McPherson County approves first reading of data-center ordinance after detailed public hearing; applicant pledges emergency-services funding

The McPherson County Commission voted to approve the first reading of a proposed ordinance aimed at regulating data centers in unincorporated areas, following several hours of public comment and technical discussion.

The hearing focused on how the ordinance defines buffer yards, setbacks and allowable operations for facilities that may house computing hardware, genome-sequencing servers, or other high‑capacity equipment. Bill Connors, who represented the applicant, told commissioners that the project would include community contributions: “We committed to $150,000 per year for emergency services,” and an additional $50,000 per year to a local foundation, he said, adding that the exact distribution of those funds would be worked out with the commission during permitting.

Commissioners and residents pressed the applicant and staff on several details that were not spelled out in the draft ordinance, including the exact meaning of the ordinance’s “etcetera” list of uses and whether the county should limit conversions from one technical use to another (for example, a Bitcoin facility later becoming an AI or hyperscaler center). Austin, the county’s state’s attorney, told the board the financial and operational terms offered by the applicant would be negotiated during the permit review: “Those details are gonna have to get worked out once they file their permit, and then we have those discussions at that time.”

Board members also debated a 5,280‑foot (one‑mile) setback and buffer-yard requirements already present in the draft (side and rear buffer yards of 50 feet; a minimum front buffer of 150 feet). Commissioners asked staff to clarify definitions, cite the section of the zoning book that defines “buffer yard,” and to add page references where the ordinance relies on other zoning definitions. Several members said they favored leaving strong, enforceable technical and reporting requirements in place and agreed the ordinance could be amended later if needed.

After the Q&A and a motion from the floor, commissioners approved the ordinance’s first reading and scheduled a second reading for July 1. The vote was taken by voice; the record shows the motion passed.

Next steps include staff review of the ordinance language requested by commissioners (definitions and cross‑references), and the applicant’s formal permit submission, at which point negotiations and any required studies or conditions — including how the $150,000 emergency‑services contribution would be administered — will be finalized.