Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bryan council approves RELLIS data‑center tax abatement despite resident warnings

Bryan City Council · June 26, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Bryan City Council unanimously approved a tax‑abatement agreement for the RELLIS Campus Data and Research Center LLC (agenda item 4a) after residents raised public‑health, water and utility‑cost concerns during the citizens’ comment period.

The Bryan City Council voted unanimously to approve a tax‑abatement agreement with RELLIS Campus Data and Research Center LLC after public comment and a short council discussion. The presiding mayor moved to approve the agreement; a council member seconded and the motion carried without recorded opposition.

Several residents spoke against the abatement during the citizens’ comment period. Robert Rose, who identified himself as a longtime area resident and an incoming urban‑planning graduate student at Texas A&M, said the community would see “very limited benefits” and many long‑term costs, including higher utility bills, noise, air and water impacts and lingering contamination. “I wanna speak, against the abatement, for the data center,” Rose said, warning that abatements would remove future funding that could be needed if health problems emerge. Another speaker introduced by staff as Bob Atkille warned about testing small modular nuclear reactors at nearby RELLIS and described the community as being made into “guinea pigs” if the project advances without stronger safeguards.

The council did not amend or delay the agreement. The meeting record shows the mayor formally introduced agenda item 4a and moved for approval; the motion was seconded and declared carried unanimously. Council members asked staff to consider public testimony when moving forward with implementation, but no formal legal condition or amendment was added to the abatement at the meeting.