respond publicly and hold hearings in larger venues should zoning or other actions be required.

County officials repeatedly said that many of those local safeguards — zoning changes, public hearings and appeal rights — would take place if and when developers sought approvals that require county action. Officials also said state and federal agencies regulate certain safety and environmental standards that local governments do not administer.

The court did not take any formal votes or make commitments on the proposed project during the meeting. Members encouraged residents to submit questions in writing so court staff and relevant agencies could provide documented answers and schedule any necessary public hearings in a room large enough to accommodate community interest.

Ending

The fiscal court closed the public-comment period with a pledge to collect written questions and to respond publicly; it emphasized that formal opportunities for comment would arise through zoning hearings or contract approvals if developers seek county action. No permits or county commitments were made at the July 15 meeting.