A proposal by County Commissioner Paul Mixon to impose a 12-month moratorium on data centers — aimed first at shielding the county-owned Shoal River Ranch industrial site — failed 3-2 Tuesday evening, capping a Board of County Commissioners meeting that opened with more than half an hour of public comment from residents demanding an outright ban.
By Chairman Trey Goodwin’s own count, announced from the dais moments before the vote, he, Commissioner Drew Palmer and Commissioner Carolyn Ketchel were opposed. Mixon made the motion; Commissioner Sherri Cox seconded it and spoke in support. “That’s three to two, but still understanding staff can come back and brief us on what moratoriums might look like as part of the plan,” Goodwin said afterward.
RELATED: Crestview Council backs ban on data centers
Residents pack the first public comment period
The meeting’s first public comment period was dominated by speakers who opposed data centers, with speaker after speaker saying regulations were not enough.
RELATED: Walton makes push to ban data centers in county.
Brooklyn Barnett, speaking “for our community and future generations,” cited air pollution and respiratory health effects. “All data centers equal no water, no life,” she said. “Rest assured, I will work tirelessly to set all of you voted out of office if we continue to build these or allow them.” A University of Michigan study found that Data Centers use large amounts of energy, water and are not environmentally sustainable as they require the prolonged use of fossil fuel energy generation to stay up and running.
Athena Adams, who said she was born in the county and is a certified information systems security professional who has worked for Microsoft, the Pokemon Company and QVC, said the companies building large language models “have a profitability problem” and “are not good investments for our county’s future.” She added: “I strongly encourage an outright ban versus regulation.”
Johnny Alexander, a Crestview small business owner, said: “Crestview already voted out data centers, and we’re still thinking about putting them on the north end.” He added: “If you guys are okay with data centers and AI replacing the hardworking people of this county, the hardworking people of this county will be okay with replacing all of you at the ballot box.”
Sarah Sirfoss said a commissioner had recently referenced a Fox News comment “insinuating that anti-AI data center sentiment was propaganda from China.” She rejected that: “I see a community that notices the negative impacts of these facilities in other areas.” Jurisdictions including Crestview, she said, “have made the decision to put moratoriums and bans.”
John Hull, who said he is new to the area, rejected the term data center, calling the facilities “surveillance centers.” He said: “We don’t want these data centers.”
Not every speaker asked for a ban. Rena McQuaig, a Crestview resident, said she is “100% against data centers” but brought conditions in case the county writes rules. “I suggest, because of the large amount of water usage, allowing only closed-loop types of centers,” she said, adding that the facilities “should be financially responsible for any cost of infrastructure changes.” She also sought air quality testing, setbacks from homes and schools, noise limits and no tax subsidies.
Cheryl Shirk, who said she worked as a facility security officer for 30 years and lives a mile and a half from Shoal River Ranch, called the facilities a national security risk because most components are made overseas. “You have Eglin Air Force Base 45 minutes from where you’re proposing Shoal River Ranch,” she said, then played audio she said was recorded near an operating data center.
Mixon responded immediately, saying he feared “we’re in the midst of strong fearmongering.” He said he had met with three interested companies and told them the site was unavailable: “Zero desire to see a data center go there, but we have to have regulations as a county in order to move forward.”
The moratorium motion
Later, during commissioner comments, Ketchel said residents had misread the board’s earlier action: “Nobody has voted to put a data center in.”
Mixon then moved to walk on an item seeking the moratorium, saying he did not know the source of what he called misinformation about the board’s intentions. “Moratoriums are short; they’re made to be temporary. They’re not permanent, and I think that’s a big misconception,” he said. When one commissioner asked whether the moratorium would end once a policy is adopted, he said it could carry “a date certain.” His “immediate suggestion is protecting Shoal River Ranch,” he said, though he had “no objection to this being countywide.”
Ketchel said she was reluctant to vote no for fear of being misunderstood. “I would hesitate to vote no on this motion right now, because then everybody’s going to think I’m for data centers, and I’m not saying I’m for data centers,” she said. “I think what we did last meeting should stand on its own.”
Commissioner Palmer initially signaled support — “the longer we go without anything, the longer we’re at risk” — then reversed after Goodwin spoke. “Even if we did have a moratorium, we don’t have anything defined as to what a data center is. So I won’t support a moratorium,” Palmer said.
Goodwin said his objection was to the board reacting to public pressure. “My concern is that we are reacting frankly to uninformed emotion that did not understand or take the time to consider what we did, and I don’t know that it’s good policy to trade bad policy for headlines and Facebook comments,” he said.
He argued a moratorium was unnecessary at Shoal River Ranch because the county owns the developable land there — “It’s not a land use issue. It’s a land ownership issue” — and added that he does not personally favor the facilities: “Frankly, I don’t necessarily support having a data center here.”
Cox said the gap between what the board intended and what the public heard was reason enough to act. “What I left that conversation with was that we had the intention toward indelible regulations that would put a framework around how data centers could and could not operate here, if they could at all, but what the public left with was something far different,” she said. “What we heard emphatically was an outcry for us to ban them, and I feel like Commissioner Mixon’s moratorium does satisfy the need.”
Mixon rejected Goodwin’s suggestion that he withdraw the motion, and the idea that he was reacting to the crowd. “This is not based on being yelled at. I’ve been yelled at many times without taking aversive action,” he said. “It was in my notes prior to public comment.” He said he would rather see it fail: “I would be more willing to have it fail against me so that I cannot bring it up again.” Noting that the state and nearby communities have adopted definitions of a data center, he added, “We don’t have a protection at this time.”
What happens next
Because the motion failed, no moratorium ordinance will be advertised, and no public hearing will be set — a step Goodwin noted is required to adopt one. Additionally, those commissioners who voted in favor of the moratorium (Cox and Mixon) cannot bring up the issue again.
Now, the county instead reverts to the direction the board gave at its previous meeting: staff is to return in 60 days with an outline of proposed data center regulations. Goodwin said he expects it to address the moratorium question — “I’m expecting staff to look at if they think a moratorium should be part of that plan, outline it for us and inform us.”
Commissioners said no application is pending and that the board has taken no vote to approve a facility; Palmer said tax incentives “have never been on the table.” Mixon cautioned that many projects never reach the commission: “Those applications don’t come before us. Many, many things are built that don’t come before us, but they follow the policy that we establish.
