Developer defends confidential Marion County data center as residents demand answers
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A developer presentation on a confidential data-center project in Marion County prompted heated public comment; the company said the facility uses closed-loop cooling and will fund required utility upgrades, while residents accused officials of withholding information and demanded public meetings.
Anthony Boler, a project representative who identified himself as a stream manager, told Marion County council members and residents that the confidential data-center project now under review was designed to be "a very safe, clean, secure facility" with minimal local impacts. "The facility will have used a closed blue cooling system, meaning there is no daily water consumption for cooling," Boler said, adding that stormwater would be managed to post-development standards and that mechanical equipment would be enclosed and screened.
Boler also said the developer will "fully fund the required electrical infrastructure and utility upgrades" and projected each building would contribute "at least $12,000,000 per year to the county's [tax base]," language he used to emphasize long-term economic benefits. He described data centers as "quiet, safe, environmentally responsible neighbors and strong contributors to the local communities in which we operate."
Residents challenged that account during a public comment period, saying they had not been told the project was on the record and accusing officials of excluding the public from the process. One attendee asked, "Why did you lie?" directing the question at an elected official during public remarks. Multiple speakers criticized the council for proceeding without what they said was adequate notice and demanded specific dates for informational meetings.
Council staff responded that the ordinances being considered at the meeting were not directly related to the data-center project and that the council would schedule public meetings. The council later proposed two dates for additional public sessions—Feb. 24 (evening) and Feb. 26 (morning)—so residents could ask questions and get more information.
What happened next: councilmembers moved to schedule the informational meetings and recorded motions and a voice vote on related motions; the transcript records the scheduling motion and second but not a detailed roll-call tally.
Why it matters: the presentation and the public response underline a split between developer assurances about environmental and infrastructural mitigation and local residents’ demand for transparency and timely public engagement. The council’s pledge to hold informational meetings is the next procedural step; no final approvals or incentive decisions for the data-center project were recorded at this session.