Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff outlines phased permitting, fees and host‑community agreements for data centers
Summary
The draft moves many technical obligations into a contract/host community agreement and proposes applicant‑paid third‑party technical review, phased permitting, and a checklist of deliverables including LOAs, traffic and hydrological studies and decommissioning plans.
Franklin County staff recommended on Feb. 2 that detailed, project‑specific obligations — including road‑use and maintenance agreements, decommissioning requirements and community benefit terms — be handled in a negotiable host community agreement or contract, while core standards remain in the ordinance.
Presenter explained the two‑stage review process: a preliminary plan (project summary, estimated peak electricity and water use, initial site plan and impact evaluation) followed by a final development plan and ILP permitting. The draft requires applicants to provide letters of availability (LOAs) from utilities prior to site‑plan approval; staff noted that IURC electric service agreements (ESAs) and some other state/regulatory approvals occur outside county control and remain prerequisites for occupancy.
Fees and technical review: staff proposed recovering county costs by requiring applicant‑paid third‑party technical reviews for acoustics, hydrology and traffic. The group discussed fee structures including a small percentage of total development cost (examples ranged from 0.2% to higher percentages cited from other jurisdictions), square‑foot charges, or MW‑based options. Participants emphasized the need to reconcile fees with phase‑by‑phase permitting and recommended examples and comparisons from peer counties.
Traffic, roads and bonding: the draft requires a baseline structural analysis of haul routes, upgrades and bonding for identified roads; the road‑use and maintenance agreement must cover construction and post‑construction repairs (cost plus 15%) and a traffic control plan paid for by the developer. Presenter said the comprehensive impact evaluation will drive what belongs in the host agreement (training/equipment for emergency services, road upgrades, etc.).
Decommissioning and ownership transfer: the ordinance would require decommissioning and restoration plans, performance guarantees and notification for ownership transfers; many operational and financial details would be finalized in the host community agreement approved by the commissioners.
What’s next: staff will refine fee options, bring examples from peer jurisdictions, and draft language describing third‑party review roles and how phased permits will be reconciled with total projected buildout for APC review.
