Several residents used the hearing of visitors at the Dec. 2 Waco City Council meeting to urge the council to scrutinize and, when appropriate, block a proposed large‑scale data center project north of the city that speakers said would occupy roughly 500 acres.

Mark Dawson told council he represented families north of Waco and asked that the council consider the long‑term consequences for local ways of life if such a plant proceeds. "It's also going to be about whether or not you choose to preserve a way of life that has been going there for probably a couple of hundred years," Dawson said.

Mary Beechner said a petition she started collected more than 1,500 signatures in two weeks and identified the developer as "Infra Key DC Parks Company," calling the proposed complex a "water‑guzzling, air and sound polluting" AI data center that would damage the countryside and community fabric.

Lauren Hill cited examples from other states where data centers limited public access to water‑use information and warned such facilities can consume millions of gallons of municipally treated water per day. She told council that marketing claims about on‑site power should not be interpreted as community power supply; instead, the company would use on‑site generation to operate its own facility.

Shauna Feniger told council Waco is already operating under a year‑round water conservation plan and said that Lacey Lakeview purchases its water from Waco, giving the city direct regulatory and utility‑control interest. She urged council members to place the subject on a future agenda and to stand with constituents.

Mayor Jim Holmes and other council members responded that many of the proposed data center projects the public has discussed are located in the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and have not yet been formally presented to the council. The mayor said he could not respond in more detail at the meeting but acknowledged the public concern.

What comes next: Residents asked the council to put the matter on a future agenda; no formal application tied to the city was considered at this meeting and no votes were taken on the data center proposals.

Provenance: Public comments and petition references (SEG 1225–1288; SEG 1306–1367; SEG 1376–1443; SEG 1463–1513); mayoral clarification about ETJ status (SEG 1295–1304).