Residents assail secrecy and risks of proposed ‘Project Flash’ data center at Franklin County meeting

Dozens of residents filled the Franklin County administration chamber on July 21 to press elected supervisors to halt or better regulate a proposed large data‑center project that has drawn scrutiny after months of confidential negotiations. Citizens said they learned of the effort only after public records requests and accused county leaders of secrecy and undue haste.

Speakers at the public‑comment portion urged the board to stop moving forward with any sale or contract until independent studies and enforceable local standards are in place. “You were elected to represent the citizens of Franklin County, not the data center,” said Angelo D’Arienzo, who said the project would bring noise, lights, water consumption and long‑term harm to wells and property values.

Local experts and residents described a range of environmental and community concerns. Dr. Ron Hines, a retired EPA human‑health researcher, said potential noise and emissions from backup generators and continuous operation present health risks. Another commenter, Will Cleveland, warned that some operators put natural‑gas combustion turbines “behind the meter,” which can produce continuous emissions and local air‑quality impacts.

Several residents cited recent online listings and public records that indicate a developer has explored a 100‑megawatt facility at Summit View Business Park and urged the board to pause. “Confidentiality agreements that developers pursue with local officials can make residents feel blindsided and at a disadvantage,” said Lauren Walk, who recommended a special‑use review and buffer and disclosure requirements before any approvals.

The board heard repeated demands for a moratorium, for direct answers about any nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), and for independent studies of water, grid and emergency response impacts. Supervisor Tim Tatum asked staff to schedule a work session and to pull in regional partners and technical experts; other board members likewise asked staff for briefings on hydrology and grid capacity.

County staff and the sheriff’s office told the board they will assemble more information and bring the subject back for discussion. Chair Smith agreed to add more scheduled outreach and to hold follow‑up work sessions; supervisors and staff also said they will coordinate with regional authorities and identify technical experts to brief the board.

The board did not take any final action to approve or reject a data‑center project at the meeting. Several supervisors signaled the need for further review: staff were asked to prepare objective, third‑party briefings on water use, power needs and sound and air‑quality impacts, and to report back at upcoming meetings.

The meeting capped with a unanimous vote to adjourn and reconvene for a work session later in the week. Residents said they will continue to press the board for a clear, written policy before any contract is finalized or land sale completed.