Great afternoon, everyone.

My name is Nicole Messiah, and I have the honor and pleasure to serve as your PECS chair, planning economic development and community services.

I serve alongside Commissioner Robert Patrick from District One and also Michelle Long Spears from District 6.

I'm sorry, from District 2.

I want to give you guys different districts today, huh?

All right.

Um, who is not present with us at the moment, but I think she may be joining with us.

Um also along with today, we have Commissioner Ted Terry from District 6.

If all commissioners have had an opportunity to review the minutes, I will entertain a motion.

Um motion to approve 2026-0637.

Thank you so much.

I have proper motion to have a second.

You're you're the second.

Second.

Well, the right there you go.

Commissioner Long Spears isn't with us.

That's right, not this moment.

Yes.

Um, second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

And we're just gonna um follow along the agenda as printed.

The next uh agenda item.

Quick second.

I don't believe that we have any presentations today.

And we'll just be plowing through the agenda again.

For those that are following along, we are on page one of our agenda.

That next agenda item is 2025-1760, and that is Commission Districts 2 and 6, and that is a park pride at Lana grant for $50,000 for Frasier Row.

Great afternoon, Director Bass.

How are you doing today?

All right, doing good.

Fantastic.

Uh, we are recommending approval for this item.

Uh this is to accept grant funds for uh from Park Pride for the purposes of installing a playground at Fraser Road Park and this round totals $50,000.

Fantastic.

Uh are there any questions, Commissioner Patrick?

Uh no questions, just a statement.

Um, working with community partners like Park Pride or really any other organizations out there is always a benefit to the county as a whole and the taxpayers individually.

So um uh grateful for your work in getting this to us.

Thank you.

Agreed.

Commissioner Terry, do you have any questions or comments?

Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Uh motion to approve 25-1760.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

The next agenda item is 2026-0550, excuse me.

And that's coming from Commission District 3 to adopt an ordinance to amend the code of DeCab County to address public safety, vagrancy, authorized, unauthorized camping, and certain public nuisance behaviors.

It's my understanding.

Well, um, legal has made some tweaks to that, in which I'm received today and had the opportunity to review.

Want to further be able to do that, and um we'll defer for two weeks if that's sufficient with legal.

Interim county attorney.

That is fine.

I just wanted to publicly apologize for just getting you your feedback today, Commissioner.

No worries.

I appreciate that, and we should be good to rock relatively soon with that.

Any com any questions, Commissioner Patrick?

Nope.

Uh looking forward to the discussion.

Um motion to defer for two weeks.

Commissioner Terry, you have any questions or comments?

Yes.

Um, I uh the agenda print uh packet does not have the ordinance.

Is that something you'll you'll circulate when appropriate commissioner Terry, our process is that we would share with Commissioner Masaya the feedback to hers, and then she will share with her colleagues when she's ready.

So I would I would need her permission to send it to everyone.

At this point, Commissioner Masaya, we intend to just continue to work with you on a draft.

And if and when you tell us to send it, we will or you would share it directly with your colleagues.

That's exactly what will happen.

I'll follow that process to get it as close to uh perfect as I can possible, and then any feedback from any of my colleagues, of course, take that in consideration.

Thank you so much.

Uh Commissioner Terry, do you have any other further questions or comments?

Seeing none, we will hold this um agenda item in committee and continue to work on it.

Thank you so much, interim county attorney.

Uh I think we need to vote.

We gotta take the vote.

To defer for two weeks.

There you go.

Aye.

Aye.

There we go.

That votion to defer this agenda item for two weeks has passed.

The next agenda uh item again on page two for those following along is at the top of page 22026-0244.

All commission districts a resolution requiring a baseline assessment of DeCab County's health, socioeconomic and environmental status and a third-party analysis of DeCAP's proposed data center regulations before issuance of a disturbance permit for data centers.

Commissioner Terry.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, this item actually is related to the next item.

Um so if it's possible, could we um discuss item 0245?

Um and the Science for Georgia is here with their updated um responses from the last committee meetings questions.

All right.

Is there um a specific action that you're gonna ask to be taken of these two items together?

Well, so the um item 0245 is actually doing the baseline study, um, and then the one you just read um really is determined based on whether we do the study or not.

All right.

So I'll entertain taking those collectively and read out the second agenda item related to this issue that's 2026-0245, all commission districts and allocation not to exceed 15,000 of the DeCab County, CAP County general fund to be considered for the FY 2026 budget to the science for Georgia to conduct a baseline assessment of DeCab County's current health, socioeconomic and environmental status, and provide a third-party analysis of DeCab County's proposed data center regulations context contextualized by the county's current health and socioeconomic, excuse me, and environmental status.

Commissioner Terry.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and I believe that Science for Georgia is right in the audience.

And um, well, we were not prepared for a presentation uh today.

Uh science for um for Georgia did come and present to PECS during our last um committee meeting.

So we were not prepared and um didn't anticipate them uh presenting again today.

So um with that, is there any other discussion that we'd like to have as a um committee and Commissioner Terry with you joining related to these two agenda items?

Um Madam Chair, um so there were several questions that were asked at the last committee meeting.

And so I thought this might be the best opportunity for those questions to be answered for the committee.

And that they don't they don't have to present, we can just ask the questions that you want to.

Yeah, and so that very well may be the case.

Um and there is an opportunity, of course, for questions that had been asked for the answers to the uh to those questions to be provided to the uh committee members and commission as a whole via email.

Again, we had not uh intended to do any presentations, and that includes a QA related to this topic.

So for questions that were asked, and if there is a desire to be responsive after the fact to those particular questions, I respectfully ask that you provide those answers to those questions via email, and then we will distribute it accordingly.

Thank you.

Commissioner Patrick Um Nothing new to add to the last time we had actually spoken about it again from my perspective, you know, um baseline assessment of the county's health, socioeconomic and environmental status.

Um rather than having that tied to to data centers or any particular use or area, I would sort of prefer to have that countywide as in what is the overall status of health, not in a public health sense, but uh status of health within the CAB County for these areas that have been laid out.

I think that that right there may be far more um beneficial for us as a policy board uh and as the governing authority to be able to say we know specifically hot spots are here, uh better spots are here, and then how do we how do we bring everybody up together?

So that would be my comment for uh 0244, and I think essentially the same thing for uh 0245.

Um with as regards to 245, I would also say though that I think our staff has done a phenomenal job of looking into and putting together the ordinance that has been contemplated up to this point.

Um so with that in mind, I'm not sure that these two items really um, at least as they're configured right now.

I'm not sure what kind of traction they have.

Uh just very respectfully.

Um, I mean that's I mean, that's fair of this democracy, so you know I want to do something, that's fine.

Um the the reason why I'm bringing this forward is because it it has come up in the uh public comments, emails, and community conversations around data centers, and so um the terrain that is changing.

Um which one in particular, Commissioner?

Are we talking about 244, 245 or both of them together?

Yeah, I mean they're together.

So the the idea is that we would not approve a land disturbance permit until the assessment's done, and then the 15,000 allocation is to do the assessment.

So one should be done before the other, obviously.

Um but they're tied together.

Um but it's it's not necessarily a health up to cab.

It's really focusing on the concerns that people are raising and and I don't want to pretend that I'm a scientist or a health professional.

Personal fair enough.

I mean, I I've done my research and I I and I agree with you.

I think our ordinance actually is mostly covered all of the concerns.

Um this in my mind gives us an additional layer of scientific backing for what our ordinance is doing.

And so I I'm I'm actually predicting that it's going to show that we actually are really on the right track.

Um but this provides an additional layer of um hopeful analysis to for anyone else out there that might still be concerned with um the current regulations.

With with 244, I guess is your expectation that that is written into the proposed ordinance that we're looking at, as in you come in for a special use permit for a data center and this is part of your review process that you have turned in these documents.

Is that the is that the idea on that?

Um So it wouldn't necessarily be for every land disturbance permit, um it would just be before any land disturbance permits.

And so once the assessment's done and we feel comfortable that we've provided all the regulations and protections, then an LDP can move towards the process.

So then basically what you're saying is as a condition, one of the conditions in order to get your special land use permit for a data center, you've got to go through this process.

The uh contractor or applicant has to pay for their review, and then that's part of the submitted documentation that makes its way to the Board of Commissioners in the in the zoning application?

Um I think that would be too burdensome to do one for every single LDP.

Um I think that the key factor here is before any LDPs are issued, we've done this baseline assessment.

So once the baseline assessment is done and we have that data, then it can inform special land use permits conditions, right?

And there might be something that is identified in the stakeholder process that you know we hadn't thought about.

Um so it's more just to inform the potential conditions that might come about from an LDP or a um a special land use permit.

And just to ask, so you're you're not you're saying it's not intended for a specific or for every uh slep that comes through here, but in general, we're just gonna have a baseline.

And is this again, is this a countywide baseline?

Is this is there a geography that this associated with this?

Well, it's a baseline, not of necessarily the county, um, but of the regulations that might be involved in protecting the health.

So if there are concerns about air pollution, right?

So in our ordinance, we are banning any on-site power generation.

Um so we can't build a natural gas plant into CAP.

Like so, like that would probably be something that someone would bring up in a stakeholder meeting, and we because I've heard it before.

Um, but I think we've covered that.

Um now the diesel generators and how we address sort of the the 10 hours a month they have to be tested and the noise and the air pollution there.

It would be good to have an understanding of you know how many generators would be on a site per square foot of data center, and then that would help us understand potential um particular matter in the air.

You know, to to your point on that, uh what I've thought would be a uh helpful analogy is is uh one generator is the equivalent to however many trucks or fractions of so that people know you know this is what's this is what we're talking about, and there's an understanding of that.

Um yeah I'll just say that um I remember one of our um our well actually our last maybe two meetings um and having a discussion in and around it uh this topic we were trying to gauge what the difference was between what's being proposed to be done by a third party versus what the um county does by natural course uh being concerned for is it's citizens uh specifically as it relates to health and when we broaden it to also include things like the socioeconomic um health condition um in addition to environmental um you know it seems like it goes a a bit further and I also recall that our last meeting it was you know trying to understand because I'm all for it, let's identify a baseline to make sure we're not adding to any potential um issues by allowing anything to enter into our county at all or to be built within our county at all.

But with that, the um Science Georgia had um made clear and articulated that they were not an expert on um this topic and impact.

And so um I'm not quite certain why we haven't pivoted to maybe looking at additional mechanisms um in terms of really getting out the data and the science, and admittingly I'm no you know, science nerd uh either and no expert uh by any stretch of the imagination, but that's why I I you know asked the question so that I can make sure as we're being advised that we're getting the specific information we need to make an informed decision from the experts.

So um that's my um position there of just not quite understanding it.

Commissioner Patrick.

Um would it be appropriate to ask staff to come up and sort of yes tell us how they view what's being asked in in relation to the existing or the proposed ordinance and see how this um great afternoon, Deputy Bragg.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Um we met with Science Georgia um early on in our research, and um their recommendations formed a lot of the foundation for the current text amendment, um, including the studies that we require from each individual application.

Um those are intended to assess the specific potential impacts of the specific development.

So if you have um a specific proposal, um when you come in to apply for any kind of permit, whatever your first permit is with the county, you would be required to submit um your potential water impact um energy impact.

Um so we I think we have five different types of impact studies that we're asking from each of those, and that is based on um our conversations with uh science for Georgia.

All right.

And so is there um anything from any specific analysis?

It sounds like there's already been some work and the things that you thought should be incorporated, or staff thought should be incorporated has been incorporated.

Is there anything additional where you would feel as though there's a an additional analysis that is done independent of um planning?

So not that not that I am aware of um I think that um to talk what Commissioner Patrick is talking about is a different kind of approach where we go in and we study the entire county to find that baseline.

So then we have basically a like before and after where we're studying to see what the actual impacts are.

Um but from my understanding from watching the proposal um for this $15,000 study, this is not that.

This is more of an overview of the literature, an understanding, and I I don't mean to speak for them, they can obviously speak for themselves.

Um, but but this again, my understanding is that this is more providing us with those foundational documents to tell us what should be in this tax amendment.

But again, my understanding is that we have um captured that information and put it into the tax amendment.

Okay, and so that thank you for um softball question there because I was gonna add so because to the extent you've spent the time having the conversation with them.

I'm presuming that those things you thought we should incorporate that we have um as a county, and in my understanding is not anything uh additional, and we have the capacity and customarily come up with any language um to share.

Is there anything you'd like to add in addition to that, or am I mistaken or so?

I think I think what the text amendment asks is for the specifics based on the specific proposal, and um with a more general kind of study, you can't study what you don't know, right?

So we don't know what are the specific designs of any per specific project, how how big is it, how impactful is it, what does the design look like?

You can't really study those things before you have a specific proposal in front of you.

And that's why we're asking that those specific studies be included with any project proposal.

So got it.

So and it's something in general, but not something I mean, at this point, we're not even looking at, you know, we're just trying to determine what's necessary, but it seems like that is not a specific specific instance or circumstance right now to which we would even apply it.

Right.

Right.

Um and I'm sure you know the study would give us additional granular information that could then be incorporated into a future tax amendment.

Um but I am pretty confident that we've at least captured the overall goals um of what that study would would result in.

Thank you.

That that's helpful.

Commissioner Terry, do you have anything additional?

Um yes, thank you.

Um Rachel, remind me the five impact um reports.

Is there any health public health at nose five?

So there is not a public health um component because I don't know what that would look like.

So what we've done, what our understanding is that the biggest concerns from a public health perspective are really from the diesel generators, and that's something that we have banned um from that is not allowed in DeCab County.

Diesel generators are are not allowed.

So that's based on our research and um the prior studies, that's really the number one correlation between any kind of adverse health impact.

Um and so I don't know, and again, maybe that's something the study would show us, right?

Is like what specific health indicators should we be looking at.

Um, but there's not like some kind of surprise goo or something that comes out of the data centers.

There's not any there's not some kind of unknown substance um that's that's the data.

No, I think that makes sense.

Um and I think the um so uh you know the uh the this effort is really around the larger category of public health.

Yeah.

And the things that have been brought forward, one at NACO, one at a town hall I went to in Savannah last week on data centers, um, is PFAS.

So the impact of PFAs, we have not addressed that in our ordinance.

Um so this would be an opportunity for Science for Georgia to study what's happening and what the literature is on the PFOS, because we have not talked about that at all.

Yeah.

Um I do believe we do allow diesel generators, they're just level four, and they're only for bat battery backup and they have to be tested 10 hours a month.

So it's we can't we can't we can stop on-site power generation to run the facility, but they still need to have the backup generators.

So and this is where I'm gonna ask for assistance.

Um Tricia.

Okay.

And while you're coming up, I'll just keep it keep it moving here.

So um the other thing that we did ask Science Georgia Purdue to do, and this is actually something that has been recommended from NACO, um, and actually even Microsoft and Google are even volunteering it now, and that's a community benefits agreement.

So sometimes communities don't actually know what to ask for, but when you have multi-billion dollar, you know, tech companies who want to, you know, build massive developments in our neighborhoods, um, you know, the question becomes what's the benefit for the community?

And so um what Science for Georgia also was gonna do in this work in the scope of work was actually provide a checklist of what communities should be asking for based on what other um CBAs we've seen that have been put out there and even approved um in other parts of the country.

So that that would uh those are kind of some things that are yeah, they're I mean, like you have the water and you have like you have aspects of it.

Yeah.

Um so the the generation.

Let me let me clarify.

Um so you're right, the level four generators, they're still j diesel generators, they're just I guess the cleanest current version of the diesel generator that's on the market.

Yeah, that's the EPA level four.

Yes.

So and I think what Science for Georgia would do would and this is the baseline assessment is okay, you know, X number of square feet require X number of diesel generators, they gotta be powered 10 hours a month.

What is the actual environmental and public health impact of that?

And so that's just it's really just to inform us.

Um I generally believe that you know like I'd like to see more battery generators than diesel generators.

That's something we've seen up in Minneapolis at their Google data center facility that also had a community benefits agreement where they actually were funding um community programs um in the city where the where the data center was approved.

So um this is you know, and again, Commissioner Patrick, like another approach could be to add a public health re study or two, you know, you know, so all the five pull reports plans that have to be done before there's staff approval.

You know, you know, so all the five pull reports plans that have to be done before there's staff approval.

Yeah.

We could add a six one that says every application has to have a public health sort of report.

I mean that could also be another way to achieve the same thing.

What I was trying to do with this agenda item is provide that baseline.

So just give us like the high level, here's sort of the the basics of what we need to know and what might impacts be there could be more detail that comes from that.

Um but this is uh a way for us to start uh with something that um is foundational on public health protections mostly.

Um and and yeah, just I guess from a staff perspective, you know, we have no objection to an additional study.

Um my main concern honestly at this time is just timing.

Um I think that you know, we have a moratorium um that ends in June.

I think ideally, you know, we resolved this before then.

Um, but isn't it not true that an LDP is something that comes later on?

So in theory, if an ordinance was approved, there still would be a cycle and an LDP might not take place for months.

Yes.

And um something that you know we really want to normalize is the iterative uh nature of legislation.

So even though we pass an initial data center ordinance, that doesn't mean that that's the final thing that we say on data centers.

So I I totally agree if there was additional work that we wanted to do um that could always be amended to the uh go ahead.

Um just because water quality was mentioned again in PFAS in particular, um I know that's not a planning topic.

I was gonna say, you know what would be really awesome?

Yeah, if we can take this to PWI.

Um if if there was a way uh and being respectful to the chair, if we could have uh someone from uh watershed management be at the next meeting and sort of be able to speak to the water quality concerns that I know many residents have have repeated.

Uh Commissioner Terry certainly is.

Uh uh I want to be respectful of the chair.

So we can uh discuss that and make a determination there.

So I I I thank you so much, uh PWI chair for I mean it could be both.

Like understood.

Absolutely understood.

But but either way, I guess even if it's our next meeting, if we could have someone from watershed management that can get into I would really appreciate that.

Uh sort of the requirements.

I know one resident doesn't like when I say this, but there is the MS4 permitting process.

Absolutely.

Uh there's also conversations about what is allowed downstorm water.

Yes.

Uh and and um also with what's allowed within the sewer system.

So I just you know, uh and these are things that are beyond the bounds of of planning and zoning type issues, they really get into really uh uh almost public works uh watershed management items.

So if we could invite them to the next conversation, I think that would be uh great, Madam Chair.

I I do too.

Um because I mean again, and I'll reiterate um as we and I appreciate as it sounds like you do as well, the um some of the work that Science for Georgia has done, again, they have admitted that as it relates to public health impact, they are not an expert.

And you know, um since that's specifically what we're looking at and wanting to study and determine the impact of we want to you know, we want experts to be able to provide us that um information so we can be as well informed uh as possible and not just essentially have a you know just a general study.

I mean just make it as specific as it needs to be and as tailored so it could be as helpful to us all as possible so we can make the best decision.

And then commissioners, I just wanted to confirm the request for watershed.

That is we want to have this conversation continue in PECS and not move it to PWI.

Um if you'll give us uh an afternoon and we'll work out the same.

So I was gonna suggest as well.

We'll uh the chair P TWI and myself will um talk and you know elicit more information from you all um as well and determine the best um committee to continue the conversation just knowing that we're gonna get into some very um detailed specifics um related to, especially since we're talking about you know generators and this uh and this sort.

My colleague here is more of an expert uh in that frame than I am, and just again make the best decision as to who uh we move forward because it ended up may end up being uh another um analysis that needs to be done and bringing on additional partners and you know, just making some tweaks so that we can best serve the constituents.

Uh Commissioner Patrick.

If there was a way we could have a actual another level of science conversation, hydrogen would be a very great source as opposed to a diesel generator, but a hydrogen generator, maybe that's the way to power when you burn hydrogen, you're making water.

You're not making anything else that's toxic to the community.

So I think Trump cut all the funding for that then.

Well, we'll go talk to him.

Um, we're gonna do hydrogen hubs.

Yes, there were big ones in the IRA, but they got the funding for it.

Alrighty.

I didn't vote for that.

So just moving this uh along a bit.

I think that um we have a plan to uh have further discussions, determine the best route to move it along.

So uh Commissioner?

Commissioner Terry, two weeks, and that comes back to PWR comes back to PECS, and then we we'll continue the conversation.

So I'll just ask Science for Georgia just to just send an email with the answers to the questions that came up last time.

And that way you can just have them all.

Um and just last thing I'll say is I don't think Science for Georgia was saying that they're the expert on on all these issues.

They're they're the experts in doing the literature review.

So they're not actually the ones deciding what's right or what's wrong.

They're just going out and actually doing confirm.

They're doing a liter a scientific review of what's the evidence is out there and compiling it, giving it to us so we have the information, and then part of the scope was actually just to present it to the public.

Um so it's just designed to you know find all the expert data that's out there and bring it in under one report that is hopefully addressing all the questions we've gotten about data centers and the concerns.

Okay, yeah.

No, I I I I get wholeheartedly that they're we're not they're not the experts on public health impact, and um that was the understanding, and again, it just may behoove us to bring in additional folks who are that can help guide us to make the best and well-informed decision.

So um with that, I'll entertain a motion, Commissioner Patrick.

Uh sorry, motion you motion to defer for two weeks.

Second.

Uh, those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

The last agenda item for those following along again on page two is 2026-0341, all commission districts a resolution by the DeCap County Board of Commissioners requesting the administration and planning department to update the recommended substitute for text amendment 2025-0972 regarding data center regulations.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, the resolution is um in the agenda packet.

Um so I'll be happy just to review it once again.

Um so the three things that I'm um asking for in this resolution is that the planning department update their uh text amendment recommendations to include requiring a special land use permit uh for all data center applications.

Um, the striking the data center campus definition to effectively cap every development at 500,000 square feet.

And then number three, uh expanding the incentivization, the incentivizing of all new data center operations to utilize 100 percent renewable energy uh to mitigate the massive power demand on the local grid and align with the CAP county's sustainability goals.

Um and just as a reference point, it wouldn't be um installing clean energy 100% on the site.

It would just be um basically what they call a virtual power plant.

So they would contract with Georgia Power to install clean energy um somewhere else on the Georgia Power grid, or even potentially um buy energy um wind energy from the Midwest, which is um something that actually happens currently in the Georgia Power IRP.

Um so those are the three um proposed amendments, and the goal here is to just try to keep us on track.

I really would like to approve our data center regulations when they come back.

Um but these are the three things that um have come up in community conversations.

Um the special land use permit, that was something that Loudoun County uh commissioners at the last NACO meeting and then the previous NACO meeting have said absolutely do not require any data center by right.

Everything should be a slump, so every site has a community review.

Um and they were so adamant about that.

I I said that's a good point.

They would know because they've more data centers uh in Loudoun County than anywhere else, um except Atlanta Metro Atlanta is catching up apparently.

Director Bragg, uh Deputy Director Bragg, sorry.

Um yes.

So I think that there are pros and cons to all three of these proposals.

Um I would be happy to discuss those.

Um so talk starting with the slump for everything.

Um we allow our the proposal is to allow small data centers by right in certain areas.

Um by requiring a slut for these smaller data centers, you're essentially discouraging what appears to be a low impact use.

Um I do understand that without a slop, you're not able to add any kinds of agreements to that by right use, but um again, based on our review, it does appear that the ones that we're talking about allowing by right are very small.

We're talking 2,000 square feet, so what could fit potentially in a in a in a small office building.

Um, and we do know that we are seeing the underutilization of our office spaces, so we thought that that was potentially a good solution that would have a low impact by requiring a slut for that.

Obviously, you add an extra layer uh or a timeline on that project.

Um can I ask over?

No, um no, actually please continue.

Okay.

Um so additionally, um, you know, I I definitely respect Loudoun County, and so I would say other than our friends at Science for Georgia, the place that we got most of this tax amendment from is also Loudoun County, um, but we are not Loudon County.

So we don't have um a lot of greenfields that are ready for redevelopment.

Um what we do have are older um industrial sites that are underutilized or are just sitting stagnant.

Um so the goal of allowing um a certain type of redevelopment to not require a slump as long as they meet all of the other requirements, including the distance requirements, um including submitting all the same studies.

The the text amendment does allow under that narrow circumstance to not have a slump, but again, the idea is to encourage the redevelopment of those vacant or underutilized industrial sites because that that's something that as a as a county um looking at our land use, we see an opportunity for those to be redeveloped into something that is more beneficial than a vacant tow yard, junk or salvage yard, or potentially a solid waste or recycling facility.

Um so that's what I have to say about the sleps for everything.

Um, and then I have comments about the other two as well.

All right, you can get a comment on the other two.

Okay.

Um so banning campus size, um my concern, our staff concern about that is that it discourages established end-to-end users from locating in DeCab County.

So the big names that um build the facilities and then utilize them throughout their entire lifespan.

Um the Microsoft's the Googles are potentially less likely, and we've heard from them are less likely to locate at if we um ban over 500,000 square feet are less likely to locate here.

So who would be locating in DeCAB instead?

Um our concern is that it would be the folks who are um purchasing, developing, and then flipping them or selling that spot, the capacity to other third-party end users.

So uh essentially it could be encouraging the less established or less experienced data center manufacturer data center developers to locate in the CAB instead of um the more formalized um or experienced data center developers who are more likely to operate from construction through the end user.

Um the other concern is about potentially extending a construction timeline.

So if we do something where we're phasing it, um, where we only allow certain sizes at a time, you're then looking at taking a construction time period that's already something like 24, 36 months, and potentially making that you know three, five, eight years, depending on how long or how large the ultimate project is expected to be.

Um construction uh has a lot of adverse impacts as well.

That that time period where you're actually doing the ground disturbing and the vertical construction has also has a possibility for potential impacts um even outside of the actual data center operations.

That's not to say that there are not positives to to capping the size, um, especially in DeCab where we have a limited amount of space, and we really want to make sure that we're making the most of our industrial areas.

Um, so that is definitely on on the pro side of the banning of the campus size.

Um finally with the 100% renewable for the height bonus.

I I don't see any concerns um there.

I think that if we push that incentive to a hundred percent renewable, it just means we're less likely to see folks take advantage of that, and we do overall, especially in our M and M2 zoning districts.

I think we would prefer to see vertical construction instead of horizontal construction.

Um, but I don't know if that's even that that great of an incentive.

So um I I don't think um there's any strong objection to that one one way or the other.

All right, thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

I'm gonna go to committee members first, Commissioner Patrick.

Do you have any questions based on or comments?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I'd take your points on the first uh suggestion, the special land use permit um being for all.

Um is there if we were to have some type of special land use uh how to phrase this, if it's adaptive reuse of a building, as in there staying in their existing four walls, they're not doing any structural height expansions with expansions.

Um to me it doesn't seem like there would be a need for the for the special use permit because you're staying in the existing building envelope and you're not you're not doing more.

So right now the restriction isn't that narrow.

Right now it's for properties that were previously used as industrial sites, um, with the understanding a lot of these don't necessarily have buildings on them at all, or they're not necessarily suitable.

Um and then uh just to follow up with that is uh you know, if there was a percent expansion of a building envelope, then yes, you have to come get a special use permit with that.

Um that would be just a another conversation, priests um point well taken on number two.

I guess the concerns of of having the development at all um the putting in that cap on the square footage could be could be challenging.

Um then for uh number three, the clean energy incentive.

Um, you know, if there was a way to say you've come in and shown you've got so many solar cells or uh turbines uh around the country that are dedicated towards supplying data at this location.

I almost wonder if there wouldn't be a benefit to having that incentive you get a little more for what you've asked.

Um but I'd uh a little more flesh out, I guess I would say would be appropriate for something like that.

Um so there is currently an incentive in the text amendment that allows you to build taller um if you use 10% of renewable energy.

Um and I think the proposal is to require that to be a hundred percent.

Okay, okay.

Uh as of right now, those are my comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Long Spears.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

No comments this time.

Thank you.

All right.

And then um there we have been working on some additional things that have been mentioned before, but um, and I think that staff has done a great job in trying to flesh out some of those things, but there's still more to be done and more requested by the public.

Um that's the decommissioning and some decommissioning aspect, some bond where we can have um a bond to exist and stiffening um and best it investigatory or some type of reporting um just based on what's there, maybe stiffening that up a bit.

And so what I am um working on is getting additional language, um again, trying to not recreate the wheels, see what has worked in some of our neighboring jurisdictions, so that I'm not making it um additionally complex for either staff or for legal, and to be able to provide a framework for which my colleagues and I could actually uh review, not just you know, mentioning wanting to do those things, but specific language that suggested that we can actually review and make a determination as to whether we see it best to incorporate into our text amendment.

So just as a you know, update there, and um, of course, as always welcome any additional that you would like to share related to that.

So I would share um that one of the studies that we do require with any application is a decommissioning plan.

So that is something um that that we absolutely heard and included.

Um we are currently, the tax amendment does currently require an annual report, which is the update of all of the studies that are submitted before the application.

What we haven't um been able to do is find a good uh trigger or tie to that.

Um we don't want to tie it to the business license because we don't want um somebody to not have a business license with such a stiff penalty that it's just not proportionate.

Um then, yeah, we we have not looked at um some so we do have a bond process obviously for the project itself for the land disturbance activities, um, but we don't have any um other uses that have um an ongoing bond um throughout their of their lifespan.

Okay, I had some great language related to that.

But so just you know, as an update there, Commissioner Terry.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um on the slut process.

Um so yeah, I mean, if if there's like a small 2,000 square foot, I mean I don't think that's really that big of a deal.

Um so I mean I wouldn't be opposed to just tweaking that.

Um but I mean if you're gonna build a six million square foot data center in DeCab County, and we're gonna let them do it by right, that is a complete abdication of our responsibility for appropriate land use and zoning considerations.

I mean, can you imagine if we said you can build an asphalt plant without it with a buy right, which I guess you can in some areas, but we'd like maybe we should go back and change that one.

Um but this is an opportunity for us to get ahead of the problems that other communities are literally facing.

Um it's the reason why I brought forward the Science for Georgia proposal, because they can go and tell us here's what other communities are dealing with right now, and we should be aware of it.

Um the campus, and I understand what you're saying, you know.

Like if we're gonna do data center, let's get the folks who really are doing it.

Yeah.

Um but so far, the ones we've seen, I mean, it's it's a real estate development play.

I mean, they're not, I mean, I don't as far as I know, Google and Meta haven't come to me and said we want to build a data center.

It's just developers that own land who are seeing dollar signs, because if they can get their land entitled for a data center, then that land goes from four million dollars, like at entrenchment Creek Park, to a hundred million dollars, just like that.

So who makes the money?

The people who own the land.

So just let's just be aware of what's really going on here.

It's uh and again, maybe someone can correct me, and maybe Zach, maybe the CEO has met with Google and Meta, I don't know.

I don't know, I don't know how those details.

So that would be something to consider if we have a I mean, because for instance, Google has made a commitment by 2035 to power their data centers 100% renewable 100% of the time.

And that is the fundamental issue that's going on right now, the public service commission, because our power bills have gone up by hundreds of dollars, and they will go up hundreds of dollars more because of data center demand to build new power plants that are dirty, expensive, and polluting.

Um but if Google is like, yeah, let's build a data center in DeCab County, we'll follow all the regulations, we'll make sure all the health issues are addressed, community benefits agreements, and it's 100% renewable energy powered, you won't get much protest from me.

But if they can come in without a slump, build a six million square foot data center, and there's no community benefits agreements, uh we don't pass any fiscal policy statement about making sure some of that tax money that is generated stays in the community.

I mean, think about like if 20 years ago we said all the dirty polluting industrial parts of Southwest DeCab, some of that tax money had to stay in the community.

I guarantee you those places would be a lot nicer.

They'd have sidewalks, they have new parks, they probably would have more development and Cedar Grove Elementary School wouldn't be closing.

So, you know, there's a cost benefit here.

Um I proposed um something that I thought was very reasonable that you cap five you cap the the LDPs at 500,000 square feet, but allow them to stage it.

So if there was a real major player and they really wanted to build six million square feet, well you just got to break it up over a few years.

Um the biggest concern I have, and this is and this is my own research, so everyone else is welcome to do their own research, but there is a possibility that we're reaching an inflection point where we have too many data centers and there's a bubble.

At the same time, they literally had um a breakthrough in chip technology, which requires one-tenth of the power to run the same chip.

So imagine if we build a six million square foot data center, and actually we only need half you know, half of that to power the same output.

I guess that's where the decommissioning plant comes in, but honestly, they're probably just gonna leave it as a vacant building until I guess maybe the movie industry comes back.

But that's being replaced by AI, which is being exacerbated because data centers are training AI to make really good videos of Will Smith eating spaghetti.

Just look it up.

There's literally a seven year montage of the first AI have Will Smith eating spaghetti, and the one they just came out with yesterday looks like Will Smith is eating spaghetti.

No lie.

They did that in six years.

So Hollywood ain't coming back, films aren't coming back.

Um but that land once it's developed, it's developed.

Right.

Now, crazy other idea that I found in Quebec, they're building data centers and vertical farms.

Guess what requires a lot of power?

Vertical farm operations, not as much power as data centers.

Can you imagine if we asked a data center, every 500,000 square foot data center they build, they had to build a hundred thousand square foot vertical farm operation?

And then by the way, can you feed people into Cab County for the next 20 years off those operations?

You can grow beans, lettuce, strawberries.

I mean, we could be we could reclaim our place as an agricultural leader, right?

We could put one of those cows, Zach.

Put one of those cows outside of a data center next to a vertical farm operation, you know.

Um hearkening back to our agricultural roots.

Um but I think the thing that's that's really striking is um that um about at this point about in the last year, about half of all data centers that have been proposed around the United States have been defeated.

Yeah.

Um in fact, actually, Republicans are leading the charge on stopping data centers.

It is a seminal issue right here, right now.

And can you imagine if a democratic county, all the things we care about, environment, power bill, consumer rights, public health, and we simply say we will provide an easy way for you to build a six million square foot data center, no strings attached, and then we'll just see what happens.

And if we could do the slump, and that would be the one compromise commissioners that I think would change all this.

If we could just require any size data center, even if you had the campus, forget the clean energy, if you just had the special land use permit, then you would let the two commissioners in that area where it's being developed, have a meeting with the community to say, what do you want?

How can we invest in your community?

And we didn't get to it in Fab.

Um, but the my fiscal policy note could put back 10 million dollars a year back into the community for schools and the county annually every year, and still have money Zach for services and for the Rainy Day Fund.

So there's no doubt the the the honey pot that our data centers is present, and that's what's really attracting local leaders.

Commissioner we need to be aware of the pitfalls.

And I think with the work that we're trying to do here is to be mindful of the potential pitfalls, and it seems like there's some good points that we're all making and all working on this very difficult challenge, wanting to make sure that we have properly done our part to protect constituents as much as possible, even though it is not you know, one all um be all, and there's modifications, amendments that can be made.

Their whole purpose is to make sure we get it as right as possible.

Commissioner Patrick.

I I did not see Will Smith eating spaghetti.

But I but I did see our president with a red robe and the glowing hands.

Yes.

So um, you know, maybe we should not have any data centers in America.

Um, I getting uh back to this.

Uh uh uh I heard a lot of what Commissioner Terry said.

I I think I also heard our staff say that there is a special land use component already built into the existing legislation.

Um I guess So there's there's one there is an exception, and that's what Commissioner Terry is referring to, is that if you can meet all of the um supplemental requirements um if you provide all of the studies, and if that property was formally used as an industrial site, then you don't um you're not required to get a slope.

That is how the current ordinance reads.

And are there uh just off the top of your head, are there any properties that would fit that build or going from vacant land to to wanting to do something sounds like that that would not meet the right?

It it couldn't be a greenfield development.

It would have to be the redevelopment of an existing industrial site.

Okay.

That's also 500 feet from any residential or trail that that also meets the rest of the supplemental requirements.

Thank you.

Is there a way that your team could do us just a quick survey, you know, this is assemblages of lands that could meet this and still have the 500 foot buffer?

Um it's been more difficult than we expected.

Appreciate your feedback on that, Commissioner Terry, too.

So but yes is the answer.

Okay.

Well, if we need to consider the a slump component, then I guess we'll we'll need to do that.

And and point well taken about um about allowing a large um development without conditions.

Um absolutely.

Um and maybe there are other ways to re-incentivize to incentivize those redevelopments.

Um and just to follow up question on those aspects, the economic development component, are you guys talking with anyone outside the county structure that that's sort of knowledgeable with economic development and sort of what developers uh are looking for and then being able to balance that with what our residents will tolerate?

Right.

So um we've talked to I would say uh a handful of um developers themselves who have told us what they're looking for in sites um and as well as commercial real estate professionals.

Um and so I mean what we know is um you know they're looking for water power and um a flat site.

Yeah, and so that that's that's kind of the their basis, and then they go from there.

Um thank you.

But yeah, we will we will keep working on that map um and hopefully have some some better specifics that we can actually look at and talk about.

Perfect.

Very much appreciate all of the work that you all are doing.

Um I mean, the more we go into some of these conversations, it just proves the need to continue to have the conversation, and albeit um people think it's for nefarious reasons or allude to that, there is a benefit in making sure we're taking the time that is necessary to flesh out things as much as possible.

So I appreciate the continued work that you guys put in so that we can have these dialogues and it seems like we all get something out of it, but most of us get something out of it, you know, the more we tend to have conversations about it and just ways that we can improve.

So thank you so much for being willing to you know allow us the and being gracious to uh indulge and entertain us and keeping this going so that we can make sure that we're doing it as right as possible because we only get one chance though we have an opportunity to make amendments.

So thank you for that.

Thank you for all your work.

Absolutely, thank you.

Um Madam Chair, if I could ask you, uh uh Director Bragg if you're uh deputy Brack the Bragg I did the same thing to you.

Come on.

Yes, sir.

Um can you remind me of our calendar of events as it relates to the data uh center ordinances?

Yes, so the data center ordinance is actually back on your agenda on uh May 12th.

And um the moratorium um expires, I believe it's June 15th.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Yes.

Thank you so much, and I appreciate it.

Um I guess my question next question, Madam Chair, would be to Commissioner Terry.

Um is it appropriate to bring this conversation back up for the May 12th and and have that as part of the full this is what we're getting and full conversation with the residents and the uh uh the governing authority or um I mean I don't I wouldn't yeah, I mean I think a deferral is appropriate, but I want to sort of how do we time this so that this can be sort of dovetailed into the other conversation and have it all at once.

Um yes, uh great question.

So um what I was hoping to do with this resolution is uh for it to get approval.

Um but if there's some changes, I'm open to that.

And if it was approved, Director Bragg has said they would make those changes.

So when it comes back on May 13th, the things that we agreed to in this resolution will have already been done.

Um so the I guess the real the real question is is if we like any of these amendments, we should go ahead and make them now because you're not gonna make them at a meeting.

Like we really need to have what we're if we're gonna have a public hearing, we need to know what we're voting on.

So if we don't have an agreement by May 13th, either we just approve what we have, which could happen, or we defer it again for continuing conversation.

So I'm trying to keep this keep everything going towards a May 13th.

Is is uh I know no one likes special called meetings or town hall meetings, but if we were to do a special called or a town hall meeting, uh where we could have sort of a conversation about this is what's already being proposed.

Here are some other ideas that go with that, uh either within this resolution or any other conversations that are out there, and then sort of have this meeting with the residents and they see the sausage being made in front of them, and then we have this proposed resolution or ordinance that would come back to us, I guess uh May 12th for a final vote.

Is that and I know our presiding officer is not here, so uh she can't speak to that.

But is that I mean, would you be comfortable with something like that?

Again, the idea is we're going back.

I already had a town hall, and that's where I got these ideas from.

Well, but if y'all want to have a town hall, you know, do a committee of the whole.

I mean, I would I would be comfortable with that, and I sort of feel like the residents are entitled to see everything put together for that final version.

So if if that would be uh I'm that's something that people are willing to contemplate, I would I would go for that.

Madam Chair.

Don't we have a c uh evening committee of the whole coming up?

I think it's perhaps timing that may not work out for that.

June 6th.

Ah, sorry.

June 6th.

June 2nd.

All right.

Well, just a thought.

I'm I'm flexible and all dates are arbitrary until someone says they're not.

So um, how about a conversation we have and and we can bring in the rest of the commissioners as well?

Um, but I think that's something in fact maybe we can get central staff to poll the commissioners to see if they would be open for a a town hall meeting.

Uh and it starts relatively early because we know it's gonna go late.

Uh but uh we have plenty of time for public comment, but we also have time for staff to walk us through uh line item by light item from concerns uh that we can address through the code.

Well, the timeliness is okay.

I vote for that night cow meeting.

I think that would and we would um proactively re-advertise uh a moratorium extension.

If that's the date that's chosen.

I guess so I was alternatively.

Um if you did if there was consensus on changes that you wanted to see and you voted to see those changes in the substitute, then uh um the staff would make those changes in the substitute that would come before you um on May 12th.

Yeah.

I think uh I mean I'm not opposed to having it during the night cow, just because you have a number of constituents that do have a challenge with making the meetings during the day and as serious uh and a topic as this is um in propagated and is to the constituents and them wanting to participate as much as possible, even though not I ideal from a timing perspective in terms of you know the evening and the commitment, I'm willing to do it because it allows for more participation.

Um and I think that's gonna be important for um them to feel like their constituents to be a part and be engaged in the conversation and see it actually happening in real time.

It is there a way we could have this as a conversation for the cow next week.

Is that a lee may question, I guess?

Um put it on his fire.

Hey, he's I want to come up and talk with presiding officers here.

Um I think the committee of the whole is a good opportunity because you have everyone here.

Yep, you know, and as a matter of fact, I think we ought to utilize a lot more of these kind of joint conversations, these larger conversations to discuss in the committee of the whole a bit more um so that you all can hear back and forth some of the ideas that are bouncing around and as commissioners and not in these committees, you all can kind of hear the same thing at the same time.

Right, uh as well.

So that's my personal preference.

Um but here's the presiding officer right here.

Um so we just double check the calendar.

We have Marta at for the next council, we could add that one.

Just know that it'll be a role bus unless you want it to be at a cow where there's no other presentation.

This would be to discuss um a date.

Do we like uh Commissioner Spears' idea of doing it for June 2nd?

The night meeting.

So if we move it to a cow in May, when we don't have any other presentations, then we could really delve into it deeper.

Because it's gonna be a robust conversation.

Okay.

Um so would you also consider the night cow, which is what y'all just say that was June 2nd as well?

But I thought we didn't typically have presentations at the night cow.

Oh, yeah.

We have last year.

Okay, last year we did.

I just want to make sure that we leave enough time to have a long conversation because I feel like we're gonna have a long conversation.

I just think with a night cow might have an opportunity of getting people there that are working during the day.

Yeah.

All right, thank you for your consideration.

And um Madam Presiding Officer, just to throw an idea at you, if we dedicated 10, 20 minutes, 30 minutes uh at our cow next week.

Maybe um take just just for the to just for the conversation on where to have it.

Okay.

That would that would probably be uh um, I think that would be a good idea.

Just for my okay.

Thank you so much.

Interim county attorney.

Um in your discussion about how you will address matters in either cows or committee meetings.

I want to remind you all, please take advantage of emailing with staff and draft review outside of the public, um, particularly questions to our office and technical questions to the planning department.

It would be very helpful to the county if you would take advantage of that.

Thank you so much.

With that, if all hearts and minds are clear.

Okay.

Uh so uh motion to defer to the May 12th meeting.

Second, all those in favor?

Aye.

All right.

With all business concluded for PECS, I'll entertain our last motion of the day.

Motion to adjourn.

Nope.

I like hanging out with y'all.

Second.

Since you don't twist in my arm, it needs to be all those in favor.

Thank you so much, ladies and gentlemen, for attending this PECS committee meeting.