Trenton residents press council over annexation, CRA and proposed data‑center expansion; council holds first readings

At a packed City of Trenton council meeting on June 18, residents urged caution as the council moved forward with first readings of two annexation resolutions covering roughly 601.589 acres and introduced a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) and compensation agreement that would, as presented to the council, provide a 15‑year, 75% property‑tax exemption to developers.

The hearing drew repeated public concern about cumulative impacts from data centers, infrastructure strain and transparency. "If the majority of residents do not want the project, Council should represent them and not vote for it," said Chad (Clara Drive), who also asked the city to explain how potential revenue would be used. Donna Le Fevre said residents are already experiencing increased truck traffic and asked how many data centers are "too many" before the city requires cumulative studies on water, power, noise and emergency‑response impacts.

City leaders responded that the Prologis parcel discussed during public comments had been annexed years earlier and that the current resolutions before Council concern different parcels proposed for annexation. Mayor Ryan Perry and staff framed development revenue as a means to fund projects residents have repeatedly requested, including a second firehouse, an overpass to alleviate train delays and water‑system improvements, while avoiding higher taxes for current residents. "We want improvements without additional tax money from residents," Mayor Perry said.

Multiple residents also questioned shifting employment and headcount numbers publicly associated with the project; resident Barry Blankenship cited fluctuating figures (360, 150 and 120 employees cited at different times) and urged Council to delay action until full membership could attend. Finance Director Matthew Mesisklis told the meeting that payroll and long‑term projections presented by the developer have remained consistent even where the developer’s formal pledges changed and that comparable central‑Ohio data centers often exceed initial headcount projections. Mesisklis added that some projected water usage has been revised downward after the developer finalized utility purchases.

Angie Markham raised separate legal concerns after reviewing a lawsuit involving a former employee and recommended Council consider independent outside counsel if a conflict existed with the City Attorney. Mayor Perry and City Attorney Ziepfel said the City Charter limits reviewability in that personnel matter and clarified that the City had not been formally served at the time the lawsuit circulated publicly.

Council conducted the statutorily required first readings for two annexation resolutions (a services‑statement resolution and a consent resolution referencing Ohio Rev. Code §709.024) and placed the CRA/compensation agreement on the agenda for first reading with the emergency language required by the City Charter. Councilmembers emphasized that emergency language in an ordinance title does not necessarily indicate single‑night adoption; the Charter requires two readings unless Council votes separately to waive that requirement.

What’s next: the annexation resolutions and the CRA agreement remain at first reading and will return for further consideration at subsequent meetings; City Manager Nichols also scheduled an executive session to discuss confidential economic‑development information related to the AWS project and potential property purchase. Residents concerned with traffic, water quality and cumulative environmental impacts requested more comprehensive studies and clearer explanations of how development revenue would be allocated.