Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge DeKalb commissioners to back independent study of data‑center impacts
Summary
Residents and local advocates urged the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners to fund and require a third‑party health and environmental study of large data‑center projects, citing noise, heat, water use and potential health risks; commissioners deferred further action to committee and agreed to revisit funding and procurement details.
Dozens of residents used the public‑comment period at the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners’ July 14 meeting to press elected officials for an independent health and environmental study of proposed and potential data‑center development.
Regina Roberts, a resident of Cedar Walk Lane, told the board she was not opposed to technology or jobs but urged elected officials to "protect the people who already live in our communities" and to approve the environmental health review Commissioner Terry requested. "The community thinks that this is crucial," she said.
Others described a range of local concerns. Dr. Conrad Hayashi, speaking on public‑health and security grounds, warned of noise, generator emissions and backup power systems, and suggested that large clusters of data centers could become targets for hostile actors. "Data centers are not clean," he said.
Speakers pointed to heat‑island effects, electromagnetic‑field concerns, strain on local water and power systems, and potential impacts on property values. Rosalyn McIntyre urged the board to fund the study directly by supporting a $22,000 per‑commissioner allocation that had been proposed. Dawson County resident Larry Foster said the public expects stronger controls and "a fully independent study that you and the very concerned public can trust."
On the dais, Commissioner Ted Terry said the substitute resolution discussed at the meeting was intended to send the procurement department to issue an RFP for a rigorous independent study and that the item deserved committee review to define scope, timing and cost. Commissioners debated whether an initial, smaller review (previously proposed at $15,000) was sufficient or whether a full independent study in the $100,000–$200,000 range was more appropriate.
After discussion, the board deferred the substitute resolution and a companion allocation item to committee with stops in PECS on Aug. 11 and a return to the full board Aug. 25, and commissioners ultimately agreed to withdraw an immediate allocation proposal so the committee could develop scope, procurement approach and funding details.
What happens next: the item will be discussed in committee (PECS and/or relevant oversight committees) before returning to the full board for a vote on study scope and any proposed funding.
