(Seguin) — There will not be a new data center built in Guadalupe County—at least not yet. The Guadalupe County Commissioners Court voted 3-2 on Tuesday to decline a tax abatement agreement with the company CloudBurst, which plans to build data center complex valued at more than $10 billion.
The Cloudburst campus would have been built in phases, with the initial phase starting by the end of the year. It includes plans for 10-12 AI-Ready buildings totaling approximately three million square feet. The location would be built off of State Highway 123 in northern Guadalupe County.
CloudBurst Cofounder Cynthia Thompson says the facility would generate 480 permanent jobs by year six.
“Job creation, so again there’s telecommunications jobs, construction, power and infrastructure jobs, and technology and manufacturing. For every job we create, we create 6.4 indirect jobs for every dollar of direct income we generate, 3.3 dollars of labor and income locally. So again, four-hundred and eighty jobs – a total of six-hundred when built,” said Thompson.
The 10-year tax break called for an abatement of 90 percent of all county taxes in years one through five. It would reduce by 10 percentage points each year after then dropping down to 40 percent in year 10. The full appraised taxable value would be owed starting in year 11.
The property, located in Precinct 2, would also be located in the Navarro ISD and the school district would reap the benefits of the windfall of new taxes when the improvements first get made.
Prior to their vote, the court was able to hear from a handful of residents who were concerned with the county entering into this partnership. Most of those concerns dealt with the water usage that such centers have been known to use in their operations across the country.
Others raised concerns about extending an abatement to a company that no matter what, would still likely operate in the county anyway. Others also shared their concerns regarding environmental impacts such as noise, pollution and power. Nearly 15 people were on hand to address the court.
Although not in her precinct, Kingsbury resident Jessica Gardner says there are just too many questions especially when it comes to water.
“I really don’t understand how giving a data center tax abatement benefits the general population of Guadalupe County. I am really concerned about the amount of water that this is going to take up. I understand that Crystal Clear is the water provider, and Crystal Clear already struggles quite a bit. And we’ve been in a drought for quite a while. So I really don’t want a data center at all. I’ve heard it drives down property values around it. You know, Kingsbury isn’t that close to where this is going to be, so I’m glad for myself, but I’m upset for the people who will be near it. I think that’s about it, but please don’t give them tax abatement. I don’t like that at all,” said Gardner.
According to CloudBurst, the data center would use what is known as a Closed-Loop Water Colling System which will allow up to 660,000 gallons of water per building. They say water can be sourced commercial when needed. They say this is a new water concept, changing what reportedly has been the thousands of gallons for other centers. They say the amount used would be significantly less especially if compared to a residential project – as a comparison. They add that the ever-changing technology over time could even lessen the amount of water needed to operate the data center.
As for power usage, Thompson says the center would not impact local utilities.
“We do not require a grid connection. We are self-generating our powers, so you don’t have to worry about CloudBurst driving up your local electric bills. We are independent of the grid,” said Thompson.
A handful of residents, like Pam Kraft, also shared what they felt was a lack of transparency in letting residents know that such consideration was even on the table.
“I’m a very transparent person. I’ve spoken before y’all before, if you remember. And do you remember what my topic was? I know you do because I came to see you personally. And it was literally a fact-finding –– I kept hearing information, and I just needed to know what was true and what wasn’t. I came here, and I presented to y’all information that I got from data centers that were out of the country at that point that were already being vacated once they got the tax abatements used up. And then they were moving out, and they were sitting on huge buildings that they had nothing to do with. But I came to y’all, and I tried to share with y’all what I had learned. I didn’t even know what a data center was. My cousin from England was here, and I said, ‘it sounds like we’re getting a data center,’ and he goes, ‘you don’t want one!’ So, of course, I started researching. And then when data centers started getting serious, there’s no transparency,” said Kraft.
The commissioners court voted no, but it did not completely close the door on the project.
Commissioner Pct. 1 Jackie Ott, Pct. 3 Commissioner Jim Wolverton and Pct. 4 Commissioner Stephen Germann voted no.
Both Ott and Wolverton indicated that they felt like more time was needed to make this decision. Ott publicly shared how she was not anti-data center but simply needed more time to look over the details that were just revealed to the court that same day.
“I was certainly under the impression, it was my understanding, that we would receive additional specifics and reports prior to today. Prior to this hearing starting. I learned that several of us did, and several of us did not. What is concerning for me is the expectation to make a decision on such a large item without that information to consider in advance –– without that information to then take and compare to other similar companies, other similar data centers, and what they are doing in their area with perhaps similar technology. It’s my understanding from the presentation, which I do appreciate, that this is not the very first that’s using certain pieces of this technology. But having seen this for the very first time today in court, having it made available to me for the very first-time during court, I don’t have the luxury of then going and making that comparison to those other communities to see whether that’s beneficial or not beneficial. How long has it lasted? How long will it last? Will it continue to be the best option for this community?” said Ott.
During the vote, Wolverton indicated that he too needed to look over the details and that perhaps town hall meetings or further discussion were needed. County officials say at this point, the decision to still operate in the county or to return with another request would have to come from CloudBurst.