Commissioner's Court March 4, 2026

Open with transcript & summary →Search this meeting's transcript →

The Commissioner's Court held a public hearing on March 4, 2026, to consider concept plans for Project Red and Project Yellow data centers proposed on Wolf Hollow property in Hood County. Over twenty public speakers raised concerns regarding traffic impacts, noise and environmental effects, water resources, fire department capacity, and the unprecedented scale of multiple data center projects in the county, while the developer presented plans addressing infrastructure, compliance with county ordinances, and noise mitigation through equipment relocation. Commissioners noted significant gaps in the application materials, including incomplete construction traffic analysis, discrepancies in documentation between the two projects, and questions regarding water sourcing and permitting authority. The court granted a continuance to March 24, 2026, and directed staff to update development regulations to incorporate energy storage standards and critical infrastructure protection requirements.

• Call to order and opening remarksThe meeting was called to order with invocation and pledges.
• Public hearing convened for Project Red data centerA public hearing was opened to discuss and consider the concept plan for Project Red data center on the Wolf Hollow property.
• Developer presentation and entity clarificationAnthony Ballistrieri identified himself as CEO of Starwood Digital Ventures, clarifying the developer relationship between multiple LLCs.
• Starwood's project experience and locationsBallistrieri described Starwood's data center projects across the country and two additional Texas projects in development.
• Project Red site visits and adjacent land concernsCommissioner questioned Ballistrieri about site familiarity and proximity to residential areas and other facilities.
• Noise mitigation and Bitcoin mine relocation planDeveloper outlined plans to reduce noise impact by relocating Bitcoin mining operations and building state-of-the-art enclosed data centers.
• Critical infrastructure compliance questionsCommissioner questioned developer compliance with Lonear Infrastructure Protection Act and material documentation requirements.
• Fire Marshal review and battery energy storage systemsFire Marshal Jeff noted he had not yet reviewed concept plan and raised NFPA standards and backup generator questions.
• Concept plan overview and compliance claimsBaird Hampton and Brown president presented overview asserting compliance with Hood County ordinances and development framework.
• Public facilities and infrastructure adequacyDeveloper addressed power, water, wastewater, and fire protection infrastructure to meet project needs.
• Adjacent land use impacts and noise reductionDeveloper claimed minimal adverse effects on adjacent properties through equipment relocation and system upgrades.
• Water resources and stormwater managementDeveloper asserted project does not adversely affect water resources and implements stormwater controls.
• Traffic impact study and buildout projectionsDeveloper submitted traffic study showing low traffic generation at buildout but acknowledged gaps in construction phase analysis.
• Scheduling and review process concernsCommissioner raised concerns about incomplete construction traffic analysis and noted the scale of data center development is unprecedented for Hood County.
• Closing statements and public hearing preparationDeveloper team indicated readiness to answer questions and commissioners noted 20 public speakers signed up for hearing.
• Public comment—Jennifer Carrie: combat veteran perspectiveFirst speaker Jennifer Carrie, a disabled combat veteran, expressed personal hardship from noise impacts and concerns about property value loss.
• Public comment—Brian Glenn: technical deficiencies and regulatory concernsSecond speaker Brian Glenn detailed numerous technical and regulatory deficiencies in the application and proposed conditions.
• Public comment—Steve Walker: environmental and noise expertiseThird speaker Steve Walker, retired environmental consultant and one-star general, addressed threatened and endangered species and noise standards.
• Noise standards and federal baseline requirementsFederal agencies establish noise baselines for development projects, and the speaker advocated for the county to adopt comparable noise standards for data centers.
• Decibel measurement terminology and noise modelingThe speaker explained the difference between decibel (dB) measurements and day-night level (DNL), and presented modeling results for different noise source scenarios.
• Construction phase noise and duration concernsThe speaker addressed cumulative construction impacts from other communities and emphasized the extended timeline of 3–5 years.
• Local regulatory authority for noise ordinancesFederal government does not regulate land use; counties and municipalities have authority to set noise ordinances and development regulations.
• Subchapter K compliance and wildlife noise impactsDevelopment regulations under subchapter K address impacts on neighbors and wildlife, though wildlife provisions did not address noise effects on humans.
• John Highmith opening statement on project separationJohn Highmith questioned why two separate projects (red and yellow) exist in the same location and outlined critical construction-phase information gaps.
• Cindy Highmith on six proposed data centers and subchapter K frameworkCindy Highmith reviewed the full slate of data centers (Sailfish, Pacificico Energy, Project Spectrum, Project Red, Project Yellow, and two unnamed) against subchapter K development standards.
• Sherry Shaw statement on water shortage and county protectionSherry Shaw, while not residing in Mitchell Bend, expressed concern for impacted neighbors and urged commissioners to protect residents and the county's water supply.
• Cheryl Shaden statement on existing noise and construction impactsCheryl Shaden, living across the street from the Marathon Digital and Constellation Energy facility, documented three years of noise impacts, construction effects, and unmitigated harms.
• Matt Long presentation of "worst neighbor" award and Bitcoin relocation skepticismMatt Long presented a worst neighbor award to Marathon Digital (absent at the meeting) and questioned the practical effect of relocating Bitcoin mining operations.
• Water quality district compliance concernsA speaker identified discrepancies between project claims of non-location in water quality districts and county district maps showing secondary water quality district boundaries.
• Robin Sutherland statement on four primary concernsRobin Sutherland from Pam Plantation identified four concerns: watershed toxic water impacts, noise including infrasound, traffic and roads, and lack of enforcement infrastructure.
• Road funding and taxpayer liability concernsA speaker raised concerns about road damage from construction and who will fund repairs.
• Fire department capacity and emergency responseA speaker raised concerns about voluntary fire department capabilities if major emergencies overlap with data center operations.
• Sound ordinance enforcement clarificationSheriff confirmed citations can be issued for noise violations above the 85 dB threshold.
• Shannon Wolf on CEO knowledge gaps and development readinessShannon Wolf criticized the development team for presenting incomplete information and lack of preparedness.
• Water usage and power plant capacity concernsShannon Wolf detailed existing and proposed water consumption from power generation facilities in the area.
• Precinct 211 impacts and health concernsShannon Wolf characterized Precinct 211 as already in crisis due to existing operations.
• Rick Jackson on sound levels and wildlife impactsRick Jackson presented measurements and concerns about noise impacts on residents and wildlife.
• Bonnie Roy on moral and biblical lawBonnie Roy invoked religious law and Ten Commandments in opposition to the data centers.
• Andy Walford's technical questions on power generation and infrastructureAndy Walford posed detailed engineering questions about the data center project that he stated remained unanswered in the application.
• Walford's critique of application completenessWalford summarized gaps in the developer's documentation and contrasted minimum compliance with best practices.
• Developer response on team experienceDeveloper representative clarified the "600 years of experience" statement.
• Hood County data center concentration and cumulative impactWalford noted that all proposed projects in Hood County combined could nearly match the developer's total experience base.
• Follow-up questions on power generation requirementsCommissioner posed follow-up questions on power demand after Walford's remarks.
• UPS and battery backup system detailsDeveloper clarified battery and backup systems planned for the data center.
• Constellation Energy power supply and state regulatory requirementsCommissioner discussed power sourcing from Constellation and SB6 requirements for large energy users.
• Engineering phase and cost estimation timelineCommissioner asked about the developer's cost estimation capability at the concept phase.
• Power purchase agreement and behind-the-meter optionsCommissioner clarified the power sourcing plan versus behind-the-meter private agreements.
• Jim Bell on Marathon's track record and community trustJim Bell expressed concerns about Marathon's credibility and the cumulative impact of multiple projects.
• Donna Keller on development map, water quality districts, and strategic planningDonna Keller presented detailed ordinance requirements and district restrictions that the project does not comply with.
• Water quality district and tributary discussionA speaker discussed tree lines in Texas as indicators of tributaries and water quality district boundaries, citing Wolf Hollow, the Bitcoin plant, and other areas within a water quality district.
• Public health concerns related to Bitcoin mining operationsAnnette French Bearden testified about multiple cancer diagnoses she attributes to Bitcoin mining noise and vibration.
• Traffic impact concerns and infrastructure adequacyNikki Septek raised concerns about traffic impact studies, the 500 trips per day threshold, and cumulative effects on county roadways.
• Sound mitigation and neighborhood impactsJeff Cider, living between the river and Bitcoin facility, questioned whether data centers could be constructed as soundproof buildings.
• Rezoning and tourism impact considerationsCarolyn Fauber raised concerns about noise proximity to Betterwood Road residences and questioned whether development should proceed before ordinance changes addressing low amplitude noise.
• LLC formation and entity clarificationTommy Harwood, attorney for Starwood, clarified that National CRA Holdings LLC is a Delaware entity formed in October 2024 as a subsidiary of Starwood for Project Red.
• Cover sheet duplication concernsA commissioner noted that cover sheets for Project Red and Project Yellow are identical, with Project Yellow still referencing "Red."
• Water source and groundwater conservation district questionsA commissioner questioned the water source plan for Project Red, noting the reliance on adjacent power station discharge as insufficient and speculative.
• Land ownership and permitting authority concernsA commissioner questioned who currently owns the property and whether the applicant has authorization to apply for water permits on behalf of the landowner.
• Wastewater facilities and construction worker sanitationA commissioner and engineer discussed wastewater treatment, on-site facilities, and sanitation provisions for construction workers.
• Personnel and facilities capacity for constructionCommissioners raised concerns about the adequacy of facilities and personnel management during construction, comparing the project to other large industrial operations.
• Physical environment and water quality complianceApplicant addressed county guidelines regarding physical environment protection, focusing on drainage, runoff, storm water pollution prevention, noise, and protection of adjacent properties.
• Private fire water system designApplicant explained the dedicated private fire water system would operate as a one-time fill system similar to air-cooled chillers, requiring refill only if a fire occurred.
• Traffic impact study and TxDOT coordinationApplicant described the traffic impact analysis covering county and state roads, reusing existing commercial driveways, and planning to study impacts down to Highway 144 at the Mitchell Bend intersection.
• Construction traffic and unique project circumstancesCommissioner noted the uniqueness of construction traffic impact compared to typical TxDOT projects, and applicant acknowledged willingness to share construction traffic analysis as the project progresses.
• Road damage responsibility and developer commitmentApplicant committed that the development team owner would repair any damage to surrounding roadways caused by construction, rather than making Hood County citizens responsible.
• Developer versus owner terminology clarificationDiscussion clarified whether "owner" or "developer" should be used in documents, with applicant explaining they plan to take ownership during construction.
• Cumulative traffic impact analysis for both projectsDiscussion addressed whether traffic impact analysis would account for both Project Red and Yellow operating simultaneously and traffic conditions at Highway 144 intersection.
• Public comment from resident regarding cumulative project trafficA resident raised concerns about the cumulative traffic impact of three projects (Red, Yellow, and AWS) at the same intersection where accidents have already occurred.
• Commissioner motion to deny based on traffic analysisCommissioner moved to deny the concept plan due to insufficient traffic analysis and road capacity concerns, citing the discussion of traffic impacts.
• Detention ponds, sludge, and pollution concernsCommissioner raised concerns about detention ponds, evaporation ponds, sludge removal frequency, and potential discharge pollution impacts not previously discussed.
• Sludge removal and state regulatory requirementsCounty official explained that Wolf Hollow has a maintenance schedule for sludge removal at their pit separator, with state-required manifests tracking pickup, transporter, and disposal location.
• Construction and permanent storm water managementApplicant described two-step storm water management: temporary sedimentation basin during construction meeting TCEQ SW3P standards, and permanent detention basin after site stabilization.
• Public hearing closure and executive session motionThe public hearing was closed at 12:05 p.m. and the court proceeded to move into executive session to confer with attorneys before voting on the concept plan.
• Developer continuance request grantedAfter executive session with no action taken, developers requested a continuance; the court approved it for the next commissioner's court meeting on March 24th.
• Project Yellow public hearing opening and agenda continuationCourt opened public hearing for Project Yellow data center concept plan covering 538 acres, with engineers present to discuss drainage and traffic impact analysis.
• End-user identity and data center tenant compositionApplicant explained data center end-users include enterprises, governments, local companies, and technology companies, but no specific tenants have been identified yet for these particular projects.
• Project Yellow separate submittal and road corridor districtApplicant explained Project Yellow is a separate tract requiring a separate submittal due to Follow Court dividing the property, and the project is located in the road corridor district appropriate for industrial uses.
• Project Yellow infrastructure and secondary water quality districtApplicant noted Project Yellow has similarities to Project Red regarding water demand, sewer demand, and storm water detention, and addressed the secondary water quality district designation.
• Project Yellow concept plan checklist discrepancyCounty official pointed out an inconsistency where Project Yellow concept plan appeared to contain Project Red's checklist with incorrect references and numbering.
• Public speakers list and comment processThe court indicated approximately 10 speakers remained and began the public comment period for Project Yellow.
• Public comment on light pollution and bird migration impactSpeaker Bonnie Rowie expressed concern about light pollution from data centers affecting bird and butterfly migration patterns under a major flyway.
• Public comment from adjacent resident regarding relocation and buffer zonesSpeaker Cheryl Shaden, living across the street from the proposed project, requested relocation of herself, neighbors, livestock, and questioned the absence of buffer zones and impact studies.
• Public comment on development integrity and Marathon's track recordA precinct chair and professor criticized the project applicants for submitting incomplete work comparable to failed student projects, and expressed concerns about Marathon's history of broken promises.
• Public comment on traffic analysis and phasing scheduleA concerned citizen from Plantation asked about the construction phasing and traffic projections for projects Red and Yellow, noting discrepancies between traffic models and construction sequencing.
• Public comment on technology obsolescence and decommissioning riskA citizen raised concerns about whether data center technology might become obsolete before or after construction, and questioned what would happen if the facilities were no longer needed.
• Public comment on water quality districts and bird migration impactsA Bentwater resident presented information about water quality district definitions and expressed concerns about noise disruption to migratory birds along the central flyway.
• Commissioner questions on construction traffic and road impactsA commissioner raised concerns about construction staging on county roads and the multi-year impact to Mitchell Bend and Highway 144 during the 3–5 year construction period.
• Clarification on project ownership and water sourcing for Project YellowA commissioner sought clarification on property ownership during construction and water sourcing arrangements, confirming Starwood as developer and owner.
• Commissioner concerns on fire lanes, cemetery drainage, and historical resourcesA commissioner raised concerns about fire department review capacity, drainage through a historical cemetery, and whether the Texas Historical Commission had been contacted.
• Commissioner discussion on regulatory definitions and concept plan complianceCommissioners and developer discussed whether the projects fit within the county's rural land use district definitions and whether the concept plan adequately addresses physical environment protection.
• Development commission member remarks on atypical project scope and regulatory gapsA development commission member noted these projects exceed typical concept plan scope and require questions beyond standard procedures due to the projects' unprecedented scale and speed.
• Commissioner and staff concern on traffic analysis timing and cemetery protectionsA commissioner emphasized traffic impact analysis is a required item on the development checklist and raised concerns about cemetery protections and noise impacts.
• County attorney remarks on unprecedented development and regulatory complianceThe county attorney emphasized this development differs fundamentally from typical projects and expressed commitment to protecting the county's rural character while complying with state law.
• Motion to continue matter until March 24, 2026The court voted to accept a continuance request for the data center projects until March 24, 2026.
• Agenda item on development regulations update for data center facilitiesThe court directed the development director to update development permit regulations to incorporate conditional approvals, NFPA 855, critical infrastructure protection law, and battery energy storage standards.
• Commissioner questioning legal authority for regulatory updatesA commissioner raised concerns about whether the county has legal authority under population requirements to adopt certain fire codes and state regulations in its development regulations.
• Fire code and regulatory compliance frameworkThe court discussed applying multiple applicable codes rather than relying solely on section 855, and clarified roles in code compliance.
• Battery energy storage facility agreements and air quality concernsThe court addressed provisions for battery energy storage facilities and raised concerns about air quality impact quantification in development reviews.
• Motion to direct regulatory updatesThe court voted to direct the development director to update permit regulations with specified code references and conditional approval items for a public hearing on March 10.
• Meeting adjournmentThe court adjourned with no further business on the agenda.