Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Qts Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to pause and require safeguards as QTS data center proposal draws heavy opposition
Summary
Hundreds of Clinton residents urged the City Council to slow consideration of a proposed QTS hyperscale data center, citing water, noise, traffic, air‑quality, farmland loss and aviation concerns and calling for independent studies and a moratorium.
Clinton residents used the city council’s public-comment period to press elected officials on a proposed QTS hyperscale data center, urging the council to slow the process, require independent studies and demand binding financial and environmental protections.
Catherine Win Calvin, representing Young, Gifted and Green, warned that the city’s zoning was not designed for a campus of the scale QTS has described — “a Clinton campus composed of 10 buildings of approximately 500,000 square feet each” — and urged the council not to approve any site plan until a federal FAA review (Form 7460‑1) and local airport zoning analysis are complete. “The council should not approve a site plan in this order until the federal review and any local airport zoning analysis is complete and on the record,” she said.
Speakers across the public‑comment block raised related concerns. Connie Schmitz cited studies on data‑center energy and water use and asked the council to require an independent grid‑impact assessment and a binding guarantee that the cost of new generation, transmission and substation infrastructure would be borne by the developer. Wayne Gleason, whose home borders the proposed site area, questioned residential impacts of continuous operational noise and construction traffic, pointing to complaints near other large data‑center campuses.
Other speakers pressed procedural issues and transparency. Several callers asked whether the city would commission its own impartial environmental, water‑use and traffic studies rather than rely solely on materials supplied by QTS. Jeff Chapman referenced a recently enacted state law (Senate File 2304) and urged councilmembers to review implications for utility and infrastructure costs. Multiple residents urged a moratorium; Robin Snow told the council, “we are closed for business and not for sale,” and Christine Boss asked the council to “pause and reflect” on water and other impacts.
City Attorney Pat described the legal process the city is using to address data centers: drafting a comprehensive zoning ordinance (to require studies of water use, electrical grid impacts, road‑use agreements, noise and light mitigation), review by the plan commission, public hearings and then council consideration. Pat said a draft ordinance exists and emphasized that plan commission review and public hearings must occur before any data center could be located under current procedures.
Residents asked for specifics the council did not provide at the meeting: whether independent studies will be funded by the city or the developer; what enforcement mechanisms (trusts, fines, or escrowed funds) the council will require; and whether an explicit moratorium will be pursued. Several commenters suggested the council hire independent technical experts and hold listening sessions to rebuild public trust before moving forward.
The council did not vote on the data‑center proposal itself during the meeting. The city attorney said zoning and ordinance work remain before any development agreement or construction could proceed.
