Claremore council hears developers’ pitch for data center and more than two hours of public comment on water, privacy and incentives

Claremore City Council on a public meeting heard a presentation from the Claremore Industrial and Economic Development Authority and Field Infrastructure about a proposed data center inside the Claremore Industrial Park and then took more than two hours of public comment, during which residents pressed officials on water use, alleged early financial disclosures and other safeguards. No council approval was taken; staff said the proposal is still in diligence and will return to taxing entities and the TID committee for further review.

The presentation opened with Maggie (executive director of the Claremore industrial/economic development body) describing the authority’s role and the site-selection process. She said the industrial park has been active since the 1980s, that nearly 2,700 jobs have been created there over time and that the authority evaluates proposals through an ‘‘site selection elimination funnel’’ so that only well‑defined projects are presented for public action.

Lauren Murphy, development director at Field Infrastructure, said the company designs and develops data centers and described the proposed site layout: buildings to house servers, office and maintenance space, an on‑site customer substation and a primary GRDA substation paid for by the developer. Murphy said the project is being planned as an air‑cooled facility (the team told the council there will be no on‑site solar) and that it remains subject to state and local permitting, including clean‑water and air permits. She described a multi‑phase build, with permitting and design work this summer and a target for phase‑1 completion in 2028 if everything proceeds on schedule.

On jobs, presenters estimated roughly 800 construction jobs annually during the multi‑year build and ‘‘conservatively’’ 35–70 direct technology/operator positions once the site is fully operating, plus a larger number of full‑time subcontracted roles (security, HVAC, electrical, maintenance) that Murphy said can be hired locally. Maggie and city staff described outreach to local training partners and plans for vendor outreach during procurement.

Public commenters pressed the presenters and city staff on a range of concerns. John Whitefield of Claremore said, "I read they want to use 1,500,000 gallons a day to cool this site," and asked how the project would fare in drought conditions. Developers and staff responded that the proposed design is air‑cooled and that closed‑loop well testing in the area (cited in the presentation as a comparison) uses about "70,000 gallons per day" per testing well; presenters emphasized the project would follow state permitting requirements and use stormwater detention and best‑management practices to limit runoff.

Several residents raised data‑privacy and process concerns. Teresa Luce of Claremore asked, "Why did the city provide its bank routing account number to a private developer before this project was approved? Why were funds already being deposited into city accounts tied to this project before the public had a meaningful chance to weigh in?" City staff said the city authorized creation of a separate bank account (outside the general fund) to allow developer‑funded, long‑lead procurement of equipment and that those funds were used to reimburse a public utility partner that provided work orders and invoices. Staff insisted the arrangement was authorized in a public meeting and was designed to keep taxpayer funds separate from developer procurement.

Other common concerns included noise, wetlands and emergency risk. Murphy said designers are targeting a 55‑decibel threshold for site noise and plan to enclose air coolers and add attenuation; she noted air‑cooled systems tend to be louder than water‑cooled systems but that the team is designing to meet the city’s industrial noise expectations. City engineering staff described the permitting and inspection regime for stormwater (Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality) and said the city typically brings outside consultants on large projects and maintains a full‑time stormwater specialist.

Council members and staff repeatedly emphasized that the project is still proposed and subject to additional steps. City staff said due diligence continues — including rate‑development work, contract and securitization language and coordination with taxing jurisdictions — and that the tax‑incentive committee (the TID committee) and affected taxing entities will review any payment‑in‑lieu or incentive proposals in publicly noticed hearings. A city official told the council to expect follow‑up work from the TID committee and taxing jurisdictions in roughly the next 60–100 days, after which the council could be asked to consider establishing a tax‑incentive district.

The meeting closed with repeated statements from council members that they had listened to resident concerns and would consider the record. No formal approvals or tax‑incentive decisions were made at the meeting; the project remains in evaluation and will return for additional public process and decision points.

What happens next: the developer and city staff said permitting/diligence work will continue; the TID committee and taxing jurisdictions will review any incentive package; and further public hearings and council consideration are expected before any final action.