Residents press commissioners for moratorium on new data centers; officials say planning review will guide next steps

Several residents urged Jefferson County commissioners on June 25 to adopt a 12‑month moratorium on new data center projects while the county studies potential impacts and updates local land‑use rules.

At the start of the public‑comment segment, a resident read a letter asking the board to “institute a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of all new data center development applications for a period of at least 1 year.” The letter said a pause would allow planning staff and elected officials to update the county’s comprehensive plan and unified development ordinance and to develop specialized zoning overlays, verified utility‑capacity guarantees and requirements for tax and employment commitments.

Speakers at the meeting raised recurring concerns about water use, electric‑grid demand, noise and the absence of a county data‑center ordinance. Janice Clefford asked how a moratorium would be started and when the public would learn the identity of developers; county staff and commissioners replied that moratoriums can be proposed by either the planning commission or the commissioners, that the planning commission would hold a public hearing, and that the building‑permit application is the step where a developer is routinely named for permitting purposes.

A resident with technical background explained cooling technology and said large‑scale facilities often rely on evaporative cooling and other systems that increase overall water use, urging commissioners to investigate design details. County staff responded that proposed closed‑loop cooling systems typically use a glycol mixture for the primary loop and that the engineering review required at permitting will show whether local water would be used for cooling makeup. Commissioners said they plan to select an engineering firm familiar with the area to evaluate technical plans.

Public commenters also raised environmental comparisons to other historical industrial impacts and urged community hearings, bonds or other measures to ensure decommissioning costs are covered and to protect groundwater, wildlife and rural livelihoods. Several speakers expressed skepticism about promised job numbers and tax benefits.

Separately, residents asked about a planned battery storage facility and fire safety. A Bellarmine Fire District official described planned measures: the battery operator is providing specialized equipment and funds (about $45,000 worth of air‑monitoring/response gear), training for mutual‑aid partners, hydrant and suppression considerations, and an ongoing training schedule for first responders.

Commissioners said the county will rely on the planning commission, a technical engineering review at permitting, and public hearings to address the community’s concerns and that a moratorium could be pursued through the formal public‑hearing process if the planning commission or board chooses that route. No moratorium ordinance or final policy was adopted at the meeting.