What eight communities decided about data centers

Unofficial results show about 77 percent of Upper Sandusky voters backed a charter amendment prohibiting new data centers above 25 megawatts inside the Ohio city. A proposed $900 million development had brought questions about water, electricity and a natural gas power plant into the town of about 6,600 people. Local reporting describes a proposal that had already been withdrawn before the November 3 election. The amendment would put a continuing size limit into the charter, subject to certification of the result.

The eight communities compared below considered different questions. Some decided whether a particular site could proceed; others considered rules for future proposals. They are selected examples of those choices, rather than a national count of projects accepted or rejected.

What the votes decided

Boulder City, Nevada, asked whether data centers should become an allowed use on part of the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area. The reported unofficial result was about 71 percent against allowing the use. The city's ballot explanation presented potential lease income alongside concerns about resources and the city's character. A company-specific package of taxes, jobs and operating conditions was not the question on the ballot.

San Marcos, Texas, used its zoning code. On June 16, the council voted 4–3 for an amendment prohibiting data centers in every city zoning district. The city's meeting recap records that vote separately from the unanimous vote on the larger development-code update. The prohibition applies inside San Marcos. As The Texas Tribune reports, county powers differ outside the city, where nearby proposals were being considered.

Harwood's November 3 ballot addressed review of industrial projects above specified thresholds. The unofficial North Dakota tally was 325 against the charter amendment and 105 in favor. The measure concerned independent review, public records and hearings for qualifying developments. Its defeat would leave those proposed requirements out of the charter; it did not itself approve a new data center.

In WDAY's account of an interview, Harwood's mayor argued that the amendment could complicate development beyond data centers. The report also described a Voices of Harwood organizer urging leaders to consider the concerns of the 105 voters who supported it.

A local objection can concern the site itself

In Archbald, Pennsylvania, the council unanimously denied the Wildcat Ridge conditional-use application on October 21. The proposal called for 14 data center buildings on roughly 578 acres. WVIA's reporting followed nine hearings in which the developer and opponents disputed the evidence on noise, emissions and other effects. The developer maintained that it met the ordinance's standards.

The application included 588 diesel backup generators. Evidence on their effects formed part of the dispute over whether the proposal met the borough's ordinance. The council's denial applied to this application, with the possibility of a challenge afterward.

DeForest, Wisconsin, denied the annexation needed for QTS's proposal. The village's record shows a 7–0 board vote on February 3 rejecting the petition covering about 1,573 acres. The village had described a proposed $50 million community-investment pledge and intended negotiations over binding commitments before annexation. That proposed benefit did not secure the requested land-use change.

The village had stated in December that it was offering no financial incentives. Its January fiscal analysis projected about $39 million in local property-tax revenue across 2028–2041 under its buildout and tax assumptions.

Revised terms can still leave disagreement

Hermantown, Minnesota, approved major local agreements on October 30 after Google withdrew its local property-tax abatement request and reduced the proposed campus. The revisions increased projected city tax receipts and added protections for neighboring wells and the site's eventual closure. MPR reported continuing opposition, including objections to the location and public process, after two postponed meetings. Electricity approval and litigation remained separate issues.

Indianapolis illustrates another distinction. On November 9, a council committee recommended rejecting DC BLOX's tax incentives; a full-council decision remains pending. Axios reported the committee action. The project's land-use approvals and the proposed financial package are separate decisions, as Mirror Indy explains. Opposition to a subsidy can continue after permission to use the land has been granted.