So, I got a little story for ya Ags. My kid did a Open Records Request with all the correspondence around Priority Power. This is a post regarding the NDA, key dates, etc. So, without any further ado, here's the Timeline according to AI.

The Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) referenced throughout is a Mutual Non-Circumvention Non-Disclosure Agreement (NCNDA) between Priority Power Management, LLC (PPM) and the City of College Station (COCS). It was established to protect confidential information during early discussions about a proposed data center project in the Midtown Business Park. The document facilitated sharing details on land pricing, utility capacity, site plans, and project feasibility while preventing either party from bypassing the other in related business dealings or disclosing sensitive data.

Key Details

• Parties Involved:
  
  • PPM: Represented by Peter Loginov (Senior Manager - Commercial Operations).
  • COCS: Signed by city officials including Michael Ostrowski (Chief Development Officer), Jeff Kersten (likely finance or legal), Aaron Leonard (City Attorney or deputy), and Bryan Woods (City Manager).
• Purpose and Scope:
  
  • Mutual protection of proprietary information, such as project specifics, pricing for sub-districts B and C of the business park, utility infrastructure (e.g., electric and water capacity), and conceptual plans.
  • Non-circumvention clause to ensure neither party engages third parties to avoid direct dealings.
  • Enabled exploratory talks starting in October 2024, restricting public discussion until the project became official (e.g., agenda posting).
• Timeline:
  
  • October 2-11, 2024: Initial contact from PPM to COCS about the business park. PPM attaches the first draft ("PPM Mutual NCNDA - Oct 2021.doc") on October 11 for review.
  • October 16-28, 2024: COCS legal team reviews and proposes revisions. PPM responds with redlines, noting that some changes "essentially negated the entire NDA." Compromises are made, with comments removed in a final version ("PPM Mutual NCNDA - Oct 2021 (COCS 10-22-24).doc").
  • November 5, 2024: Meeting acceptance for "PPM NDA" in the City Attorney Conference Room, likely for final review.
  • November 8, 2024: Routed internally for signatures via DocuSign, using contract number C#25300148. Attached partially executed version and Contract Action Request Form (CARF).
  • November 13, 2024: Completed and signed via DocuSign ("Priority Power NDA - Complete_with_Docusign_25300148--RF.pdf"). Sent back to PPM.
  • September 2025: NDA expires upon posting of the city council agenda item (Item 9.5) for the land sale, allowing public discussion. This leads to tensions, as seen in emails where Councilman Bob Yancy questions when the "silence was lifted."
• Key Terms (Inferred from Correspondence):
  
  • Confidentiality: Covered project details like power interconnect points, acreage pricing (e.g., $110,000-$150,000 per acre based on size), and environmental impacts (e.g., noise from fans, water usage).
  • Duration: Likely 12-18 months or until project disclosure, as it tied into due diligence periods in related contracts.
  • Revisions: COCS pushed for changes to limit scope; PPM noted revisions risked undermining the agreement's intent.
  • No specific penalties mentioned in emails, but standard NDAs include legal remedies for breaches.
• Related Context and Controversies:
  
  • The NDA limited council discussions, causing friction. In January 2025, Yancy raises questions about its lift date and transparency.
  • By September 2025, with public opposition mounting, the NDA is shared with citizens upon request (e.g., Councilman William Wright forwards it).
  • PPM emphasized being "good stewards" environmentally, but the NDA shielded early details from public scrutiny, contributing to later backlash over noise, power demands, and health risks.

The full NDA text isn't embedded in the emails but is referenced as attachments.

One thing to note - The NDA was sent back to PPM on November 13th. Council was sworn in Nov. 14th.

So, how could they have approved?

Also, this records request covered all of 2024, and former city officials. That is not mentioned at all. Again, who gave permission?

Edit to add, link to the Staff_Correspondence.PDF

91_Aggie said:

---

More evidence that our City Manager is not doing what is best for the citizens of College Station and needs to go.

---

Let's double-click down on him, shall we?

The PDF "Staff_Correspondence.pdf" contains several email threads involving Bob Yancy (a Councilman) and Bryan C. Woods (City Manager) from the City of College Station, Texas. Their direct exchanges center on the proposed data center project with Priority Power Management (PPM), focusing on project details, process concerns, legal issues like NDAs, and personal tensions. The document has duplicates, but I've consolidated unique interactions.

The exchanges span January to September 2025 and evolve from initial questions about the project's viability to heated debates over transparency, NDAs, and professional conduct. Below is a timeline based on email dates, with summaries, key quotes, and page references for context. Note that some threads include cc'd parties (e.g., John Nichols, Michael Ostrowski, Adam Falco), but the focus is on direct messages between Yancy and Woods.
January 24, 2025: "Observations & Questions" Thread (Pages 128-132, 151-155, 380-388)

This is the earliest and most substantive direct exchange, initiated by Yancy's concerns about the data center project. It involves multiple back-and-forth emails on the same day, debating the need for more information before proceeding.

• 2:53 PM: Bob Yancy to Bryan Woods and Michael Ostrowski (cc: John Nichols) Yancy sends a detailed email outlining his position on city growth and lists 10 specific questions about the data center, including land use, water/power demands, collocated businesses, NDA details, valuation, and public input. He expresses hesitation: "To me the decision was simply too big and too early to make last night. Maybe a fantastic opportunity. Perhaps even probably so. I'm just still not there." (Pages 130-132, 153-154, 381-382, 385-386, 388)
• 3:03 PM: Bryan Woods to Bob Yancy (cc: Michael Ostrowski, John Nichols) Woods acknowledges the questions and explains the standard economic development process: "We can certainly address these and other questions... being able to answer them more specifically for any project is what the due diligence period in a real estate contract allows for." He promises responses and mentions owing info on another topic (Macy's). (Pages 130, 387)

• 4:03 PM: Bob Yancy to Bryan Woods (cc: John Nichols) Yancy pushes back, arguing that his questions don't require a purchase agreement: "None of them require a purchase and sale agreement due diligence period to have answered... Repeating that we must enter into a Purchase & Sale agreement to know this information does not make it so." He criticizes the process as potentially flawed. (Pages 129, 152, 380)
• 4:19 PM: Bryan Woods to Bob Yancy (cc: John Nichols) Woods defends the approach as an "industry standard" for public and private sectors, notes prior info shared (e.g., water demand), and agrees there's a "disconnect": "I agree that there is a disconnect and/or differing opinions. I definitely think it's worth working to try to understand/bridge/adjust so that Council feels comfortable about the process." He forwards this to staff for awareness. (Pages 128, 151)
• 10:53 PM: John Nichols to Bryan Woods and Bob Yancy While not direct between Yancy and Woods, Nichols (Mayor) responds appreciating the questions and plans to reflect, hoping for early info. This closes the day's exchange. (Page 383)

This thread highlights Yancy's push for transparency and Woods' emphasis on standard procedures under NDAs.

September 5, 2025: "Posting on TexAgs" Thread (Pages 140-149, 365-373)

This later thread escalates into personal accusations, stemming from Yancy's social media post about the project before the official agenda release. It reveals ongoing mistrust.

• 8:43 AM: Bryan Woods to Bob Yancy (cc: John Nichols, Adam Falco) Woods warns Yancy about posting project details publicly, citing legal concerns and NDA: "You have never been advised that there was 'a window' to publicly discuss items under an NDA... The NDA will expire when the agenda item is posted." He clarifies public discussion can occur after posting (expected that day). (Pages 145, 149, 367, 373)
• 10:51 AM: Bob Yancy to Bryan Woods (cc: John Nichols, Adam Falco) Yancy defends his post as neutral and recalls Woods' statements in a meeting lifting silence: "In our last meeting, you stated three times that the silence was lifted on this project." He accuses staff of withholding info on PPM (e.g., lawsuits, "powered land flip" strategy, negative experiences with CoB/TAMU) and expresses mistrust since prior incidents like Macy's ORR. "I have been in an unfortunate state of mistrust with senior staff, namely you..." (Pages 142-144, 146-148, 365-366, 370-372)
• 3:33 PM: Bryan Woods to Bob Yancy (cc: John Nichols, Adam Falco) Woods refutes Yancy's recollection of the meeting and accuses him of warping facts to villainize him: "You are warping all that into this, seemingly to make me the villain once again." He denies lying or hiding info, references past accusations (e.g., Capitol outburst, 2 AM email during family health crisis), and suggests addressing in evaluation: "Despite months of you deliberately trying to challenge my character and competency, I've done my job... I have an evaluation coming up." (Pages 141, 369)
• 7:13 PM: Bob Yancy to Bryan Woods (cc: John Nichols, Adam Falco) Yancy acknowledges the late email incident but denies intent: "I'd never do that purposefully." He commits to professionalism: "As I've tried to be professional and civil and engaged with your administration I will continue that, despite our differences, and always will." This appears to end the thread. (Page 140)

Overall Summary

• Themes: Early exchanges (January) focus on project specifics and process critiques, with Yancy seeking details and Woods defending NDA/due diligence. By September, tensions escalate to personal levels, involving accusations of mistrust, legal violations, and past conflicts.
• Tone Evolution: Starts collaborative but skeptical; becomes confrontational in September.
• No Further Exchanges: No direct replies beyond September 5 in the browsed pages, though threads are forwarded to others.
• Context: These occur amid broader staff correspondence on the PPM data center, with public opposition growing by September.

powerbelly said:

---

Everyone pay attention. Nothing will change.

Quote:

---

he is a strong leader (100% disagree) with strong ideas (yep) and a good man with a wonderful family (irrelevant) He's also a fellow veteran (irrelevant)

---

---

Totally disagree. Simply a professional framing of his remarks, and far from an endorsement. Too much "fluff" in the "praise" to be an endorsement.

"A man who loves politics or sausages should watch neither being made"

~Mark Twain~

I hope the last year or so of the public being a nuisance to city staff and government has empowered and encouraged us to go further.

In the words of Andy Dufresne "you've come this far, maybe you're willing to come a little further?"

Let's try to keep this momentum going forward and demand a government not only of the people and by the people, but most importantly for the people. I regularly have a difference of opinion with my closest and most distant friends and colleagues, and I don't always see eye to eye on certain decisions they make. That said I am 100% OK with the decisions of the citizens of this community and our collective will. Like I have said several times through this process, if we all agree to go over the falls in a barrel we have nobody but ourselves to blame, if we are forced over the falls against our will, that is criminal.

"One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

~Plato~

trouble said:

---

How can you be subject to an NDA you haven't seen or signed yourself?

---

So, in my professional life, I am subject to them. My company had me sign one that says I won't give away trade secrets to a competitor. Now, my company has different ones like with say, my customers, that say that mutually, we won't give away each other's trade secrets. Those are put in place by both of the two companies' legal teams. They may find out about future plans before they are made public, for example. So, I'm subject to that as an employee, even though I did not sign it.

Hornbeck said:

---

trouble said:

---

How can you be subject to an NDA you haven't seen or signed yourself?

---

So, in my professional life, I am subject to them. My company had me sign one that says I won't give away trade secrets to a competitor. Now, my company has different ones like with say, my customers, that say that mutually, we won't give away each other's trade secrets. Those are put in place by both of the two companies' legal teams. They may find out about future plans before they are made public, for example. So, I'm subject to that as an employee, even though I did not sign it.

---

I assume you've seen them though.

Definitely, they are referenced in the contracts that happen when customers buy goods and services.

trouble said:

---

How can you be subject to an NDA you haven't seen or signed yourself?

---

For large companies, government institutions and universities (etc) there are only a few senior administrators allowed to sign NDAs for that business or institution. As long as you work for that business or institution and the work that you perform is covered by an NDA than you must abide by that agreement.

Yancy asks him several detailed questions back in January on the whole data center thing, and Woods even says, "I owe you info on Macy's", and there isn't anything until September... Either it didn't make it into the request, or that never happened. But, I can see cracks appearing here -

From: "Bryan C. Woods" <bwoods@cstx.gov>
Date: January 24, 2025at16:19:23 CST
To: Bob Yancy <byancy@cstx.gov>
Cc: John Nichols <jnjchols@cstx.gov>
Subject: Re: Observations & Questions
This is not just an adopted internal practice, it's an industry standard for
economic development and real estate transactions in both the public and
private sectors. I'm certainly not saying it's the only way, but there's a reason
anyone who wants to purse these types of sales uses it.

Obviously Council can direct us to do something different. We have
presented information previously on several of the items you've addressed
here such as the water demand, etc. but in order to answer them specifically
you need a project to move forward to a stage where more specific
information exists. I don't see, or at least haven't experienced a company
expending significant funds and effort to do that without being under an NOA
and then having some level of commitment to the mutual pursuit of deal by a
property owner.

I agree that there is a disconnect and/or differing opinions. I definitely think
it's worth working to try to understand/bridge/adjust so that Council feels
comfortable about the process. I can understand if you or council doesn't
feel like you have the information to mover forward. We give council our best
advice based on our experience and then carry out the direction.

Bryan
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 24, 2025, at 16:03, Bob Yancy <byancy@cstx.gov> wrote:

I carefully re-read my questions. None of them require a
purchase and sale agreement due diligence period to have
answered. Furthermore, it would be a bad business practice to
enter into a purchase and sale agreement without knowing this
information- minimally in round terms. Most of them
specifically.

This is where the breakdown is happening. Repeating that we
must enter into a Purchase & Sale agreement to know this
information does not make it so.

It may be the adopted process internally to enter into purchase &
sale agreements and then during due diligence figure out if it was
a deal we were ever suited for- or that the citizens wanted- but
that doesn't mean it must remain the process.

Respectfully
Bob Yancy, Councilman
City of College Station, Texas

From: Bryan C.Woods<bwoods@cstx.gov>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 3:03 PM
To: Bob Yancy <byancy@cstx.gov>
Cc: Michael Ostrowski <mostrowski@cstx.gov>; John Nichols
<inichols@cstx.gov>
Subject: Re: Observations & Questions
CM,

We can certainly address these and other questions that I know
will need to be answered and being able to answer them more
specifically for any project is what the due diligence period in a
real estate contract allows for.

We'll get you something back on these and I know I still owe you
Macys info.

Have a good weekend.
Bryan
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 24, 2025, at 14:53, Bob Yancy
<byancy@cstx.gov> wrote:
Howdy,
Below is a list of questions I have regarding data
centers and our current business growth
environment. But first, my position on College Station
regarding the question Michael asked: I don't think
it's our place to try to control the city's population
size, the average value of a single family detached
home to achieve 'pay for' status, or to constrain
business from coming here. If we're blessed enough
to be a growing city, we count that as a blessing and
service growth the best we can.

Now on data centers:
1. Through standard growth, or resulting from a
chip plant, or resulting from the rumored micronuclear
reactor manufacturer coming here,
what is plan B for a place to put related
businesses (like what's happening in Taylor and
Hutto) if we take down the entire Midtown
Business Park in one shot?

2. Given the new trend of 'existing available power
infrastructure over site' dynamic that has
emerged in data center site selection, are we
absolutely certain we can service a data center
from a massive water and power perspective?
Forever?

3. Other businesses reportedly locate adjacent to
data centers. How constrained would this site
be and if we can't put any collocated
businesses next to it, how does that affect that
data center's future prospects for success?

4. Data centers have begun obscuring their
development projects through NDAs and 3rd
party reps in dealing with govts as public
sentiment has turned against them in some
areas. PP touts the provision of energy for data
centers, but not data centers themselves on
their website. So who is the ultimate user? Is it
Amazon, Microsoft? Can that change? Can they
transfer ownership or lease to another firm?
Non U.S. firms?

5. Smart as you guys are, you've never sold land
to a data center before. The trend mentioned in
#2 above has led to a rash of site selection
consultants and valuation experts emerging.
Did our valuation take intended use specifically
into account? Was our valuation conducted by
someone experienced in this area? Is it
valuated as a data center site? Or simply M-1
light industrial?

6. Certainly the NDA has to be lifted at some
point? Is that the day this Purchase & Sale
Agreement comes before council for a public
hearing?

7. Do we anticipate holding a workshop to talk
about data centers from a general perspective
and holding a public hearing so my bosses can
weigh in? Or is the PSA going to come as a
regular agenda item and be decided on that
day?

8. Don't we have to pass anticipatory ordinances
to accommodate this land use dealing with fire
suppression, public safety, noise suppression,
et al- or no? I thought CoB had to but perhaps
I'm mistaken.

9. Have we received documentation concerning
resumes of principals, financial ability to
perform, etc, from this group? If we encumber
the entire business park and during due
diligence we have to turn away solid prospects
only for PP to fail, or their real client to bow out,
that wouldn't be optimal. Are we certain they
can perform? Any lawsuits out there with heavy
implications?

10. Has PP requested a meeting with us, the
council? Are they averse to coming here and
giving a presentation?

To me the decision was simply too big and too early
to make last night. Maybe a fantastic opportunity.
Perhaps even probably so.

I'm just still not there.
Thanks for your hard work and have a good weekend.
Bob Yancy, Councilman
City of College Station, Texas