Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the AI Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge moratorium on proposed AI data center during Kenosha council public comment
Summary
Multiple residents told the Common Council they oppose a proposed AI data center in Kenosha, citing water use, higher utility bills, public-health and privacy concerns; no formal council action on the project was taken at the April 6 meeting.
Several Kenosha residents used the council’s public‑comment period on April 6 to press elected officials for a pause on a proposed AI data center. Dorothy Nolan of 802 21st Street told the council “It’s time for a moratorium on AI data centers,” citing concerns about energy, jobs and local health impacts.
Doug Sinasfed, who said he works as a social worker, told council members that any rise in utility costs would hurt vulnerable residents and could force families to choose between power and medicine. He said he “very much support[s] a moratorium on the development of these data centers.”
J. R. Pratcher warned about large data centers’ water and subsidy impacts, saying that a single large facility “can use up to 5,000,005 gallons of water a day,” and urged the council to avoid tax abatements that he said shift costs to residents. Pratcher proposed that any abatement be matched by property tax relief for local residents and suggested exploring municipal energy options.
Nicholas Prorack urged the council to consider long‑term civic and environmental consequences, asking whether future Kenosha residents will live under “constant surveillance” and whether the city will protect clean air and water.
The statements were made during the public‑comment portion of the meeting; council members did not take a vote or take formal action on an AI data‑center moratorium at this session. The council’s agenda contained many other consent and committee items and did not include a formal proposal or ordinance to ban or pause data‑center development.
Clarifying details: the speakers cited several national and international examples and figures during public comment; those claims were presented as speaker assertions and were not independently verified at the meeting. The transcript lists a rate increase for We Energies (cited as "9.2 to 14%" depending on source) and an asserted water‑use figure for large data centers; those numbers were read aloud by speakers and are reported here as their statements rather than adjudicated facts.
Next steps: Council did not schedule or vote on a moratorium during this meeting. Members may refer the topic to staff or committees in a future agenda if they choose.
