Residents express concern over alleged data center

On Tuesday, July 15, several Mason County residents attended the Mason County Fiscal Court meeting with the intention to express concerns about an upcoming data center project, which has not yet been confirmed.

A comment period was called for shortly after the meeting began. Max Moran, a Germantown resident, was the first to come to the podium, claiming to speak on behalf of various people throughout the community.

“Several people have reached out to me with several questions they have that they would like for our public officials to answer,” Moran stated. Mason County Judge Executive Owen McNeill allowed him the floor, noting that he would only have two minutes to speak.

Moran raised his first question to the Mason County commissioners, asking each individual whether they had signed non-disclosure agreements.

Mason County Attorney John Estill intervened before the commissioners answered, advising Moran that he was there to make comments, not to “grill” the board. He instead requested that Moran make statements and then allow the commissioners to respond if they wished.

Moran agreed, then rephrased his question and asked if anybody in the fiscal court body had signed a non-disclosure agreement for a “development, land purchases, or otherwise under terms for a data center.”

Mason County Judge Executive Owen McNeill responded, “Absolutely, I have, I’m currently under 12 to 14 non-disclosure agreements.” Commissioner Joe McKay and Commissioner Chris O’Hearn both said yes, they had, while Commissioner Peggy Frame said no.

Moran then asked if Mason County was planning on invoking eminent domain (a way for a government body to acquire private property through monetary transactions) on those who do not wish to sell their land for the project’s development.

Judge McNeill again asked Moran if he was making a statement or asking a question, to which Moran responded that he was asking a question. Judge McNeill then stated that he has no intent to utilize eminent domain.

Estill reiterated that Moran was not allowed to make “interrogations,” then added: “The County of Mason has only used eminent domain for building a courthouse, maybe a landfill expansion, twice in 30 or 40 years. I don’t think that it’s in the business of condemning its own citizens, but if a decision had to be made, it would be made of that kind instead of in advance as a policy matter. No, Mason County does not want to be in the business of suing its own citizens for private property.”

Moran responded by explaining that people in the area have been asking these questions due to concerns over the alleged secrecy of the project. Many residents have expressed a desire for information, but rumors involving NDAs have caused confusion.

Moran then asked the court again if he was not allowed to ask questions. Estill replied that he could make a comment and if the commissioners wanted to respond, they would.

“What’s the use in coming if you can’t ask questions?” a resident in the crowd asked.

Estill reiterated that comments could be made, and the court can make a response. Moran responded that he did have a list of questions with him but agreed that he was not there to make interrogations, stating, “If I’m here just to berate the commissioners of the board, then that’s not very helpful either.”

Judge McNeill then asked Moran if he did not like data centers, to which Moran responded: “I’ll be honest, at first, I was for the idea of it, but with how things have progressed, I’m more on the side of caution than anything. And a lot of folks have concerns, even some people, they’ve told them that they’re not even against the idea of one, but they’re against how secretive it’s been.”

He compared the project to TC Energy’s upcoming pipeline project through Rowan, Fleming and Mason Counties, explaining that at a recent open house, the company had been very public, answering questions and offering resources to those who needed them.

“That’s one of the first major steps, in my opinion, that’s needed for public relation, so people feel confident in what’s coming in,” said Moran.

Estill conceded the point and replied that it is the job of the county attorney to make sure there is compliance with the Open Records and Open Meetings Act, and that it is his and the fiscal court’s goal to be completely transparent.

“Unfortunately, there’s times when government can’t be transparent and the statutes recognize that, there’s an exception in both the open meetings and open records act for industrial or business prospects. The reason this exists is not because government wants it, but because businesses will not talk to you,” Estill stated.

This is supported by KRS 61.810, which states that there are exceptions to open meetings, including “Deliberations on the future acquisition or sale of real property by a public agency, but only when publicity would be likely to affect the value of a specific piece of property to be acquired for public use or sold by a public agency.”

These exceptions also include:

“Discussions between a public agency and a representative of a business entity and discussions concerning a specific proposal, if open discussions would jeopardize the siting, retention, expansion, or upgrading of the business.”

Estill clarified that businesses will often not talk to the government unless there is some form of proprietary communications involved.

“You’re at a crossroads where you say we’re gonna be completely transparent, but we’re also gonna put up a sign on the county line that says Mason County is closed to business,” Estill said.

He further spoke on the example of TC Energy and stated that they also started with proprietary conversations and only became public when permits, property and rates were needed.

“In this situation, conversations with and due diligence getting information, providing information, is proprietary and confidential and can’t be discussed as much as people would like to tell citizens things. Because it would be easier for us to give you all the information as opposed to trying to keep something private and proprietary, as companies want,” stated Estill.

He further discussed the matter of zoning changes, which, if the alleged project were to proceed, would eventually be required. If this happens, two bodies of ordinances would have to be passed, and public meetings would be held for community input.

Estill concluded by stating that “a conversation about a project is not a project.” Instead, it is only a project when action is involved.

Moran then attempted to continue the discussion about zoning, at which time Judge McNeill interrupted him to thank him for his comments. Moran asked if there would be time to discuss the rest of his questions and comments later on in the meeting, to which he was denied. When this happened, another resident in the audience stood up to demand transparency.

Judge McNeill answered by discussing the potential economic benefits he believed a data center would bring to the Mason County area.

“Data centers across America in economic development are the aluminum of three to four years ago, the steel mills of seven to nine years ago and the auto manufacturers of 13 years ago,” stated Judge Mcneill. “Any community that hasn’t spoken to some data center projects either doesn’t have an economic development director or isn’t even in the game.”

He noted that the county is currently facing 12 to 14 projects, which involve industries such as manufacturing, technology and health care.

Judge McNeill continued: “What I do know for a fact is that there’s been a myriad of projects that people don’t understand, get awfully nervous and run projects off. Not only is it bad investment and those thousands of jobs that are run off, but it does, I think John referenced, it almost hangs a sign on your front door of your community saying you’re closed for business.”

Estill then suggested that Moran finish his list of questions, to which the court would listen and respond if they wished.

Moran began by stating that he had heard that residents had been approached by the project in question three years ago, to which Estill responded and stated that those accounts were not true.

Moran asked how a company might ensure compliance with local environmental laws, to which Estill stated that zoning is designed to protect citizens, and that the fiscal and local government claim no responsibility over environmental issues outside of zoning laws.

Moran continued with another environmental question, bringing up concerns about safety regulations surrounding radiation, water and noise. Estill reiterated his previous answer, but added that federal regulations are typically in place to help prevent negative effects.

Moran also asked if “the company” was an American company, to which Judge McNeill responded that a majority of the companies being talked to at the moment are American companies.

Moran asked whose name would hypothetically be on a deed for a sold property, explaining that he has heard of local land being offered for up to $60,000 per acre. Estill denied responsibility on behalf of the Mason County government, stating that it is not out offering that “kind of money.”

Finally, Moran asked how many people would be displaced for the alleged project. The board gave no comment.

“There’s a time for this discussion, there’s a time for answers, there’s a time for sworn testimony,” Estill said. “I hope we get to that day.”

Moran then sat down.

Several other residents rose to express concerns over the potential impact of the alleged data center.

Louann Duatley stated that she was concerned about the jobs a data center would bring to the area. Many jobs created by data centers are not jobs that youths in rural areas are typically being educated and trained for, explained Duatley. Most of these jobs would likely go to out-of-towners, which may not bring as big a boost to the economy as anticipated.

She concluded by stating that she was worried about the potential impact on the environment, both for herself and her family.

“I just want my water clean,” said Duatley. “We already live in Cancer Valley. Do we want anything here that’s gonna make it worse?”

Another citizen rose to ask whether family gravesites would be disturbed by the project, to which Estill responded by explaining that, due to government regulations, gravesites are generally avoided as much as possible.

Pamela Wilson briefly stood at the podium briefly to address the rumors over eminent domain and explain that selling properties at high prices often increases taxes, to which the board gave no response.

John Airsmith asked whether the data center project would be bringing in renewable energy sources to account for the massive amounts of energy they require to function. This question was answered by Maysville’s Industrial development Authority, Tyler McHugh, who stated that there will be no renewable energy sources used, as dictated by “the contracts.” Estill added that Mason County has restrictive ordinances for wind and solar energy.

Finally, another resident stood to make a general statement regarding the impact the alleged data center would have on the community.

This resident stated that they had lived on a farm and were seeing the impact created by this project firsthand on their family and neighbors. The resident asked the board who they believed this project was ultimately benefitting. They stated that it was not the farmers, since “Once farmland is gone, it’s gone forever.” They argued it was not the local economy, since the jobs data centers bring in do not match the community, and “We can’t match money behind a corporation.” They stated that it was not the environment either.

They concluded by stating that “When farmers are told that their land is more valuable than concrete and soil, than the history of our county, and my family’s farm — that concerns us, because to me, that’s not progress. Progress does not get rid of our history in that manner.”

“As with all Industrial Development Authority (IDA) projects, we operate under a standard framework of confidentiality to protect both prospective clients and any involved property owners or shareholders. This approach ensures that sensitive discussions do not compromise business interests or community relationships before a project is fully vetted,” McHugh stated in an additional comment outside the meeting.

Judge McNeill also stated outside of the meeting;

“I’m incredibly proud of our economic development team and their successes. Those successes have brought a lot of interest and I’m confident that our citizens understand it’s a process. Economic and community development is highly competitive and there are no guarantees however I hope we, as a community, remain open to progress and moving forward and don’t succumb to scare tactics or politics. Everyday companies explore communities like ours in a highly competitive process. They have stock prices, shareholders, 1000s of employees, and other concerns that limit what information they can share and without confidentiality, won’t even be considered. It’s a process that I’m very hopeful, we make the cut to roll out more information.”

He concluded;

“As with all jobs producing, community bolstering investments, as both sides explore the fit, you’re allowed more information to roll out. I’m very hopeful our community makes it to that stage. As Judge, I’ve never heard a citizen say we have too many jobs or too many opportunities. As local leaders, we have to ensure we have opportunity, not only for today but for our kids,” said Judge McNeill.