Hunt County commissioners move to draft guideline changes to bar local tax abatements for data centers, solar and battery projects

HUNT COUNTY, Texas — Hunt County commissioners on April 28 discussed a countywide response to planned data centers, solar farms and battery-storage projects after several residents raised concerns about water use, electricity demand, noise and e‑waste.

During a prolonged public-comment period and a later agenda item on tax abatements, residents urged the court to act. “If we don’t take care of the environment, who will?” said Marcia Kirkandall, a Greenville resident, during the public testimony portion of the meeting. Shirley Turner asked, “Why are we just now finding out about the data center?” and pressed officials for clarity on what authority the county still retains over such projects.

County officials said they have limited land-use authority in many unincorporated areas but retain the ability to set local tax‑abatement rules under Chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code. County counsel explained that counties must adopt written guidelines and criteria for abatements every two years and that adopting a local exclusion for certain project types would be accomplished by re‑adopting those guidelines. The counsel said such a local exclusion could be written to bar data centers, solar farms, battery storage and similar facilities from local abatements for a two‑year period and that reversing the exclusion later would require a three‑quarters supermajority vote of the court. The counsel also noted that any action at the county level would not affect state‑level abatements.

Members of the public and commissioners discussed other levers besides abatements, including enforcement of a recently adopted fire code, participation in water‑district meetings, petitions, and non‑tax measures to route projects into industrial zones rather than next to homes. Several speakers urged coordinated outreach to water districts and state representatives while staff cautioned about legal limits on taxpayer‑funded lobbying and open‑meetings requirements for any official planning sessions.

Rather than taking an immediate vote, the court directed county staff to prepare a revised set of Chapter 312 guidelines that would include explicit exclusions for the project types discussed and to return the proposal for formal adoption at a subsequent meeting. Judge Stovall said the intent was to build a clear local policy that signals community preferences while also preserving the court’s ability to act in the future under the statutory process.

Next steps: staff will circulate draft guidelines to commissioners for review and bring the proposal back to the court for the required public notice and formal vote; state abatements would remain outside local control.