Hood County residents press commissioners over proposed 'Project Spectrum' data center and tax abatements

Dozens of Hood County residents used the court's citizens' comment period to press commissioners for answers about a proposed large data center, referred to in the meeting as "Project Spectrum" and described by multiple speakers as an Amazon Web Services project.

Speakers pressed commissioners for specifics on any incentives, the facility footprint and environmental and community impacts. Janet Steenberg asked whether a proposed $120,000,000 road and toll project would benefit the county more than spending on schools and a community center. Meg Harrell said the project appeared to be an AWS facility and argued the county should not give a prospective multi‑billion‑dollar corporation taxpayer subsidies: "This is corporate welfare to one of the very largest corporations on the face of the entire planet," she said. Other residents raised noise and cooling‑system concerns, questioned whether data centers raise local electricity prices, and asked whether the county had the legal and negotiating expertise to avoid unfavorable long‑term commitments.

Several speakers cited examples in other Texas counties where tax breaks, land sales or abatements accompanied large data center projects. John High Smith referred to an example in Wichita Falls and urged commissioners to verify what abatements, if any, were actually granted in those cases. Danny Lakey and others noted clustering of industrial facilities in Precinct 2 and warned of cumulative impacts on air, water and property values.

Commissioners and staff responded that Project Spectrum had been pulled from the day’s agenda and that the court would seek additional analysis before taking action. Commissioners debated whether to retain outside legal counsel with specific experience in chapter 3.80/3.81 economic development agreements and chapter 3.12 tax code abatements; several said the county attorney’s office lacked that specialized practice and recommended seeking third‑party counsel to both draft policy and review any proposed agreements.

The meeting did not produce a formal decision on Project Spectrum; several commissioners said the county would pursue more information, engage subject matter experts, and ensure public outreach. One commissioner urged caution about "rush deals" and long term commitments, noting the potential for obligations that span multiple decades.

The question of incentives came amid votes later in the meeting approving unrelated routine items — event permits, interlocal agreements, vehicle purchases and budget housekeeping. The data center debate dominated public comment and highlighted a divide between residents who favor negotiating for local investment and those worried about long‑term costs and environmental effects.

The next procedural steps on Project Spectrum were not scheduled during the meeting; speakers asked the court for town halls, public disclosures, and clearer timelines for any future votes.