Halifax commissioners today deadlocked on moving forward with proposed amendments to the economic development agreement the county struck with Quiet Data Centers Halifax.
Commissioner Gary Redding, who proposed several additions to the agreement, said the board will now wait for the company’s feedback on a potential revised agreement, which County Attorney Glynn Rollins said he will share.
There is the possibility that the county might send out a special meeting notice for Monday at 5:30 p.m. to continue discussing the matter.
The amendments come as a targeted September 18 closing deadline looms on the 251 acres of land in the Enfield Industrial Park, on which QDCH intends to build an AI data center. “I’m also anticipating that the company or their counsel will have comments and questions on it as well,” Rollins said. “In fact, I received an email this morning from counsel for the company that acknowledged their client received it and had some questions that they’re going to discuss with their client.”
Rollins said he incorporated items into the amendment that he gathered from a public information session held August 25. “The company indicated they were aware of the Ratepayer Protection Act and that their company was going to comply with the standards that were in the act.”
That act, however, is still in committee in Raleigh, he said. “We don’t know what’s going to happen to it.”
The proposed amendments are as follows:
The county will convey the property to either QDCH or Project Halifax LLC.
The date for QDCH to be operational will change from no later than 36 months from the date of the original EDA to no later than 36 months from the date of closing on the property.
The agreement incorporates certain standards from the Ratepayer Protection Act regarding site assessments, cooling systems designed to minimize water consumption, and electrical service contracts that protect other electric service customers from adverse impacts.
The agreement explicitly designates a failure by the company to comply with all local, state, and federal laws as a breach of contract.
The agreement prohibits the transfer of property ownership without the express written consent of the county, and requires the related-party entity—Project Halifax LLC—to assume joint and several liability with the company (QDCH) for any failure to meet the taxable investment, job creation, and wage levels required in the EDA.
Redding said he had concerns. “One concern is that some of the points or assurances by the company are in the new agreement.”
Those concerns include measuring megawatt output, water consumption, and noise levels.
He also asked whether any environmental or public health assessments had been conducted. “Residents in Halifax County have said they want to see the results of that assessment before we move forward.”
There are concerns with the use of generators and their environmental impacts, Redding said, as well as a desire to know if more data centers could eventually be added at the site. “Then there’s been very little talk about a community benefits agreement that could include workforce training, construction opportunities, scholarships, community investment, and meaningful participation by Enfield. Mayor Mondale Robinson as well as its residents have continued to say they should have a voice in this process, and I was reading that these agreements sometimes include training for first responders because responding to data centers and their potential for fires or other emergencies requires some specialized training.”
Redding said people have complained about the number of jobs as well as what he described as inadequate potential wages. “Has there been a wage study done that would address those concerns—that if this facility is built, people will have higher wages than what is currently in the contract, which I think was around $20 or so an hour?”
Commissioner Thomas Barrett said, however, that unless the county attorney tells him there is something drastically wrong with the contract, “My support for this whole thing stops on September 18. Let’s do it, we agreed to do it, or either we don’t do it. That’s my point.”
Commissioner Chenoa Davis said the county entered into the agreement like any other economic development project it has handled in the past. “I’m following the protocol. I think we have listened to the concerns of our citizens. We’ve done our research as well.”
She said the county invited experts to address citizen concerns. “They gave back. They answered their questions, in my opinion. I think this contractual amendment also shows that we have heard the citizens and addressed their concerns while being fair to our obligations to the company as well.”
Davis said QDCH “is an awesome opportunity for Halifax County—this particular data center. I’m not talking about all the other things, but I feel like this company is a good fit for our county. It allows us to be smart about investments that have been made in the past by other county commissioners and allows us to grow and move forward.”
She added that she did not believe the amendment would be difficult for the company to address.
Commissioner Sammy Webb said he would follow the recommendations of Economic Development Director Cathy Scott and Rollins.
Commissioner Jimmie Silver said the state would have to monitor the facility for air and water quality as well as noise, and any violations would be reported. “Somehow, people got the idea that we were in the process of trying to stop it. There’s no voting process we can do to stop this thing by going through the court, is there?”
Rollins told Silver that the county has been under a contractual obligation with the company since last December, which includes the land purchase. “If we attempt to breach that contract, among the actions they could take would be an action for specific performance, meaning compelling us to sell the property to them as we agreed to do.”
Rollins said the county already knew there would be amendment discussions even before the public meeting “because we knew they wanted to bring in a third party to actually hold the title to the land, which is often done.”
The county attorney said he has other recommendations for the amendment, including changing the paragraph requiring the company to comply with all laws, rules, and regulations to state that, upon demand of the county, the company shall furnish copies of all documents necessary to demonstrate compliance with the agreement. These records would be subject to public records laws unless identified as trade secrets. “My thinking there is if we ask the company to apply for and receive all permits that they need and then to compile all those permits and follow those other laws and regulations—fine. If they don’t do that, then we have some avenue to take some action to compel that compliance.”
Redding, however, wanted to understand why it is not appropriate to specify limits in the agreement regarding how much water or power the company can use.
Recalling the debate over hog farms in the 1980s and 1990s, Redding said people back then deserved to have environmental and public health assessments explained to them, and he believes residents should have those same questions answered regarding data centers. “That’s not unreasonable to me for people who are going to have to breathe this air, who are going to have to share a water system, for people who are going to have to share an electrical system. People are concerned about what’s going to happen upstream.”
He also wanted to know whether people who are not located adjacent to the property, but who might still be impacted, will have to share the costs of grid upgrades or other electrical infrastructure.
“If we’re talking about a provision that limits the total amount of megawatts used by the company, that’s not something that we have ever included as part of an economic development agreement for any industry that’s come here,” Rollins said.
Rollins noted that if the company exceeds its stated megawatts, it will simply face higher electric bills. “Why would we want to tell a company to come here, but don’t grow?”
Rollins said that if the state permits the company, it will be based on the state’s permit requirements and standards. He added that if the company possessed environmental assessments, they would be a matter of public record unless confidential data or trade secrets were involved.
Barrett said, “A good chunk of the environmental hurdles they will have to jump over have not been done yet. They will have to be done before they go out there and start putting blocks in the ground. It will be part of the Department of Environmental Quality, and a lot of that will be public record.”
Regarding the information Redding requested, Rollins said, “I don’t know how many times I have to say it. They may give us all this information. We may look at it and not like it, but what are you going to do? This train left the station back in December.”
Board Chair Vernon Bryant said he did not want to slow down or stop the project. “I just want to negotiate some of those things to make sure we’re looking out for the citizens.”
Redding maintained that the board was rushing the process. “The public should have had input from the very beginning. We know, because of the circumstances, that did not happen, but they want to have input now. I also want to go on record as saying the community benefits agreement should not be rushed either. We need to have the public’s input about what they think could go into something like that.”
While Redding wanted to delay voting on the amendment, Webb said, “I think we should go ahead and adopt it, and if we have to come back, we have to come back.”
Webb turned that statement into a formal motion and received a second from Davis. Bryant sided with Webb and Davis, while Redding, Barrett, and Silver voted against it, resulting in the deadlock.
