A group of seven families residing near the planned site of Bell’s AI data centre in Saskatchewan have expressed mounting frustration over a lack of communication from local authorities. Their concerns, spanning potential impacts on property values and quality of life, have largely gone unanswered as they navigate the complexities of the development process.
Community Concerns Ignored
The families, situated adjacent to the proposed data centre, have repeatedly reached out to the Rural Municipality (RM) of Sherwood in search of clarity regarding the project. In a letter addressed to the RM council, they lamented, “At every stage of this process our concerns have been deferred, reduced, or ignored.” While not outright opposing the development, they have voiced apprehension about how it may affect their daily lives.
Doug McKell, whose family has resided in the area for nearly a century and a half, highlighted the difficulty of extracting information from the RM. “We have the governance system in place so that these kinds of concerns should be able to be handled through their regular process,” he stated. “And for them to ignore that and not deal with us in their normal fashion, everybody in the area is very frustrated with that.”
A Timeline of Inquiries
From January to March 2026, the group made four formal requests to the RM, addressing critical issues such as noise, lighting, drainage, and groundwater protection. However, only the first submission, dated January 29, was publicly acknowledged on the RM’s website. Subsequent submissions, made on February 8, 17, and March 4, were notably absent from public records.
After receiving no response to their initial inquiries, the concerned landowners escalated their grievances by lodging a formal complaint with the Ombudsman on February 25. The RM’s council meeting agenda on March 16 indicated that both the Code of Ethics and the Ombudsman complaint were under discussion. Just two days later, in a surprising turn of events, four out of seven council members, including the Reeve and Deputy-Reeve, resigned without explanation.
New Leadership, New Hope
Following the unexpected resignations, the province’s Ministry of Government Relations appointed former SARM president Ray Orb as the new Reeve. Additional council members, Mitch Huber, Donna Strudwick, and Judy Harwood, were also brought in to fill the vacant positions. This shift in leadership has reignited hope among the affected families.
On March 25, the group submitted another letter to the RM, urging the council to incorporate specific binding conditions related to their concerns. They requested a response within a week, and on April 2, an executive summary of a development agreement was posted online, hinting at progress. The summary included provisions for noise management and roadway upgrades at the developer’s expense, alongside commitments to use dark-sky-compliant lighting.
Yet, the landowners remain cautious. They articulated in their correspondence that “a good faith process is not the same as a binding obligation and we cannot accept one in place of the other.” Their demand for enforceable commitments underscores their desire for tangible safeguards.
A Productive Meeting Offers a Glimmer of Optimism
On April 14, the landowners met with the newly appointed council members to express their concerns and advocate for binding conditions. The meeting reportedly fostered a sense of optimism, with residents feeling heard for the first time.
“I think moving forward, we’ll be able to work with this… I think they heard our issues and concerns, so that was positive,” McKell remarked after the meeting. However, no formal commitments were made, leaving the question of whether binding conditions will be included in the development agreement—scheduled for review on April 20—unanswered.
Why it Matters
This situation highlights the ongoing tension between development and community interests, particularly in areas where technology and infrastructure projects intersect with local life. As Saskatchewan continues to grapple with the implications of rapid technological advancement, the resolution of this case may set a precedent for how local governments engage with residents facing similar challenges. Ensuring that community voices are heard in these discussions is crucial for maintaining trust and promoting sustainable development that respects both the environment and the quality of life of its residents.
