Oldham County fiscal court amends and adopts data‑center moratorium after heated public comment; judge recuses

At a special called meeting, the Oldham County Fiscal Court voted to amend and adopt an ordinance imposing a moratorium on data‑center applications after removing three exemption clauses from the draft ordinance.

Judge David Vogel, judge executive, opened the session and said the meeting’s main purpose was to “deal with the proposed moratorium ordinance.” During opening remarks he addressed allegations circulating on social media and publicly denied them: “I categorically and unequivocally deny all unspecified allegations of corruption, bribery, favoritism, abuse of power, and retaliation,” he said, and then announced he was recusing himself from further activity in the meeting and turned the session over to a magistrate.

The moratorium drew more than an hour of public comment. Dozens of residents urged the court either to adopt a full, no‑exception pause on data‑center applications or to preserve flexibility for careful zoning. Several speakers argued exemptions would subvert the purpose of a moratorium. Laura O’Brien, a resident, told the court: “I thought a moratorium meant a pause… What it sounds like we’re actually saying is no new applications unless you already slipped one through the door. That’s not a moratorium. That’s a head start for special interests.” Other residents warned of environmental, traffic and community impacts; some urged immediate passage with no carve‑outs.

Attorney Hank Corrati addressed the court on moratorium best practices and litigation risk. He advised that a valid moratorium should set a clear planning purpose, be short and reasonable in duration, and be applied uniformly: “A moratorium that excuses the first one through is not a moratorium at all,” he said, arguing that carve‑outs can make a moratorium look like special legislation.

County attorney Barry Baxter briefed the court on legal exposure and insurance. Baxter advised the court that litigation is possible after adopting a moratorium and that, while the county would be provided a defense by the insurer identified (Keiko), coverage for any damages awarded in a lawsuit was not guaranteed: “the county could be sued… they may not provide you coverage for any damages that are assessed if you were to lose,” he said.

After public comment and discussion, a motion before the court amended ordinance KOC‑25‑910‑508 to remove the three exemption bullet points, change the ordinance wording to “ordained” (rather than “resolved”), and remove the word “new” from the phrase describing which applications are covered so it applies to all applicable applications. The court recorded a 4‑to‑2 vote in favor of those changes. Three members of the fiscal court were recorded as recused from voting on the item: Magistrate Tice, Magistrate Hounds (Chris Hounds), and Judge David Vogel. Court members then voted to adopt the ordinance as amended; a county official later said the ordinance passed with the three edits in place.

Court members and the county attorney repeatedly stated that adopting a full, no‑exceptions moratorium carried litigation risk; other members said the county had an obligation to pause and adopt rules before additional applications could proceed. Several speakers in public comment urged the court to adopt a broad moratorium without carve‑outs; others on the court said they supported a 150‑day pause but were reluctant to expose the county to legal liability if insurance did not cover damages.

Separately, the court approved an appointment: Tina Shuff presented a personnel item appointing Kevin Nuss as deputy judge executive effective July 7. The salary figure was recorded in the meeting record as “6923 an hour” (as read at the meeting); the personnel appointment motion was seconded and the court approved the appointment. The minutes record the vote result as passing, with one recorded “no” and one recorded non‑affirmative notation (described in the transcript as an “extension” or abstention in the clerk’s roll call), and the motion carried.

The ordinance action, the judge’s recusal, the public comments, and the county attorney’s advice dominated the meeting’s agenda. Court members scheduled additional work for the planning office and the Planning Commission to develop regulations and to complete the rule‑making work contemplated by the moratorium.

The court paused for a brief recess after the votes and then proceeded to routine business and final comments. Several magistrates closed with community notices including Independence Day fireworks and the county fair.

Ending: The fiscal court left the moratorium ordinance in place as amended and directed planning staff to continue work on rules and definitions to guide data‑center applications during the moratorium period. The court’s recorded actions and the public comment suggest the moratorium and ensuing rule‑making will remain a subject of local attention and potential legal challenge.