Temple council advances rezoning discussion for proposed data center and creates reinvestment zone; water, noise and road alignment left for later decisions

City of Temple planning staff presented changes to a proposed light-industrial plan and a related tax-incentive step for a planned data center on property east of Bobwhite Road, and the City Council voted to establish a reinvestment zone that would allow a tax abatement agreement to be considered at a later meeting.

Planning presentation and site changes

Planning staff described the rezoning request as a plan-development rezoning from agricultural to light industrial for approximately 706 acres (addressed at 1707 and 2351 Bobwhite Road). The applicant removed proposed access points along Bobwhite Road from the current site plan; staff said final access locations will be determined during the planning review and coordinated with the fire marshal and planning director. Staff also described a possible realignment of the East Outer Loop on the site’s eastern boundary and said the rezoning document would not dedicate right-of-way but would record an intent to coordinate on the thoroughfare alignment.

Noise mitigation and verification were emphasized as a required condition. Staff said the ordinance and supporting slides require the applicant to submit a noise mitigation plan prepared by an acoustical engineer addressing decibel levels, frequency, duration and time-of-day limits; post-construction sound readings at property lines or building areas must verify compliance before a certificate of occupancy for each phase. Staff also described enforcement steps if readings exceed the approved plan.

Tax abatement reinvestment zone created; abatement agreement to come later

Staff told the council the parcel’s owner, identified in the application as Rowan Temple LLC, plans a data center and has indicated an intended construction investment of at least $700,000,000 and creation of about 40 full-time jobs. The council voted to create a tax abatement reinvestment zone (the first procedural step). Staff said the actual chapter 312 tax abatement agreement — including percent abatements and term lengths — will be presented for council consideration at a future meeting.

Public questions and staff clarifications

Members of the public asked about water use and the length of abatement. A resident, Amanda Sudez, asked whether a data center would take “a lot of water.” Planning staff said modern data-center cooling technologies typically use far less water than older designs and that a utility services agreement with the city will be required before construction; that agreement will specify the amount of water committed so the city can ensure fire protection and residential supplies are not jeopardized.

Another resident, Alan Lytle, asked how tax abatements work and whether the company could walk away if Temple did not grant an abatement. Staff said the reinvestment zone step does not itself grant an abatement; the zone creates a mechanism to consider an agreement later. Staff explained that the site is currently taxed as agricultural land and that the proposed development would produce substantially greater tax revenue even after a potential abatement. Staff also told Lytle that state law caps typical tax abatement terms at 10 years (staff: “10 years” in response during Q&A); final terms will be part of the later agreement returned to council.

What the council approved

At the meeting the council approved creation of the reinvestment zone by motion (motion: “I move to approve item 5”), with a motion by Councilmember Grant and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Tim Walker; the item passed 4-0. Staff emphasized that the reinvestment-zone ordinance is step one; the abatement contract and the second reading of the zone will return to the council for approval at a future meeting.

Remaining steps and timeline

Staff said the zoning/site-plan changes, the noise mitigation plan, the utility services agreement (for water and other utilities) and the Chapter 312 contract would be completed in coming weeks and brought back for council action. The council did not approve a final rezoning ordinance or an abatement contract at this meeting; staff indicated additional hearings and a second reading would follow for those actions.