[{"_1":2,"_121":-5,"_122":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6214312,"mediaKeyId","3670740-5537c5a2dd73042917b19a4d94e8e964","parentId",3670740,"title","Residents raise environmental, noise and utility concerns over proposed multi‑building data center in Appling","audioSeconds",453,"startMs",1441000,"endMs",1894000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3670740-5537c5a2dd73042917b19a4d94e8e964&start=1441&end=1894","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3670740-5537c5a2dd73042917b19a4d94e8e964/thumbnail_1441000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6214312/Columbia-County/Georgia/Residents-raise-environmental-noise-and-utility-concerns-over-proposed-multibuilding-data-center-in-Appling","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6214312-ddfda76d90c58df3603167181db5b012/orig.mp4?Expires=1775632184&Signature=jZrqKNykUoLitPE7YeoXhPTVwry2YxX92RzofZPCJx809JtAQabKSP2futAdn~oGjkZOY70E65~oBmjCPkaAPfDs-ucTSkhnYUfgQ83AamS9UfEli5imSwXeqd9TmGsEfQL4BDHQ3nVqQG99gbHSOz3TW7s0Ng5yeptJDVYJYSsELpaT2lDU5yNhzCBNSmE0cCsmtsGFlaDU4MMda9njsfjZmJ~49p-nCer4PZAKT-TaXSdg6UJpsGszPJs82irPtfDcG1f2KVzD7m14MVY2ZKJTRO1AuJoUbYuwxsToFNx~NioQJinKOHXnSlysTC3AUFMpgLXaYWSo-q3y4w64Yw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-04T17:36:13Z","article","At the June 3 Columbia County meeting, a resident raised questions about a proposed data-center development in Appling, saying the project filing describes dozens of buildings and large power and water needs and warning of potential environmental and noise impacts.

Susan Warren, who said she lives in Appling, said the developer (identified in her remarks as \"Camel Crowe,\" spoken in the meeting) estimates an $11 billion project with 29 buildings and called the proposal an 8,100,000-square-foot development. \"This means that it would take 6 electric substations to... give them the power that they're gonna need,\" Warren said, and she raised concerns about glycol-based cooling leaks into nearby creeks and continuous noise from HVAC and generators.

County staff explained the project triggered a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review and that the county had circulated the DRI to neighboring jurisdictions; staff told the board they received acknowledgment from Lincolnton but otherwise no substantive responses from adjacent agencies so far.

Why it matters: Large data-center campuses can require substantial electric infrastructure, water and cooling systems, and generate continuous noise from mechanical systems; residents asked whether utility upgrades and environmental protections will be paid by the developer or by taxpayers.

What county staff said: Planning staff confirmed the DRI process was completed and circulated to nearby agencies. Staff advised residents to request the rezoning and DRI narrative under records procedures and offered to provide submitted materials to interested citizens.

What was not decided: No board decision on the project occurred at this meeting; the remarks were public-comment and planning staff noted the DRI and circulation status. The county did not yet report substantial external feedback on the DRI from neighboring jurisdictions.

Ending: Planning staff invited residents to submit follow-up information requests and said they would share the DRI materials with interested parties under public-records procedures.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025.06.03 Columbia County Board of Commissioners Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","A resident told commissioners that a proposed data-center campus in Appling could span dozens of buildings, require multiple substations and use glycol-based cooling; county staff said a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) was filed and returned to the county with limited external comment so far.","taxTitle","Columbia County, Georgia","taxId",12804,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6214316,"Residents urge reconsideration after Columbia County moves library out of regional system; debate continues over content guidelines",487,947000,1434000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3670740-5537c5a2dd73042917b19a4d94e8e964&start=947&end=1434","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3670740-5537c5a2dd73042917b19a4d94e8e964/thumbnail_947000.jpg","/articles/6214316/Columbia-County/Georgia/Residents-urge-reconsideration-after-Columbia-County-moves-library-out-of-regional-system-debate-continues-over-content-guidelines","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6214316-a68130504f9b31abf621257f07ca6e2b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775632184&Signature=izSsbVa4qBBuxWELpLu4z4lJtfonW06~LoVOoyMLKpKE4792n031s5IPeJNN6E-dj0BVng2raIei8Gh1bIwtRx67PuCefVS-Fgsr2QTUFGY8xgk9ofH9o2R5k8h5e70xFHzaSlYMgrDFEWSJOJjg~m3UvEEmtq0RZqPktfqLV~x5ElOaCUZiWeA0b6JIdkOoYobyH9rDLT2nkgjlLz9OQEfVWPDgPrmMKu~HC4tuodmDWduXu6w3qBmr3sCJre4QIoINt5QmT7qMZXSjD3vK3xGqzGeFqWCxDmSRjtc51YzzINq-qfg4Yk0SunBs72EmwJrCIQlwm-Ke7szGoYBPdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Multiple residents told the Columbia County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday that the board should reconsider its May 6 decision to withdraw the county library from the Greater Clark Hills Regional Library System and rethink proposals affecting book-selection guidelines.

Howard Johnson, a local resident, told commissioners the library’s withdrawal \"was a decision that was not on the meeting agenda prior to the meeting\" and said the vote occurred before public comment. \"If this decision will not fundamentally change the library, what benefit does it have to the residents of this county?\" he asked.

Why it matters: Residents said the regional partnership expands access to books and physical storage across counties, creates redundancy useful during storms and broadens circulation. They warned that cutting ties with the regional system could weaken access to materials and services for county patrons.

Additional public comment: Karen Lawrence, who identified herself as a long-time county patron, spoke about parental responsibility for children’s reading choices and said government-imposed restrictions on library access are not necessary for families that monitor their children. She said she grew up in the county and the library functioned without the current proposed guidelines.

Board response and context: The speakers asked commissioners to heed professional librarian expertise and to allow public comment to inform policy adjustments. At the meeting, the board did not take a new action reversing the earlier May 6 vote; the remarks were submitted during the public-comment portion and recorded for the record.

What was not decided: No new resolution or reversal occurred during the June 3 meeting. The public comment highlights ongoing local debate over library governance, regional affiliations and content guidelines.

Ending: Commissioners were urged by residents to consult library professionals and weigh the impacts of severing the regional partnership before finalizing related policy changes.","Several residents addressed the board to protest the May 6 decision to remove the county library from the Greater Clark Hills Regional Library System and to criticize proposed content guidelines; speakers said the decision was made without adequate public input and could reduce redundancy and shared resources.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6214321,"Board approves county sign-off for tax-exempt bonds for charter school expansion",72,639000,711000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3670740-5537c5a2dd73042917b19a4d94e8e964&start=639&end=711","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3670740-5537c5a2dd73042917b19a4d94e8e964/thumbnail_639000.jpg","/articles/6214321/Columbia-County/Georgia/Board-approves-county-sign-off-for-tax-exempt-bonds-for-charter-school-expansion","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6214321-3fd78cd44fc638665b718067835c867d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775632184&Signature=XGyHpQAf9eediZ~LtL7wjpJPHVTpiwlwodfAxO7ImDU5DyWYFiZGgTSxn2VJu-4v8vjXKZpgVRykhViq1imUnTB3hGu--34Un1OWerwnyAA0iLRFxhAZlzDtoyVVYC0dtK5XHdVyFJz8f7l-Q~ACcAEZH4iSzdnKopQWU5qa5hf7Iq0WW17BxhdocJxDRRKzThjNo3uATkrF0Ysx6N0c1NG5f72P7DjqTtcBW-JqaSEOIAhOYIIFNREx94UU5q2XJAS-LG~eJJLnfkB5UCrtZXac72ge98GtZbEyQBHNflaL5Xl71cngEvHTPOzZtgfaMpZEYPPidh3PXQ9W-7xjbA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Columbia County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday approved Resolution 25-17, a formal approval required under federal rules for tax-exempt bonds that a charter school is using to add classrooms.

County staff explained the action is a required approval for the school’s use of tax-exempt financing and does not create a county obligation to repay the bonds. \"It has nothing to do with county taxes,\" a county staff member said, adding the county is not liable for the debt and that the school bears the liability.

Why it matters: Under federal tax rules, certain tax-exempt private activity or qualified school construction bonds require local-government approval or a public hearing. The board’s sign-off enables the charter school to proceed with financing its classroom additions using tax-exempt bonds; staff said a public hearing was held as part of the transparency steps.

Board action: Commissioner Mollier moved to approve Resolution 25-17; the motion carried by voice vote. County staff said this is not a county-backed debt and that a prior similar approval for the school had been completed without issue.

Background: County staff noted the school is adding classrooms and is using tax-exempt bonds under federal rules. The county’s action is procedural — to provide the statutorily required public notice and approval — and does not mean the county guarantees debt service.

Ending: County staff offered to answer follow-up questions about the transaction from commissioners or members of the public.","Commissioners approved Resolution 25-17 to provide the required county approval for tax-exempt bonds a charter school is using to add classrooms; staff emphasized the bonds do not obligate county taxes or county liability.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6214326,"Commissioners deny rezoning for 104-cottage PRD after fire-access and environmental concerns",144,733000,877000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3670740-5537c5a2dd73042917b19a4d94e8e964&start=733&end=877","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3670740-5537c5a2dd73042917b19a4d94e8e964/thumbnail_733000.jpg","/articles/6214326/Columbia-County/Georgia/Commissioners-deny-rezoning-for-104-cottage-PRD-after-fire-access-and-environmental-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6214326-e63c84f24e3de925e103ec767289d74b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775632184&Signature=eOD4vTGVqkoChiINZhtRzbAiLoFbaA60Qsbw5HH5KvqhGQCWbFvjUKi8ICBYqWGtoiy44hYns5romzCcBQLFVa4sFjrIOh3qPKkOCWabhH-Poet8k7oKPJBggKE2W4h1~a7k3mkGsYcPEs-aMlC9dY8-iAbRCB7MY4ivkVEgMFPgbqFRehEOnC8QAZf3ZAP1qtxnzyu~EXU~lcmFwLaqr9GZOBRp0z1KrbkkzbQYeeBBNLedpYeCo0Fq58AjduxKEq90XImPD2Ppg3RZzlNHdtCnCvA4om~dt3ce443uf6neP6JyBgoMSKafceGOc8Li3gRG1KKte2OBgX9po4~IHA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Columbia County Board of Commissioners voted to disapprove a rezoning request that would have converted a roughly 15.44-acre R-2 residential parcel to a planned residential development and allowed about 104 cottages, duplexes and townhome-style units.

Planning staff told commissioners the site, identified as Tax Map 079 Parcels 110 and 110A, was originally proposed with about 120 cottages but was reduced to 104 after access and fire-safety concerns were addressed. The presenter said the cottages would range from about 800 to 1,500 square feet, with roughly 220 parking spaces proposed and pedestrian ways that would double as emergency/fire access. The site contains wetlands and streams that create “environmental challenges,” the planner said.

Why it matters: Rezoning would have allowed higher-density housing and a mix of unit types on a parcel currently zoned R-2 (10,000-square-foot lots). Commissioners and planning staff highlighted fire access, environmental constraints and the planning commission’s conditions when moving to disapprove.

Board action: A motion to disapprove the rezoning (mover recorded in the transcript) was made referencing the planning commission’s May 15, 2025 conditions; the motion carried.

Key details: The planner described a layout that included freestanding cottages, duplexes and attached units; central pedestrian corridors were designed to double as fire access if needed. Wetlands and stream buffers occupy substantial frontage and interior areas, and staff cautioned that environmental constraints must be addressed before development can proceed.

What was decided and next steps: The board’s disapproval leaves the property in its existing R-2 zoning. The applicant may return with a revised plan that addresses the planning commission’s conditions and the board’s concerns, or pursue other land-use options consistent with R-2 zoning.

Background: The item was considered by the planning services committee and had a recommendation from the planning commission on May 15, 2025; the board explicitly cited those conditions in the disapproval motion.

Ending: County staff said they would be available to discuss specific logistical and environmental constraints with the applicant and neighbors following the vote.","A planned residential development (PRD) rezoning request for roughly 15.44 acres (Tax Map 079, Parcels 110 & 110A) that proposed 104 cottages and mixed units was disapproved by the board after staff and the planning commission raised fire-access and wetlands concerns.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":90,"_47":115,"_49":116,"_51":117,"_53":118,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":119,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":120,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6214330,"Columbia County commissioners adopt $104 million balanced budget for fiscal 2025–26",295,344000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3670740-5537c5a2dd73042917b19a4d94e8e964&start=344&end=639","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3670740-5537c5a2dd73042917b19a4d94e8e964/thumbnail_344000.jpg","/articles/6214330/Columbia-County/Georgia/Columbia-County-commissioners-adopt-104-million-balanced-budget-for-fiscal-202526","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6214330-5991ea1073b5ba0ea3b6a8bb06794a1b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775632184&Signature=Pev4wnotZnz9kDz6nmHS5sEkNqNiYUxgP~8KXJwZXtuvE-oHCjuvfiyYvN35dTDgk2h10pmJr7Z9gPoEuOt5SAfDooc40sDq~uk1rNiEgfD9ibxNO0ckb5tBj5ljcaXtSAL3amyrsk5Hadd0TJeSi-Hj5c~H6T7oNjYNXiXUwEJPWwI99MmXMSZusJIInosUzLNe8VmHx-SuiVRgyoYcT74pnnk2E2SS1BS1AIoOK9HafuW3I0ZihtH~espaF8Y1RYxneoJe9L9AwC9jDYFV6riKWoEkQMasH7Zz5bbkmQAu2st35Gl1OeGiocxFUps7Y6tRJXcapA2AotMkF12LvA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Columbia County commissioners on Tuesday approved Resolution 25-13, adopting an all-funds budget for fiscal year 2025–26 that county staff described as balanced and conservative.

County staff said the budget totals about $104 million and carries a healthy contingency while planning for a future property-tax rollback. \"We do have a balanced budget presented to you tonight, with a healthy contingency,\" a county staff presenter said during the meeting. The budget was adopted by voice vote after a motion from Commissioner Malyre and a second.

Why it matters: The budget sets operating and capital priorities for the coming year, funds county services and staffing, and lays groundwork for a tax rollback the board intends to set later this year. County staff told the board they built the budget around the expectation that property taxes will be lowered when the commissioners set the rollback.

The most important facts: County staff said the budget is roughly 3% higher overall than last year while the general fund spending is effectively held down by conservative revenue estimates. The plan includes 12 new positions in the general fund, several reclassifications and targeted pay adjustments (including items raised by judges and the coroner), and a reduced capital request compared with the prior year. Sales tax collections were cited as a strong revenue source for the county.

Board discussion and votes: Commissioner Malyre moved to adopt Resolution 25-13; a second was recorded and the motion carried. County presenters noted that the budget process began months earlier, in which department directors and elected officials constrained requests to help produce a balanced plan given uncertainty after recent storm impacts.

What was not decided: The board did not set the tax rollback rate during the meeting; staff said that decision will come at a later date and that the current budget is structured to accommodate that rollback when the board acts.

Background and context: Commissioners and staff referenced recovery from a recent storm as a reason for conservative budgeting. One board member noted that the county’s budget and workforce have grown over 17 years, including bringing fire services in-house, but said the board has kept growth measured. The county manager and staff offered to take follow-up questions from commissioners about details in department budgets.

Looking ahead: With the budget adopted, county departments proceed under the approved spending plan; the board will return later to set a property-tax rollback and any other adjustments arising from continued revenue monitoring.","The Columbia County Board of Commissioners approved Resolution 25-13 to adopt an all-funds budget for fiscal year 2025–26, a roughly 3% increase from the prior year that adds 12 net positions and preserves contingency while planning a future property-tax rollback.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Residents raise environmental, noise and utility concerns over proposed multi‑building data center in Appling

Residents urge reconsideration after Columbia County moves library out of regional system; debate continues over content guidelines

Board approves county sign-off for tax-exempt bonds for charter school expansion

Commissioners deny rezoning for 104-cottage PRD after fire-access and environmental concerns

Columbia County commissioners adopt $104 million balanced budget for fiscal 2025–26