TURTLE— Rock County residents are supporting their neighbors from one side of the county to the other over their concerns when it comes to data centers.
It’s a growing trend, and it was on display at the Town of Turtle’s board meeting this week.
As the town board discussed a possible cost-sharing agreement with data center developer Panattoni on Wednesday night, 100 people piled in. It left standing room only, along with a few people sitting on lawn chairs in the town hall’s overflow.
Some of the people who showed up were from the Town of Turtle, where a data center is slowly approaching reality — but some were not. They came from Clinton, the Town and City of Beloit, and some came from Janesville.
For an hour, many of those people spoke — all in opposition to the proposed town agreement. Moreover, they spoke out against any decision that could put a data center project in the Town of Turtle.
Many residents requested the Town set up an 18-month moratorium on data centers.
Alyssa Capozziello is Janesville resident who has been a part of the No Janesville Data Center group since the city began actively pursuing the option of a data center at the former General Motors site last August. Capozziello goes to as many local public meetings on data center proposals as she can. It’s important to her because she cares about her community and the environment.
“I decided to speak at the Town of Turtle council meeting because as a parent and neighbor who has family and friends anchored in Janesville and the surrounding area,” she said. “It felt important to me to stand in solidarity.”
Capozziello said as an organizer, she is worried for other communities who are going through the same thing and wanted to show her support.
“I believe the impacts of this proposed project will not fall on one town or city alone but affect the entire area,” she said.
Amy Barrilleaux, Communications Director for statewide environmental nonprofit Clean Wisconsin, is watching a trend statewide of local data center opponents banding together to form de facto regional groups, and attending government meetings in droves.
Barrilleaux believes it’s a strength-in-numbers response. She said neighbors may be trying to help support each other while they see some data center companies moving as fast as they can with little to no public communication.
“People are angry, they are being steamrolled and feel like no one is helping them stand up to these billion-dollar companies,” she said. “It’s that Wisconsin spirit to help out each other.”
Barrilleaux feels data center companies have huge reserves of money and resources they can draw from. She compares that to small communities, which she said by comparison only have the strength of their neighbors. She said concerned community members are sharing their own experiences and triangulating information.
It’s how people in one corner of the state might learn how residents in distant communities like Caledonia or Menomonie slowed down or halted data center projects.
“When you start threatening people’s homes, of course we are going to rely on each other, because state officials haven’t yet,” Barrilleaux said.
Gov. Tony Evers spoke this week at an appearance at ABC Supply stadium in Beloit. In one set of statements, the governor spoke out against data center opposition groups, saying the groups don’t take time or effort to look at possible benefits of data centers.
“Unfortunately, it’s getting to the point now where (those opposed) don’t even look at the different things that can happen positively (by having large-scale data centers in a community),” Evers said Wednesday.
“The pushback has been a positive thing because it’s changing some of the conversations from the people that are (developing the sites),” Evers said. “But at the end of the day, I think it’s important to keep in mind that they a significant way to increase our ability to compete with the rest of the country.”
The Town chose Wednesday night to push making a decision on the agreement until next month’s meeting. Supervisors said it was to get clarity on what exactly the money would pay for.
Town of Turtle attorney Michael Davis said it’s not fully clear what the money would cover. Davis said he knows it would pay some amount for consultants like himself and any professionals. But it’s not clear if it would pay fully for research, studies and other work a data center proposal would require.
In a cost reimbursement between the Town and Panattoni, town officials would require the developer to cover the cost of outside consultants and professional services tied to the project.
A Town memo laying out a proposed agreement with Panattoni Development Co. explains the developer would provide the Town of Turtle with an initial $250,000 deposit. It would pay for town costs linked to review of development applications and project plans.
According to the agreement, Turtle could use the funds to hire outside attorneys, engineers, accountants and other specialized consultants needed to vet the proposal. The agreement specifically excludes charges for time spent by town employees working on the project.
The developer would receive monthly invoices detailing town expenses. If the balance of the deposit fell below $50,000, the developer would be required to deposit an additional $50,000 within 10 business days.
The agreement would not grant or guarantee any formal approval for the prospective data center. It states any project-related applications would require review and approval by the Town of Turtle Plan Commission and town board.
In addition to covering review costs, the agreement includes provisions addressing public records, conflicts of interest, compliance with anti-corruption laws and indemnification of the town against certain legal claims related to the project.
The document also provides the town with a perpetual license to use studies, reports and other work products funded through the developer’s deposits for municipal planning, regulatory and public purposes, even if the agreement is terminated.
The agreement requires the developer to notify the town of any litigation, governmental investigations, bankruptcy proceedings or changes in company control that could affect the project.
