The proposed data center project in Mason County is of great concern to many. Since proponents of the project often highlight the school system as a major beneficiary, the time is right for me to share my perspective.

I was invited to a meeting with “our new friends,” the developers, last month. The County Judge, Economic Development Director and EKP officials were also in attendance. I was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, to which I refused. I was immediately surprised that the data center representatives would not even supply their last names. I was assured that I should trust them, even though I didn’t know who they were or who they represented.

In fairness, they were friendly and seemed genuine. I do appreciate the invitation. What struck me was the fact that nobody in the room except for me seemed to understand how school funding in Kentucky works. That would be understandable if the promise of vastly increased revenues and opportunities for the schools weren’t constantly included as a major benefit of the data center. These statements should not be made without an assurance that they are truthful.

In a previous conversation, an annual total of $130 million in new school revenue was mentioned as a result of this project. If this is true, this would be four to five times our current operating budget. There is simply no way this will ever come to pass. I don’t know where this number came from.

In Kentucky, school funding is an equalization formula. This means that once local revenue exceeds the funding-per-student level set by the legislature, the excess money is largely allocated to the state to fund other school districts. That being said, we are not sure of the level of taxation the proposed project will pay and how long incentives will be in place, which could possibly reduce that number to zero.

Even worse, if purchased homes become part of the project, they could potentially come off the tax rolls, which would actually lower tax receipts. These numbers should be determined in advance rather than just making a blanket statement that this project “aligns with our education system.”

Again, in fairness, the men with no last names did state that their company planned to pay taxes and contribute to the community. There was also some discussion of grants provided by the mysterious entity that could assist our school district. The type and amounts were not specified.

My concerns are far beyond the inflated portrayal of benefits to the schools. I expressed my deep sympathy for the nonparticipating property owners. I know exactly how they feel.

A few years ago, my family left a home we loved in Mason County to flee a proposed industrial solar panel project, which would have placed panels and an eight-foot-tall fence, topped with razor wire, on two sides of our property. I wasn’t confident that the county leadership would protect nonparticipating properties from that or future projects looking to turn farmland into an industrial complex.

Unfortunately, it looks like I was right. The data center developer assured me they would buy out those concerned about living next to this vast development. I hope they mean it. These poor homeowners did not purchase their properties in the country with the expectation that their neighborhoods would become part of a “server slum.”

Other items of interest that came up in the meeting:

The Judge proudly stated that farmers would keep farming the undeveloped land purchased for the project, but the data center representatives said it would ALL be developed! How big is this thing?

There seemed to be a lack of consistency in the number of permanent jobs offered. The article in the paper said 400. In our meeting, the developer said 50.

It was stated that the center would be in a state of perpetual construction as the new technology develops. The construction would never end.

The newspaper article said the buildings were single-story. The developer mentioned four-story buildings in the meeting.

The economic development director said Maysville should put up a “closed for business” sign if we reject this project. This struck me as a false argument and scare tactic. Either we accept a massive industrial data center on farmland, or no other industry will look at us?

When I suggested this project be placed closer to the industrial park, I was told that it was not possible. It would only work on farmland.

I gave an example of a friend who is being asked to sell their farm. They were told their 1850s farmhouse would be bulldozed. The developers told me they would turn those homes into offices. Which is true?

I suggested the best thing to do would be to reveal who they were and where they had done work before. That way, people could visit an actual site and community to see if their promises were kept. I was told I didn’t understand business. Maybe I don’t.

I am providing this statement with full understanding that this will make me a target, just as I was during the fight against industrial solar. The fact is, I care about my friends and community. I challenge other public figures to take a stand for preserving what makes Mason County special. While I am proudly the superintendent of Mason County Schools, this statement is my own and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of others within the district or the Board of Education.

Sincerely, Rick Ross