Warrick County planning panel tables draft data‑center ordinance, asks staff to draft moratorium

The Warrick County Area Planning Commission voted to table a draft ordinance regulating data centers for four months and directed staff to prepare a moratorium ordinance for the county commissioners to consider, after hours of public comment on environmental, public‑safety and economic risks.

The motion to table the draft ordinance passed on a roll call after commissioners debated whether to adopt rules now or pause to gather more expertise. The commission recorded five votes in favor and two opposed to tabling; members said the item will return for further work and outside expert input before any binding action.

Public commenters offered sharply different views but commonly urged more study. Jeff Baker urged the commission to “get expert advice and take the time it takes to make this very, very important decision,” saying the panel should verify claimed cost savings and review likely local impacts on jobs and quality of life. Christopher Stevens, a Ward County firefighter, described emergency‑response concerns and underfunded volunteer departments: “We’re operating a fire department on essentially $11,000 a year,” he said, and asked the commission to consider funding or access requirements that would let firefighters reach secured facilities quickly.

Supporters of further study said the draft relies on an arbitrary footprint threshold (the ordinance text as discussed defines a ‘large’ data center as anything over 40,000 square feet) rather than measures tied to energy consumption, water use or noise. Danielle Hudson recommended a performance‑based approach, arguing that “digital impact today is measured in megawatts, not square feet.” Others, including CenterPoint Energy’s president Mike Raider, urged the commission not to enact a moratorium, saying data‑center investment can bring tax revenue and jobs if local agreements hold developers to promises.

After discussion the commission amended a motion and voted to table the ordinance for four months (the board referenced a follow‑up meeting on November 9). The roll call as read on the record showed the motion carried 5–2. Commissioners then instructed staff to draft a moratorium ordinance and return it for consideration next month; that procedural motion passed on a separate roll call, 4–3.

Commissioners said the study committee will reconvene and will attempt to bring outside subject‑matter experts on utilities, acoustics, emergency response and decommissioning to address gaps identified during public comment. The commission repeatedly emphasized that any moratorium or ordinance would still need to be advertised and go before the county commissioners for final action.

The panel also listed other procedural steps it planned to take, including asking for independent utility reviews and clearer decommissioning requirements. The board adjourned after taking the actions described.