Two special meetings are slated to be held by the Mason County Fiscal Court (MCFC) after receiving a recommendation for a data center text amendment from the Maysville-Mason County Joint Planning Commission (JPC).

On Tuesday, Feb. 10, the MCFC held its regular meeting, during which itdiscussed the JPC’s recommendation of a data center text amendment.

During the discussion, Mason County Judge-Executive Owen McNeill stated, “First and foremost, I think it is important that we take a minute and show our appreciation for the unpaid volunteer members of our joint planning commission with issues such as this, have to take an exorbitant amount of time away from their home, their families, things that they enjoy doing all for the betterment for our community.”

He then expressed that special call meetings concerning the recommendation were being considered for Feb. 17 and Feb. 24, noting that a set of proposed rules and procedures would “continue the transparent and obvious progression of this moving forward.”

The rules and procedures that were introduced to the court stated that a first reading would take place on Feb. 17 and a second reading would take place on Feb. 24.

“At the meeting on Feb. 17, 2026, the court will consider argument-style presentations from proponents of data centers and from opponents of data centers,” the proposed rules and procedures read. “Each side shall be permitted 30 minutes for its presentation of argument or summation of the evidence before the JPC and to recommend a course of action for the Fiscal Court.”

It continued, “Objections may be made by the Fiscal Court to evidence or materials which are not included in the JPC record. The 30 minutes may be used by one speaker for each side, or divided among multiple speakers. The presenters for the proponents of data centers were determined by attorney Tanner Nichols of Frost Brown Todd, which represents the prospect considering Mason County for a data center project. The presenters for the opponents was determined in communications with attorney Hank Graddy, who represents the organization We Are Mason County.”

According to the rules and procedures, the records from the public hearings held by the JPC will be adopted into the MCFC’s record. It also noted that at the upcoming special meetings, there will not be additional or new evidence taken.

McNeill stated that the court is prioritizing the feasibility of using of film and audio during the meetings in its selection of the meetings’ location.

Mason County Commissioner Peggy Frame then asked why the first and second readings will be held so close together.

“Why aren’t we waiting a month or so… I mean, to give people time to look at this?” Frame asked. “Why are we doing a week?”

McNeill responded that it was his suggestion, to which Frame said, “I think we need to put a freeze on that. We need to look at this a lot closer. People are really concerned, and this is a big deal, and we need to look at other ordinances and other counties, states, and see what’s going on.”

McNeill pointed out to Frame that that is what the JPC did, to which Frame confirmed that she understood that.

“Do you have concerns from your meeting when you met with their representatives last week?” McNeill asked Frame.

“I have concerns that we are rushing through this too quick. That’s my concern,” Frame responded.

Mason County Attorney John Estill then expressed that he may have read the suggestion as a second reading; however, an adoption depends on a vote. He added that this is a consideration for an adoption, not an adoption.

Mason County Commissioner Chris O’Hearn stated, “We’ve been discussing this for how many months, I mean, in the community. I mean, it’s not like it’s just come up; it’s been discussed for many, many months.”

“We still don’t know any more about a data center, what’s their plans are when they get here, if they get here. This is just a big deal to everybody, and we need to think about this,” Frame said.

Mason County Commissioner Joe McKay expressed that it was his understanding that this is the process required to move forward.

“I think we have laid out an extremely transparent, controlled process going forward,” McNeill stated. “Commissioner, yes ma’am, you have a point. If we don’t come to a consensus, yeah, we’ll come the next Tuesday and the next Tuesday.”

O’Hearn made a motion to approve the rules and procedures as they were presented, and McKay seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken, on which McKay voted yes, O’Hearn voted yes, Frame voted no and McNeill voted yes. The motion passed with three yes votes to one no vote.

At the end of the meeting, Graddy asked the court if the special meetings could be held at the local justice center at 5 p.m. instead of the early morning, expressing that the public could be better served if the Feb. 17 meeting is held at that location and time.

Estill then asked Graddy if it would be possible to receive a list of items he is prepared to discuss on Feb. 17, noting that he would ask Nichols to do the same. Graddy stated that he did not have any issue with that but noted that there may be topics he decides to talk about after sending the list. Estill responded that that was fine and clarified Graddy would not be limited to only discussing what is on the list.

Estill further expressed that he would send the lists to the commissioners and stated that they would be made part of the record.