Jones County commissioners spent a work session on a draft ordinance and citizens’ proposals that would tighten rules for large data centers, consider a new M‑3 zoning district to contain the biggest projects, and add environmental and decommissioning requirements.

The discussion centered on where mega‑data centers should be allowed and what protections the county should require. Speaker 2, who led the session, said the aim is to write data‑center language that can be folded into a proposed M‑3 zoning district so the largest, most resource‑intensive facilities would be directed to the industrial park and subject to stricter controls. "The very first thing I said is a 100% support a data center in the right place under the right conditions," Speaker 2 said, adding that the county must "make sure we got the risk covered first."

Why it matters: commissioners are weighing a large potential tax revenue stream against local resource strain. Speaker 2 noted a hypothetical $40 million annual revenue from one big facility compared with a county budget cited at about $28 million, arguing that tightly written zoning could protect water and community services while capturing substantial revenue.

Opponents and supporters framed different priorities. Speaker 9, representing the district that includes the industrial park, warned that steering data centers to that park could undercut decades of industrial recruitment and the kinds of jobs the county has aimed to attract. "The data center doesn't do that," Speaker 9 said, referring to the supplemental industries and employment typical of other manufacturing or distribution businesses. Speaker 5 and members of a citizens’ group pushed for procedural safeguards before applications proceed, including a development‑of‑regional‑impact (DRI) study when projects cross state thresholds.

Technical and environmental concerns were a major focus. Participants discussed whether data centers should be allowed to drill private wells, the use of closed‑loop immersion cooling (and possible PFAS in immersion fluids), and a requirement that a comprehensive decommissioning plan be submitted with construction permits. Speaker 11 warned that immersion systems could involve "half a million gallons" of cooling fluid and urged the ordinance to require robust decommissioning and disposal procedures.

Regulatory mechanics also divided the group. Some commissioners favored making largest facilities a conditional use within the M‑3 district so projects must pass a public review process; others said overly restrictive procedures and added review steps could drive developers away and hamper the development authority’s efforts to market the industrial park. The group discussed a tiered classification system that would require more intensive studies for larger footprints and reserve county authority to request additional site‑specific reviews.

What was decided: there was no vote. Commissioners agreed not to take a final vote at the session and to refine the M‑3 draft and related permit language. Speaker 3 said staff would continue drafting a new section (noted in discussion as proposed section 96.7) and bring talking points and checklists to the next work session. Planning and zoning, the development authority and state DRI rules will inform the final ordinance.

Next steps: the board will not vote immediately; planning and zoning and the development authority will be consulted, staff will revise the ordinance language (including water, environmental and decommissioning requirements), and commissioners will reconvene to consider the redrafted M‑3 proposal and the tiered permitting approach.