The most notable issue of the evening involved the proposed data center, which residents argued was being pushed forward without adequate public input or consideration of its effects on the community. Multiple residents criticized the council for not conducting public hearings on the matter, with one resident expressing frustration over the lack of transparency and possible legal implications, stating, “you’re putting the city in jeopardy of litigation.” The resident emphasized the necessity for public commentary and urged the council to reconsider its stance on allowing residents to voice their concerns regarding the data center project.

Further complicating the dialogue was the annexation agreement related to the land designated for the data center. A resident warned that the existing agreement’s terms might be breached, potentially leading to legal action against the city. They expressed concern about the environmental and legal ramifications, stating, “you’re throwing the city down the damn drain.” This sentiment was echoed by several speakers who feared that the development could alter the character and livability of the area.

Residents also raised the issue of zoning classifications, pointing out discrepancies between the current light industrial zoning and the heavy industrial nature of the proposed data center, which would reportedly consume up to 760 megawatts of power. This discrepancy, they argued, could lead to further legal challenges. A structural engineer referred to the project as an “abomination,” citing the significant energy and security needs it would impose, akin to a “massive power plant” within the city.

The council faced scrutiny not only regarding the data center but also for broader concerns about transparency and community engagement. Residents accused the council of sidelining public opinion, with one individual lamenting the lack of communication and timely information about the project. They criticized the high cost of accessing city records, with an $8,000 quote given for retrieving communications related to the project.

The council’s approach to the proposed technology park, which includes the data center, was another focal point of contention. The proposed ordinance aimed to integrate Planned Unit Development (PUD) elements into city code to enhance transparency and accessibility. However, questions persisted about whether the ordinance would offer more robust oversight than traditional development agreements. Discussions around building setbacks, natural buffers, and other zoning requirements underscored the residents’ demand for more comprehensive measures to mitigate the project’s impact on nearby residential areas.

One resident pointedly criticized the council’s actions as “playing dirty,” accusing them of manipulating timelines and circumventing established rules. Another resident highlighted the broader implications of the city’s decisions on neighboring communities, emphasizing the lack of awareness among residents about developments occurring nearby.

The council’s handling of the project’s procedural aspects, particularly the lack of adequate public hearings, was a recurrent theme. Residents urged the council to reconsider its decision-making framework, advocating for a more inclusive approach that prioritizes community input and adheres to established agreements and regulations.

As the meeting progressed, council members debated various aspects of the proposed developments, including the potential impact on local infrastructure and emergency services. Concerns were raised about the fire department’s capacity to manage emergencies at the proposed data center, given its size and complexity. The council was urged to ensure that adequate measures were in place to handle such situations.