There are currently no data centers in the city of Pataskala, nor are there any in the village of Granville. But a charter amendment on the ballot in the November election could eliminate any possibility of their construction.
On Nov. 3, Pataskala and Granville residents will vote on whether their municipalities should amend their charters to ban data centers over 25 megawatts, part of a larger movement of data center ballot measures across Licking County and Ohio overall.
In Pataskala:
At-large Pataskala City Council member Tim Hickin said that his constituents are “interested in what [the charter amendment] means.”
A charter is a governing document that serves as a local constitution, as opposed to statutory cities that operate under the Ohio Revised Code. Charters offer greater flexibility in tailoring home rule to the wants and needs of residents.
“I have fielded questions from constituents on both sides of the issue,” Hickin said. “I think there are some people that are passionate about data centers. I think there are some people that want to see what it means.”
Leatrice Guttentag, one of the three people on the charter committee to start the petition, said that, based on what she’s heard from other residents and seen in the halls of city council meetings, it’s clear to her that Pataskala residents do not want data centers in their city.
“The one that is proposed [by Aligned Data Centers] is right in the middle of our city,” Guttentag said. “It’s not on the edge, it’s not on a perimeter, it’s right in the middle. And it’s not a good place for it, it’s not appropriate and we don’t want it.”
The Aligned Data Centers proposal would have built a 200-megawatt data center in the city’s corporate park, and Pataskala City Council voted unanimously to reject the proposal in August. Aligned Data Centers asked a judge to review the denial in September.
Read more: Pataskala residents cheer City Council vote to reject site plan for proposed large-scale data center
Concerns about data centers’ effects on both the environment and quality of life for Pataskala residents motivated the potential ban. Hickin said that he would want the people of Pataskala to educate themselves on both benefits – such as financial profit for the city and its residents – and drawbacks, such as power usage, water usage and noise of data centers before casting their ballot in the Nov. 3 election.
While the appeal does not directly affect the charter amendment on the ballot, the construction of the Aligned Data Center project could be affected by both the result of the appeal and the amendment if the common pleas court overturns the Pataskala city council’s decision to reject the site plan but the charter amendment has passed.
“My personal stance is that the people ought to be allowed to decide in instances like this,” Hickin said. “I am a huge believer in the process. If the people think that this is best for the city, then they should be allowed to make that determination.”
Conserve Ohio, a grassroots organization, led the effort to get issues on the ballot in charter cities and villages after earlier efforts fell short of having enough signatures for a statewide ballot issue in November to ban large data centers across the state.
Conserve Ohio attorney Nick Owens said that there are not many cases yet in Ohio law that speak to “the interplay between charter amendment passage and when property rights vest.”
“There’s just not a black-and-white answer for a lot of this stuff,” he said. “And ultimately it’s going to rely on a court to make a determination.”
This circumstance would only arise both if the courts overturn the council’s decision and if the amendment passes. Guttentag calls it a “chicken or egg fight.”
Owens emphasized his belief that in this situation, the charter amendment, if passed, would represent what Pataskala voters want.
“If the Pataskala voters put in their charter to ban data centers over 25 megawatts, the charter of Pataskala should be what speaks for the citizens,” said Owens, “and frankly the court should be cognizant of what the constitution of the city of Pataskala says.”
In Granville:
Granville voters will join Pataskala in considering whether to amend their municipal charters to ban data centers larger than 25 megawatts.
Granville resident Tracee Laing, who has helped coordinate petition drives to get data center amendments on the ballot across Licking County, called the village’s charter amendment “largely symbolic.”
“It’s largely symbolic in communities like Granville, where no data centers are proposed, but it would have an impact in cities such as Pataskala, where they are facing data center proposals,” Laing said. “The point is to get the attention of lawmakers and let them know that people want them to do something about the proliferation of data centers.”
Licking County is home to at least 49 of the 125 data centers in central Ohio and 240 across the state, according to Data Center Map, an organization that tracks data centers around the world. Most of the Licking County data centers are in the New Albany area.
Carol Apacki, a Granville resident who circulated petitions in the village, attended the village council meeting in August, when council members first began the process to put the proposal on the ballot. She called the petition drive a “positive experience because so many people were willing to sign, and it unified people from the left and right on a common issue.”
Residents in Heath and Johnstown will vote on similar charter amendments in special elections in 2027.
Ella Kitchens writes for TheReportingProject.org, the nonprofit news organization of Denison University’s Journalism program, which is supported by generous donations from readers. Sign up for The Reporting Project newsletter here.
Alan Miller and Julia Lerner contributed reporting for this story.