Residents press Trenton leaders on water, traffic and safety as city weighs proposed data center

Trenton — Residents filled the council chambers on Nov. 20 to press city leaders about a proposed data center, asking how the project would affect water and electric bills, traffic through downtown and emergency response near the railroad tracks.

"It means raising our water bills, our electricity bills that are already quite high right now," said Kim McBy, a resident at 283 North Branch Drive, during the audience‑of‑public segment, describing a recent household bill that exceeded $230 and urging council to consider low‑income residents when evaluating the project.

The exchange quickly moved into technical detail. Brad Baker, the city’s public works lead, gave the meeting rough capacity figures used in staff presentations: Trenton’s average water production is about 1.1 million gallons per day, system capacity about 3 million per day, and peak demand previously measured near 1.8 million. Staff said the prospective data center had reported an expected use in the order of 550,000 gallons per day — a level the city said could be handled under a formal water service agreement that would spell out supply limits and contingencies.

City Manager Mr. Nichols told residents that the city will negotiate terms, including any abatement requests, and that multiple regulatory bodies would also be involved: "They’re also going through the EPA to get everything. They’re going through Butler County to get all their permits," he said, noting the limits on what city staff can disclose during active negotiations but promising to publish materials that are part of the public record.

Traffic and emergency response emerged as central community concerns. Multiple residents described long waits at downtown signals, high truck volumes on South First Street and delays caused by trains blocking crossings. One longtime volunteer who described past experience with volunteer fire and rescue stressed that current part‑time staffing patterns can leave one side of town inadequately covered, urging the council to prioritize a south‑side station or other measures before committing to additional large water or electrical users.

Council and staff outlined tools they are reviewing: adjusting signal timing, re‑routing truck paths, conducting a sound study, and negotiating infrastructure betterments with the project. Staff also said the city has added municipal storage capacity (including a reported 1.5 million‑gallon storage improvement near an industrial site) and can switch water supply connections in an emergency because of a hook‑up with a regional supplier.

Several residents asked whether property values and proximity to schools had been considered; staff said comparable Ohio projects and local realtor input were used for preliminary analysis, and that final mitigation — including any sound‑proofing or school betterments — would be part of any negotiated agreement.

Next steps: staff told the meeting the planning commission review was tentatively scheduled for Dec. 8 (subject to change if preliminary submittals are incomplete). Officials encouraged residents to sign up for the city’s eNotify system to receive agenda and packet notices and to review prior presentations posted to the city’s Facebook and YouTube pages.

What was not decided: Council did not take any formal vote on the project at the meeting; public comment and staff presentations focused on clarifying the city’s capacity and on listing additional studies and negotiation points that will inform future decisions.

The council adjourned into executive session at 9:12 p.m. to discuss confidential economic development negotiations and related legal matters.