Residents press Franklin County commissioners over data centers, NDA and calls for independent environmental reviews

Residents at the Franklin County commission meeting urged commissioners to halt or more tightly regulate proposed hyperscale data-center developments and to provide clearer, independent information about financial incentives and environmental impacts.

Anne Hayden told commissioners, “For the record, I oppose data centers on rural land,” and said she found what appears to be a mutual confidential-disclosure agreement (commission order 2025-372, dated 12/23/2025) with BLE Land Holdings in county materials. “This reads like an NDA. Your signatures are here at the bottom. Did you not agree to this?” Hayden asked. The Chair responded that the NDA had been terminated and offered to provide documentation.

Multiple speakers asked the county to require independent environmental, noise and water studies paid for by developers before approvals. Rhonda Brackett said an environmental study should come before a tax-impact study and urged that developers pay for the environmental review. Karen Foos asked whether the county had consulted outside experts who would not profit from the projects.

Several speakers raised health and setback concerns. Jenny Voss asked the commission: “Can you guarantee that not 1 single citizen will be harmed by pollution or dust?” She noted Coleman Elementary School is “less than 0.5 mile away” from a proposed site and recommended a 3,000-foot buffer from any part of a data center to homes, schools and churches (or a minimum of 1,000 feet).

Speakers also pressed procedural and representation issues: Nancy Watson said Calvi Township lacked representation at a 03/17/2026 PNC hearing after Bill McLaren resigned from the planning-and-zoning board on 03/16/2026, and called on commissioners to consider the absence of township representation when reviewing testimonies and studies. Gene Elkins and others said they had requested meetings with commissioners and had not received responses.

Critics questioned consultant selection and funding. Several commenters referenced Spring Line (also transcribed as Springline) advisory, which the county plans to hire to study tax impacts: “Why are we being asked to pay for this company?” one commenter asked, urging commissioners to seek alternative firms and to ensure developers pay for studies that measure environmental and fiscal effects.

Public commenters also raised broader concerns about tax abatements and who benefits from the projects. One speaker summarized consultant terms they had seen for similar projects — a $20,000 minimum engagement fee and hourly rates afterward — and said those terms suggested consultants may not be independent of developer interests.

The commission did not make new policy decisions on the record during public comment; commissioners and staff responded with offers to provide documentation and with procedural notes about how staff would follow up. Several residents said they wanted a formal moratorium (one commenter asked the commission to consider Pacific’s 12-month moratorium) while calling for stronger transparency and enforceable guarantees if developments proceed.

The meeting ended with no new regulatory action announced; residents were told staff would provide requested documentation and the chair offered to speak with constituents after adjournment.