Residents urge moratorium, ask for transparency as proposed JPG data center draws public scrutiny

Hundreds of residents filled public comment time at the Jefferson County commissioners’ June 11 meeting to press for a moratorium and greater transparency over a proposed JPG data center project on property described in public remarks as more than 500 acres.

“So you all can start a moratorium, right?” asked Janice Kleper, a local resident, pressing commissioners on whether the board or the plan commission could initiate a zoning moratorium to pause new data-center approvals while the county studies potential impacts.

Supporters of a pause cited concerns about water use, backup generation, lighting, emissions and long-term tax breaks. Mary Hampton, a resident, said that public meetings had drawn large turnout and called for open hearings: “We are calling for transparency and accountability from our government,” she said. Becky Jackson told commissioners she feared damage to local air and water resources and urged a moratorium to give the county time to study consequences, including nearby parks and endangered species.

County officials and commissioners repeatedly described the legal and procedural limits of the present decision. One commissioner said: “The only decision that’s been made is that a data center fits in a heavy industrial area,” emphasizing that the zoning administrator’s determination is not the same as building-permit approval. Commissioners said any detailed design would trigger an independent engineering review and required state and local permits.

Residents quoted material they attributed to the project team — including claims that an advanced closed-loop cooling system would not consume cooling water and that the project would pay for all grid upgrades — and pressed officials on oversight. “Who watches that?” a resident asked, referencing developer assertions that upgrades would be paid by the project. Meeting participants noted that state rules and permitting, plus the county’s planned engineering review, are the mechanisms that would document whether infrastructure and environmental protections match developer promises.

Speakers also raised economic questions. Commenters repeated a figure that a JPG development could produce “$60 million” in tax revenue annually; others warned that tax-abatement practices and payment-in-lieu (PILOT) arrangements can reduce long-term county receipts and urged commissioners to scrutinize any incentive request.

Commissioners said they are preparing to post any submitted building-permit application on the county website, will alert the public when a permit is filed, and will retain an engineering firm to evaluate technical submissions. Several attendees requested that the board consider a temporary moratorium (zoning amendment) to create time for study; commissioners said the plan commission must hold a public hearing on any zoning change and that the board would weigh evidence if a moratorium proposal is brought forward.

The county did not take a formal vote at the June 11 meeting on a moratorium or on any data-center approvals. Commissioners directed staff to follow standard permit-review steps and to make filings and engineering reviews available to the public when they occur.