By Ryan Applegate
People’s Defender
(This article is the first installment in an ongoing series examining the potential development of a data center in Adams County. Over the coming weeks, The People’s Defender will publish additional in‑depth articles exploring the possible benefits, concerns, and long‑term implications raised by residents, county officials, and industry experts. Readers can expect detailed reporting in subsequent editions as more information becomes available and public discussions continue.)
The potential development of a large data center on former industrial land in Adams County drew an overflow crowd to the Board of Commissioners meeting on Monday, February 9. Although the subject was not on the agenda, public concern over reports of activity at the former DP&L Stuart Station property drove residents to fill the room, calling for transparency, environmental protections, and assurances about local control. Commissioners Barbara Moore Holt, Kelly Jones, and Jason Hayslip emphasized repeatedly that the county has not received a formal site plan or incentive request from any company and that no decisions are pending.
Economic Development Director Paul Worley opened the conversation by summarizing months of preliminary due diligence. “While the company’s been doing their due diligence, the county, on behalf of the commissioners, we have also been doing our due diligence,” he said. He described meetings and consultations with the Adams County Regional Water District, Manchester Board of Public Affairs, township trustees, the county engineer, ODOT District 9, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio EPA, ODNR, the Ohio Department of Commerce, Manchester Local Schools, and Manchester Fire and EMS. “We owe it to ourselves to gather the facts, understand what the project is before we rush to judgment,” Worley told the crowd.
The former power plant sites, he explained, are uniquely positioned for heavy electrical users because they contain a high‑capacity switchyard originally built for a 2.3‑gigawatt generating station. “Whatever project goes on this site is going to be a large industrial electrical user that probably needs cooling water from the Ohio River,” Worley said during an interview on Friday, February 6. He also clarified that the 1,000 acres surrounding the Stuart Station property were part of the original industrial footprint. “It was built, but never used,” he said of the former landfill area, emphasizing that these tracts are not forested or agricultural areas being newly cleared.
Residents at the meeting raised numerous environmental questions. One asked directly whether the project would draw water from the aquifer. Worley responded, “I think at this point, we’re still doing due diligence. We don’t know. But being next to the Ohio River, I think it’s logical that process cooling water would come from the river.” Another resident said she had been told by conservation groups that a river intake may not be permitted, prompting Worley to clarify that such decisions rest with the water district and state regulators. Others stressed concerns about light pollution, noise, wildlife, drought conditions, and the region’s ecotourism economy. “People come here just for the night skies,” one speaker said. “What do you think that data center’s going to do to the night sky?”
Zoning concerns dominated much of the public discussion. Several residents questioned why the county lacks industrial siting restrictions. “If I have to have a permit to build a house in Bentonville, how come there’s not restrictions for a large data center?” one resident asked. County officials reiterated that Adams County does not have countywide zoning and that most townships have declined over the years to implement township zoning. One attendee urged immediate action, saying, “We need zoning before it gets too far back. Or we’re screwed.” Worley responded that he has already provided sample zoning documents to township officials, noting that decisions ultimately rest with township governments.
Transparency was another consistent point of tension. Multiple residents asked whether county leaders or utilities had signed nondisclosure agreements related to the project. Moore Holt said plainly, “I have signed no NDA,” and both Jones and Hayslip publicly vowed they would not sign any. Worley clarified during his interview that he has signed two nondisclosure agreements related to industrial prospects, one in January 2024 and another in November 2025. “In my role as an economic development professional, in order to see what the project is, these companies require you to sign the non‑disclosure,” he said. “But elected officials have not been asked to sign NDAs, and I do not expect them to.” He said the purpose of such agreements is to allow him to evaluate technical requirements and infrastructure needs without disclosing proprietary information prematurely. He added, “We want to be transparent with the community.”
Job creation, both short term and long term, was a major dividing line among residents. One speaker questioned the project’s value, saying, “We don’t want to spend billions of dollars in this county to employ 20 people from California.” Another resident echoed similar concerns, stating, “It takes $20 million in capital input to generate one job at a data center.” Worley said many residents misunderstand the scale of a modern data center campus. “Some people may think this is one building, while as you saw in that diagram, this is multiple buildings. So this is a campus,” he explained. During the interview, he estimated “about 1,000 construction workers” could be employed for “three to five years,” though permanent employment would depend on the specific operator. “They will be higher paying jobs,” he said, and emphasized the importance of creating training pipelines through local schools. “Shame on us if we can’t train our students to go into these jobs.”
Labor union representatives from multiple trades said the economic potential is far greater than residents may realize. A representative from the Carpenters Union said, “You’re looking at putting $100 million as a minimum into the local economy in wages.” Another from the TriState Building and Construction Trades Council described projects in Scioto County, saying, “We are talking about 1,000 to 1,200 people making very, very good wages. These are career jobs.” He added that modern data campuses often involve multi‑phase development lasting more than a decade. “By the time they get to phase three, they’re retrofitting phase one,” he said.
Some residents countered that targeted training and local hiring may not materialize without strict conditions. Union representatives agreed, urging the county to negotiate domicile‑based hiring requirements if incentives are requested. “Put a pin drop on the site and say 70 percent or 80 percent of workers must live within this radius,” one said.
Tax incentives were another point of discussion. The commissioners clarified that they have no authority over whether a private landowner sells or leases to a developer. Their power applies only if a company requests local financial incentives. At the meeting, Worley explained, “If they do ask for financial incentives, it will be up to this board to evaluate that and determine whether the money that they’re getting for infrastructure and the positive impact as far as funding to our schools and our other levies is worth the cost.” In his interview, he said the county would expect the developer to pay for water, sewer, and road upgrades, adding, “All those things should be paid for by the person doing the project, not the residents of Adams County.” He also encouraged Manchester and Sprigg Township to explore a joint economic development district, which could apply an income tax on construction workers.
As the meeting drew to a close, Commissioner Moore Holt promised that the next discussion would take place in a larger venue with advance public notice. “Everybody deserves to be heard. And we will do that, I assure you,” she said. The commissioners also reiterated that there is no proposal before them. Jones said, “As soon as we get more information, we’ll come to you guys.” Hayslip added, “We do not have enough facts yet to make a decision.”
In an interview with the Defender, Worley said the stakes are significant for the county’s future. He pointed to projected population decline and increasing commute times for residents. “We owe it to ourselves to explore this opportunity and see if it’s the right fit for Adams County,” he said. “If we decide not to move forward with a project like this, people need to understand that there’s opportunity cost.”
For now, residents remain divided. Many remain deeply concerned about environmental protection, the character of the river corridor, and the impact on the county’s natural identity. Others see the possibility of long‑term economic recovery on land that has stood vacant since the power plants closed. However the conversation progresses, nearly everyone agreed on one point before leaving the meeting. The path forward will require transparency, planning, and open public engagement as more information becomes available.
Leave a Reply