Claremore council approves incentive districts and development deal for Project Mustang after heated public hearing

The Claremore City Council voted to approve the project plan and supporting agreements for Project Mustang — a proposed multi‑phase data center campus in the Claremore Industrial Park — after an hours‑long public hearing where residents raised concerns about water use, noise, property values and the pace of city outreach.

Lauren Harvey of BL Infrastructure, presenting the project on behalf of the developer, described design commitments intended to limit local impacts, including a minimum 300‑foot setback (greater than 800 feet in many areas), downcast LED lighting, stormwater detention ponds and preservation of Cat Creek. Harvey said the developer had committed $11 million to community investments and outlined projected long‑term benefits to local schools, workforce training and city services.

“If we can get the schedules of the train and figure out how to time our signal into it, it can help alleviate some of the traffic concerns,” Harvey said, and added the development agreement requires the project to use air‑cooled systems and to fund 100% of substation and grid upgrades so those costs do not pass to residents.

Opponents who testified during the public hearing urged the council to pause or table the measures. Speakers including Alexander Miller urged an indefinite moratorium until ongoing litigation and other legal questions are resolved: “Move to the table this TID decision and place an indefinite moratorium on Project Mustang,” Miller said. Other residents described fears about water availability, potential declines in property values, and the adequacy of public outreach.

Supporters — including representatives of the building trades and several electricians who said they have worked on data centers in Oklahoma — said the project will generate local construction work and training opportunities. “When local workers have steady work close to home, that money circulates back through our schools, businesses, churches and communities,” Sarah Gray, representing a local trades coalition, told the council.

Council members and staff engaged in detailed discussion before voting. City legal and staff counsel explained technical limits in the local development statute: minor boundary amendments may be made administratively only when they do not change the project character, add more than 5% area, or increase the project budget. Councilors also asked for clarification about the incentive districts’ timing; staff said each proposed phase may receive a 25‑year tax incentive, but phases must begin within 10 years and each phase’s term cannot be extended without returning to the full public process.

A motion to table the vote failed. On the ordinance creating the three incentive districts and adopting the project plan (Ordinance 20‑26‑11), roll call recorded seven votes in favor and two opposed (7–2), and the ordinance passed. The council then approved the development agreement that obligates the developer to pay for required infrastructure extensions and to deposit funds with the city for community uses; that motion carried, 6–3. Council also approved the retail electric service agreement and two large‑load tariff schedules (for ‘‘firm power’’ and ‘‘supplemental supply’’) intended to codify how a large electricity customer will be billed and to require the customer to cover the costs of its electric service infrastructure.

Key numbers and commitments noted on the record include staff statements that the developer will use air‑cooled equipment and that expected average water use for the facilities was discussed in the presentation as 15,000–20,000 gallons per day; staff also cited a projected project‑construction contribution (described on the record as a figure of roughly $203.1 million for project costs during initial remarks). The development agreement requires the developer to fund substation and grid upgrades and to deposit $2.5 million followed by another $2.5 million for community improvements, and to provide $250,000 annually to the city for the life of the project (terms appear in the agreement exhibits the council approved).

The council’s votes authorize the mayor and city designees to execute the documents required to effectuate the incentive districts and to enter the development and electric service agreements. Staff said the incentive districts become effective upon issuance of certificates of occupancy for the relevant phases (or may be subject to statutory timing limits if the phases do not begin within the prescribed period).

The council’s approval caps a process that included two years of negotiation between the developer and multiple taxing jurisdictions and a public hearing that drew dozens of speakers with sharply divided views. Several council members said they had spoken with many residents and weighed both the economic opportunity and the public concern about transparency and environmental impacts before casting their votes.

The development and incentive decisions now move to implementation steps described in the agreements, including interagency permitting (state environmental permitting and federal Clean Water/Clean Air oversight where applicable), construction of required utility upgrades funded by the developer, and the city’s administration of the incentive district and associated payments. The council did not vote on any conditional moratorium; instead it adopted the project documents and related tariffs.