Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge one-year moratorium on proposed AI data center; business owners defend project
Summary
Speakers at the Independence City Council public-comment period urged a one-year moratorium on approvals for a proposed large AI data center, citing transparency, environmental and utility concerns; local business owners countered that the project could bring jobs and revenue. The council took no moratorium vote at the meeting.
Residents and business owners traded sharply different accounts of the proposed AI data center during public comment at the June 15 Independence City Council meeting.
Kelly Garrett, a resident and member of the Guard Alliance, urged the council to "press pause" and adopt a one-year moratorium so the city can commission independent analysis and solicit public input. "One year is not obstruction. One year is governance," Garrett said, adding the moratorium is aimed at addressing what she described as "gaps in the deal you've already approved." Garrett cited several specific concerns: she said the community benefits plan "creates no binding legal obligations," that the proposal contained no caps on water consumption and no caps on power draw, and that the analysis the council received was paid for by the company receiving the benefit. Garrett also told the council it had preapproved a "$6,260,000,000 tax abatement in a closed executive session with no public vote," a point she presented as evidence of inadequate public process.
Daniel Morehead, another resident, framed the issue as one of transparency and public-records access. He said he paid $87.36 for a public-records request (Request ID 5786416) that remained unanswered after 90 days and alleged that nondisclosure agreements had been signed around the data-center discussions. "Elected officials should never sign NDAs," Morehead said as he urged the council to correct course.
Speaking in favor of the council's decisions, Torrance Kelly, an owner of a local tax and accounting firm and president of the Inglewood Business Association (speaking for himself), said rejecting the project locally would likely shift environmental and utility impacts to neighboring communities while removing potential local benefits. "If the goal is simply to punish members of this council for making a difficult decision, then I would respectfully suggest that once you are finished, you turn that same expectation inward," Kelly said, arguing that the demand for data centers is regional and driven by consumer behavior.
Other residents echoed both perspectives. Joni Flanagan described grassroots work on a recall petition and urged council members to hold town halls in their districts; Wes Epperson cautioned that the city needs new revenue after retail declines and estimated the data center could generate $35 million to $55 million annually for the city.
No formal moratorium vote occurred at the meeting. Council discussion during the evening focused on routine business and the budget ordinance on the regular agenda; the public-comment speakers asked the council to consider time for independent study, stronger contractual protections (including enforceable community-benefit provisions and caps on utility use), and greater transparency about closed-session decisions.
The council did not make a public action on the moratorium during this meeting; members and staff did not announce a plan for immediate follow-up on the points raised.
What happens next: citizens urged a formal pause and additional independent review; council members present did not place a moratorium vote on the June 15 agenda and proceeded with consent and budget items.
