Conflicting community input continues to emerge as city officials grapple with the distribution of public funds from AI properties here.
As the Advisory Board Related to Public Use Funds from AI properties mulls over data collected through a city-led survey, committee members note discrepancies are apparent, as a community-led survey tells a different story.
The city distributed a survey to residents following the committee’s first meeting after members voiced concerns about community participation. The survey was updated based on board and community partner recommendations.
City of Memphis Chief of Staff Renee Sekander said, during the board’s meeting on Thursday, that the survey was a tool to gauge and organize feedback, and that the city garnered a total of 250 responses from residents in the 38109 and 38116 ZIP codes.
Sekander went over the results from the city’s survey and said a majority of respondents wanted to see the funds used for home repairs, weatherization, and public safety, which aligned with responses prior to redistribution.
Respondents also commented on environmental health concerns and said they wanted air quality monitoring, mitigation of health impacts, environmental testing, and compensation for pollution exposure.
“We are seeing several overlapping priorities,” Sekander said. “Now the work is to translate those priorities into recommendations that are specific, eligible, and realistic within the funding that is available.”
Board and city council member Yolanda Cooper-Sutton said the results of the survey seemed to align with what she heard speaking with community members. She noted it was important that these recommendations make it into the city’s budget.
Council member Pearl Eva Walker added there was “intersectionality” between clean and safe neighborhoods and environmental and health concerns.
Cooper-Sutton said she believed they were primed to move forward with the recommendations, however board chairman KeShaun Pearson said the recent survey was only “words and rankings” and was “woefully horrible.”
“Offering words, which are subjectively defined, is not adequate in order to move forward in the direction where folks can feel competent about the decision they’re making,” Pearson said.
Pearson said the survey failed to inform respondents about the process of the property tax revenue disbursement, and that the board needed to understand the “totality” of their decisions based on public input.
He referenced a survey distributed by Memphis Community Against Pollution (MCAP), which elevates community health and environmental concerns.
Vice chairman Kelsey Huse noted that the mayor created the fund as a way to study the impacts of the communities affected by AI centers. She said the corresponding ordinance does not define those impacts and they were not given to the board.
Huse referenced comments made by Mayor Paul Young that alluded to a move away from examining health impacts, which she said clashes with continued reporting from both local and national groups on xAI’s environmental impact.
According to a community impact survey distributed by MCAP, Young, Gifted & Green, and Protect Our Aquifer, 85 percent of residents showed concerns about water reuse and recycle, air monitoring, and more.
Huse said this survey showed the most requested community benefit from residents living closest to xAI was the creation of local jobs and training opportunities.
The vice chairman asked that the board consolidate the administration’s survey with the one made by community partners for “official community engagement data to be used to justify any spending decisions.”
Sekander said the administration is not ignoring community fear, environmental issues, and community trust. She said the board’s responsibility is to translate these concerns into eligible and actionable recommendations.
With only one board meeting left, Sekander said it was important for the board to look into what the recommendations look like.
“The longer we discuss the survey, the longer the community goes without the funding they are so desperately in need of,” Sekander said. “I would like us to continue moving forward and defining what those tangible recommendations can be, so they can be presented to the council and the council can serve as the final decision-makers on how the funding is issued.”