CALENDAR OF EVENTS - NOTES ON MEETINGS AT BOTTOM OF PAGE

Thank you, Mike Voorhies for your time today.  Below is an outline of what was talked about, and Mike has said it would be alright for us to email him additional questions, that time just did not allow to be discussed.  It's alot y'all.  Give this man some grace. Cheryl will make a post as well - as I am very sure that with all that was discussed she will recall things I have missed. 

Fire Code and Regulations for New Industrial Developments

Code Adoption and Amendments

• Current Code: Matagorda County has adopted the 2021 International Fire Code.
• Code Marriage: To address new technologies like battery farms (BESS) and data centers, two key sections from the newer 2024 code have been integrated into the county's adopted 2021 code:
  • Chapter 12 from the 2024 code.
  • Section 320 from the 2024 code.
• Purpose of Amendments: The 2024 sections provide more detailed requirements for these specific types of facilities. Approximately 60 pages of amendments were made to tailor the fire code specifically to Matagorda County's non-metropolitan environment.
• Legal Basis for Code Adoption: Matagorda County was able to adopt a fire code because it is contingent to Brazoria County, which has a population over 350,000. This is a provision under state law that allows for preemptive code adoption in anticipation of population growth.

Fire Marshal's Office Establishment & Permitting Process

• Office Establishment: The Fire Marshal's office is a new, one-person department being established from the ground up. The Fire Marshal has approximately 20 years of experience in the field and 40 years in the industry. Key initial steps, such as adopting the fire code and establishing fee schedules and amendments, have been completed.
• Primary Concern: The main focus is on inspecting uninspected assembly occupancies, which pose a high risk for large loss of life (e.g., schools, movie theaters, restaurants, and bars).
• Enforcement Philosophy: The approach is to work with entities to mitigate issues and ensure safety, not to be punitive.
• Development & Permitting Process: For projects over 5,000 square feet or large areas like solar farms and data centers, the process is as follows:
  1. Pre-Development Meeting: The developer must first meet with the Fire Marshal. Other county stakeholders (e.g., Environmental) are invited to ensure alignment. The Fire Marshal outlines all applicable rules and codes.
  2. Civil Plan Submission & Review: The developer submits civil plans. The Fire Marshal reviews them for compliance with the fire code, amendments, and state law, aiming for a 10-day turnaround (30 days max). Once approved, site work can begin.
  3. Building Plan Submission & Review: After civil plan approval, the developer submits building plans for a similar comprehensive review against the International Fire Code and all its referenced codes (e.g., NFPA manuals).

Jurisdiction and Developer Responsibilities

• Industrial Sites: For large industrial facilities, the fire marshal's office relies on more stringent federal regulations from the EPA and OSHA.
• Developer Responsibility: An proposed amendment to the code will require that companies bringing potential hazards into the county must:
  • Contribute funding for training of volunteers/fire fighters
  • Assist with providing any specialized equipment needed to mitigate incidents. This ensures the financial burden does not fall solely on taxpayers.
• Commissioning/Decommissioning Plans: Companies are required to submit both commissioning (testing) and decommissioning plans to the fire marshal's office to ensure proper setup and plan for the eventual removal of hazardous materials.
• Bonds: The topic of requiring companies to secure a bond to cover cleanup costs in case of abandonment was raised, referencing a bankrupt data center on Highway 126. (Decommissioning Bond)
• Donna/Cheryl brought up Cross-Departmental Liability: If the county signs off on permits before required studies (e.g., environmental/noise/eagles/water usage/measurements of the water table) are completed by other departments, the county may share liability. Pre-development meetings could be focused on avoiding this.

Concerns Regarding Local Data Centers and Battery Farms

• Community Impact: Significant community concerns exist regarding the impact of large industrial projects, especially data centers, including noise, heat, electricity consumption, groundwater usage, and proximity to sensitive locations like schools and hospitals.
• Noise and Vibration:
  • Data centers are reported to be extremely loud (60-85 dB at 100 feet). A resident near a similar facility in Brazoria reported that the noise cycles, are often much louder, and causes chest vibrations and sleep disruption. The continuous industrial noise generated by the facility materially interferes with residents’ reasonable use and enjoyment of their property, including the ability to sit outdoors, converse, relax, or experience normal rural quiet.
  • The potential impact of low-frequency noise and vibration on sensitive populations, such as autistic children in nearby schools and patients in hospitals, is a major concern.
  • This will not be an issue that is fostered or permitted through the Fire Marshal. This will lay solely with county permitting.
• Black Cat: A planned facility on MLK is understood to consist of five "connex" style shipping containers required to have integrated fire suppression systems. Donna/Cheryl brought to the table the need for a Decommissioning Bond before permits are issued; that would require proof money exists for future cleanup, demolition, hazardous material removal and site restoration if the company fails.

Existing Unregulated Sites: 

Concerns were raised about multiple existing, poorly-documented data center sites:

• Old Van Vleck Road Site: A bankrupt data center with containers is located off Old Van Vleck Road. It is surrounded by black curtains.
• Second Site: Another abandoned cryptocurrency operation exists on the right side of Old Van Vleck Road with unknown contaminants behind the lean to shed.
• Developer Reputation: Ivan Penny, the individual behind a "Black Cat" project, allegedly does not have a good reputation and has similar operations in other areas of Texas.
• Lack of Transparency: Residents expressed frustration with a "stonewall" from officials and a lack of transparency. Permits become public knowledge only after they are issued, leaving no opportunity for community input.
• Property Rights and Corporate Responsibility: A central argument is the conflict between a corporation's property rights and the rights of adjacent property owners whose health and environment are affected. It's argued that corporations are not human beings and shouldn't be granted the same level of rights when their actions cause harm.

Proposed Legislative and Collaborative Solutions

• State-Level Action: A moratorium on new facilities is not feasible as it would likely lead to the state being sued.
• Texas Code Chapter 231: The most effective proposed solution is to create a local legislative subchapter under Texas Code Chapter 231. This would allow the county to establish specific regulations for issues like noise and water pollution, which currently fall outside the purview of local fire code.
• State Guideline Enforcement: While state guidelines exist for environmental issues, they are ineffective without a local legislative subchapter for enforcement of specific issues.
• Collaboration: Community members hope to partner with the Fire Marshal and County Commissioners to get the creation of this subchapter on the agenda, believing it would strengthen the Fire Marshal's position when dealing with developers.
• Citizen Involvement: A request was made for a rotating private citizen representative to sit in on pre-development meetings to ensure transparency, though this is a request that would require the input of the City Attorney and involved a degree of confidentiality to county government by the citizen.
• Political Pressure: The Fire Marshal acknowledged the role is highly political but affirmed a commitment to enforcing the code regardless of pressure.

Financial and Budgetary Concerns

• Tax Revenue: There is skepticism about promised tax revenue. An example was given of Tenaris fighting its tax obligations (an estimated $800 million), which could result in the county receiving significantly less than owed.
• Fire Department Budget: A significant concern is the source of funding for the fire department's increased budget needs for specialized equipment, additional staffing, and comprehensive training to prepare for incidents at new industrial facilities. This is still an issue to be addressed and should be done in a public forum, as it could very well impact taxpayers.

Next Arrangements and Action Items

• The Fire Marshal will investigate the bankrupt and second data center sites on Old Van Vleck Road.
• One of the speakers will email the Fire Marshal information about the "Smith" data center.
• A video of a Brazoria resident describing noise issues will be sent to the Fire Marshal.
• Community members will pursue getting an item on the county commissioner's agenda to create a subchapter under Texas Code Chapter 231 for regulating data centers, and requested that the Fire Marshal consider being an advocate for the idea to commissioner’s court.
• A community representative will email Fire Marshal, Mike Voorhies additional questions that time did not afford to be asked.
• Mike was asked to consider the pros and cons of having a citizen representative in pre-development meetings and report back on whether the agenda request was brought to the table.
• Open communication will be maintained between community representatives and Mike Voorhies via his email: mvoorhies@matagordatx.gov.