By John Dobberstein, Editor
COWETA — The city of Coweta knew about the data center being proposed for more than a year before it was publicly announced, and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) likely played a key role in the early silence.
Critics of the Project Atlas development proposed by Beale Infrastructure have accused city officials of keeping the project under wraps until it was formally announced in October, after the Sentinel first reported about the proposed project.
When nearly 200 acres of land was annexed in early October and rumors were ongoing about a data center proposed for the property, the Sentinel asked the city directly if the annexation was for a data center.
Coweta City Manager Julie Casteen responded, “Currently the city has only received a request for annexation,” and she did not mention a data center was being discussed — possibly because the NDA prevented her from doing so. The NDA did not appear to list a date for it to be terminated or lifted.
Two weeks later, flyers began appearing on the doors of some houses in Coweta about an open house slated to discuss Project Atlas, and the city and Beale Infrastructure publicly confirmed the data center proposal.
Casteen recently answered several questions from the Sentinel about the project’s timeline. When she signed an NDA with digital infrastructure fund manager IPI Partners — an LLC later acquired by Blue Owl — in May 2024 Casteen said she was aware that a data center was being proposed.
Blue Owl has seen its stock price tank by more than 40% this year due to a failed private fund merger. A class action lawsuit targeting Blue Owl has been announced by some investors in the company.
Casteen said the NDA she signed in May 2024 was the only one “signed by the city as an entity” during process. The Coweta City Council first became aware of the proposed project in the summer of 2024 and Council members were also asked to sign NDAs, she added.
According to Wagoner County records, the Coweta Industrial Development Authority sold 40 acres of property to Chicago-based Quartz Mountain Properties, a real estate developer, for $850,000 late last year. Quartz Mountain Properties is the same company that is developing the data center just south of Owasso.
County records also show a purchase agreement between property owners, Hopping Family Trust, and Quartz Mountain, which occurred in March.
Casteen said when Quartz Mountain approached the city about purchasing the land the company did reveal the purpose of the project. None of the details or project purpose was disclosed in city records about the land sale.
Casteen has said the developer has a purchase and sale agreement with both the CIDA and the Hopping Family Trust and that ownership of the properties will not transfer “until all contingencies are met, including the ability to meet all infrastructure needs of the project.
“If all needs are met, the developer will complete the PSAs and will own all the property needed for the project.”
When asked about NDAs in October, Beale Infrastructure said “initial stages” of discussion were covered by such an agreement, as is the case with most large economic development projects. NDAs are designed to, “allow for full consideration of the project by local officials ahead of advancing the project beyond exploratory discussions.”
The company added an open house held in October to formally announce the project to Coweta was designed to “be fully transparent with the public, to engage in open dialogue with the community, and to get all the facts about the project into the public arena.”
If city officials had refused to sign the NDAs there is no telling what would have happened with the project, although in general, delays in permitting, public opposition and other snafus have caused developers to pull proposals in some states. Several data center projects have been proposed in the Tulsa metro area in the past year.
Oklahoma Watch reported last week that a planned data center near Lawton fell through after Oklahoma’s land commissioners repeatedly delayed approving the lease, resulting in lost revenue for public education.
Negotiations Still Ongoing
A page on the city’s website about the project said the NDA was executed “to protect sensitive commercial details and to allow staff to fully evaluate the developer’s technical and operational needs before releasing the information to the public.”
City staff and Beale exchanged “detailed information” over several months about the city’s infrastructure capabilities and the project’s potential demands.
The city said it signed NDAs to protect proprietary and competitive information, “to protect the project’s competitive position while terms are finalized.”
“Confidentiality creates the space for frank discussions about infrastructure needs, incentives, schedules, and utility upgrades so the developer can commit to funding and technical plans without public disclosure disrupting the process,” the city said.
Casteen said the city is still waiting for Beale Infrastructure’s first written proposed development agreement and specifics weren’t available. Casteen plans to have a draft agreement ready for the Coweta Planning Commission’s meeting Jan. 19 to consider a rezoning request for the project.
If the Planning Commission votes to not recommend the project, the developers can request an appeal be heard by the City Council and that is typically automatically granted. And if the Planning Commission does recommend approval of the project that doesn’t obligated the City Council to approve it as well.
The city will hold public hearings on the project so residents can share concerns or express support. The Planning Commission public hearing will be held at 6 p.m. Jan. 19, 2026 at the ICTC Campus. A second public hearing before the City Council is slated for Feb. 2 at 6 p.m., also at the ICTC Campus.
Citizens Frustrated with NDAs
Data center proposals in other states have created some concern over NDAs and prompted state officials to consider revisions to laws that govern the agreements to increase transparency.
In cities across the U.S. where NDAs have been required during the discussion phase for proposed data centers, the agreements have been hugely unpopular with residents.
A recent NBC review of over 30 data center proposals across 14 states found that in most cases, local officials signed NDAs and worked with what appears to be “shell companies” that can conceal visibility into the project developers.
Five elected officials in different counties said agreements barred them from sharing information with their constituents, the network said in its report.
“That violates a very fundamental norm of democracy, which is that they are answerable first to the voters and their constituents, not to some secret corporation that they’re cutting deals with in the back room,” said Pat Garofalo, direct of state and local policy for the American Economic Liberties Project, a nonprofit organization focused on economic equality.
In 2023, Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola, filed House Bill (HB) 1378, which would require businesses of any kind seeking state or local incentives to fully disclose who they are and what they do, and also would prevent government officials from entering into NDAs. The bill never came to a vote in the House and died there.
Leave a Reply