Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Saturday River topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Clinton council to pause "Project Saturday River," cite health, water, zoning and transparency concerns
Summary
At a Clinton City Council meeting, residents urged officials to pause consideration of Project Saturday River — described by speakers as a hyperscale AI campus — and pressed for a moratorium, stronger ordinance language on water and generator use, and greater transparency about early contacts between developers and city officials.
Residents pressed the Clinton City Council during the public‑comment portion of a regular meeting to pause work on a proposed hyperscale AI campus called Project Saturday River and to give the city time to draft stricter regulations.
Speakers said the project is more than a typical data center and raised concerns about noise, so‑called infrasound, air pollution, large water withdrawals, emergency generator emissions and the city’s adherence to its comprehensive plan. “This isn’t about a data center. It’s about fairness, consistency, and the trust that residents place in their local government,” said Amy Weiser, who said she and her neighbors had relied on long‑standing agricultural and residential use of land that is now labeled industrial on city maps.
The concerns were echoed by multiple residents. Victoria Bailey argued the proposal goes beyond conventional data‑center use and asked how the project aligns with Iowa Code section 414.3 and Clinton’s future land use map 5.3, which she said designates much of the site as agricultural. Sarah Dunn urged a minimum 180‑day moratorium to allow the city time to write stricter rules; she cited New York’s recent one‑year moratorium and the City of Aurora’s pause and ordinance as comparison points. “Decisions like this will have long term effects on the well‑being of our community,” Dunn said.
Other commenters raised process questions. Christine Voss told the council she had obtained emails she said show city officials, including the mayor, were engaged with project representatives as early as 2024 — a claim Voss recommended the council address in light of earlier statements that 'there was no proposal.' Celeste Robbins read from a records release she said details a proposed incentive package, including an incremental tax rebate equal to 50% of eligible incremental property taxes per building and a potential unconditional developer contribution of up to $20,000,000 toward a sports complex.
Several speakers urged specific changes to the draft ordinance. Catherine Wing Calvin recommended capping non‑emergency generator run time, prohibiting evaporative cooling during declared heat or drought days, requiring reflective roofing and canopy cover instead of dark exteriors, and adding mandatory disclosure of water‑use permits. Marlena Mick pointed to local air‑quality grades and asked whether the city should accept more pollution in a community already rated poorly in particulate and ozone metrics.
City attorney Pat (addressing the council) explained why planning and zoning commission members have limited communications when acting in an adjudicative role and said the commission will independently evaluate the ordinance. Pat said the commission has independent counsel for complex matters and recommended that interested residents bring their concerns to the commission meeting scheduled by staff.
No formal moratorium or ordinance change was enacted at the meeting. The council closed the public‑comment session and proceeded to other agenda items; planning and zoning commission review and additional council action are the next procedural steps.
