At the March 16, 2026 public meeting, Bill Scala of K-Nova spoke to Commercial Point residents and officials about the proposed data center development near our homes.
Residents should watch this exchange carefully, not just for what was said, but for how it was framed. The Circleville Herald also covered the exchange in a March 24, 2026 report.
Scala repeatedly stated that the data centers are “coming,” framing the project as already zoned, entitled, and moving forward. He also said K-Nova had already done its “due diligence” and had “shored that up” if residents or officials wanted to fight the project. When challenged on how that sounded, he responded, “It’s not a threat.” Residents can watch the exchange and judge that for themselves.
That gets to the heart of the issue.
This is not just a debate about data centers. It is a debate about who gets to shape the future of Commercial Point. The people who live here, raise families here, drive these roads, rely on this infrastructure, and will live with the consequences? Or private developers with major financial interests in the outcome?
How Did This Get So Far, So Fast?
Scala repeatedly leaned on the idea that this has already been “legislated” and “codified into law.” That matters because Ordinance 2024-07 rezoned approximately 266.971 acres from Exceptional Use to Planned Industrial District and adopted the preliminary plan and development standards for that district. It was also passed as an emergency measure, taking effect immediately upon passage.
That is exactly why residents are asking questions about the process.
Before Ordinance 2024-07 passed, the Village’s ordinance list shows that Ordinance 2024-02 attempted to rezone the same 266.971 acres from Exceptional Use to Planned Industrial District, but “died due to a lack of motion.” The same ordinance list then shows Ordinance 2024-05 amending Chapter 1143.04(e) of the Planning and Zoning Code before Ordinance 2024-07 came back and passed. What happened in the weeks between those two events matters.
Under the village’s own zoning code at the time, Chapter 1143.04(e) imposed a one-year bar on refiling the same rezoning application after it was disapproved or failed. That rule existed to prevent an applicant from cycling the same rejected application back through the process immediately after a failed vote.
Two weeks after Ordinance 2024-02 died for lack of a motion, at a Special Council meeting on April 15, 2024, council voted to waive that one-year bar specifically for K-Nova, on the condition that K-Nova refile within 48 hours. The public record cites “extenuating circumstances” as the basis for the waiver. The record does not state what those circumstances were. K-Nova met the 48-hour condition and refiled. That application became Ordinance 2024-07.
Three weeks later, Ordinance 2024-05 permanently changed the same rule that had just been waived for one applicant.
Ordinance 2024-05 changed the council action timeline from 45 days to 120 days after the public hearing, changed the consequence of no council action to the application being considered disapproved, and changed the re-submission waiting period after disapproval from one year to six months. It was also declared an emergency measure.
Residents also deserve a clear answer on public notice. For a rezoning decision of this scale, especially one affecting Foxfire and nearby neighborhoods, the community should be able to see exactly how notice was given, when public hearings were advertised, who received mailed notice, where notices were posted, and whether nearby homeowners were fairly and meaningfully informed before the vote occurred.
Legal notice may technically satisfy a minimum requirement, but that is not the same as meaningful public awareness. If a 266.971-acre rezoning was being advanced for industrial data center use near residential neighborhoods, residents have a right to ask whether the public process was handled in a way that was transparent, fair, and easy for affected homeowners to understand.
Residents deserve a clear explanation of what changed between the failed first attempt and the later successful vote.
- Why did the first rezoning attempt die?
- What were the “extenuating circumstances” that allowed K-Nova to refile in 48 hours instead of waiting the required one year?
- Why were the zoning rules then permanently changed for everyone else, shortly afterward?
- Why was Ordinance 2024-05 passed as an emergency?
- Why was Ordinance 2024-07 also passed as an emergency?
- What was the actual emergency?
- Were nearby residents in Foxfire and nearby neighborhoods meaningfully informed before the legal framework was put in place?
- How were residents notified of the public hearings connected to Ordinance 2024-07?
- Were notices mailed to nearby homeowners, and if so, which properties received them?
- Were Foxfire and nearby residents directly informed that the rezoning could allow a massive data center campus?
- What did the public hearing notices actually say?
- Did the notices clearly use the words “data center,” “industrial,” “planned industrial district,” or explain the possible scale of the project?
- Were notices published only in legally required channels, or were additional steps taken to make sure affected residents actually knew what was being considered?
- Were builders, developers, real estate agents, or homebuyers informed that this land could become a data center campus?
- Did the Village receive comments or objections before the vote, and where are those records?
- And were independent studies completed before the prior council made decisions that K-Nova now points to as proof that this project is already settled?
Those are not fringe questions. They are basic public process questions.
Questions About Confidentiality, NDAs, and Amazon
The transcript also raises important questions about confidentiality.
When asked who the data center partner was, Scala said he could not say their name because the meeting was not in executive session. Later in the exchange, residents and officials referenced Amazon and AWS directly, and Scala appeared to acknowledge that he was restricted from speaking openly about the partner.
That does not prove every detail of who signed what, but it does raise fair questions.
If Amazon, AWS, or another data center partner is central to this project, residents deserve to know what has been discussed privately, who was involved, and whether any confidentiality agreements limited what could be shared with the public.
- Who signed any NDAs or confidentiality agreements?
- When were those agreements signed?
- Did any current or former village officials sign them?
- Did any NDA limit what could be shared with residents before Ordinance 2024-07 passed?
- Were public decisions shaped by private negotiations residents could not see?
- When did the Village, K-Nova, or prior officials first know Amazon or AWS may be involved?
If residents are being told this project is already “coming,” then the public deserves to understand how much of that path was shaped behind closed doors.
Residents Are Not Asking to Be “Educated.” They Are Asking for Answers.
Scala also spoke about “educating” residents and officials. During the exchange, a council member challenged him directly, saying Scala had told them it was their job to educate people on why the project was good for them. Scala responded that it was their job to “present the facts.”
That moment matters.
Residents are not asking to be sold on a project. They are asking for transparency, independent review, and a real voice in decisions that affect their homes, property values, roads, utilities, safety, and quality of life.
If residents were technically notified but practically unaware, that is still a problem. A project of this scale should not move forward on a narrow reading of public notice while the people most affected are left in the dark.
“Closed Loop” Does Not Mean “No Impact”
Scala also framed resident concerns as “misinformation.” Early in his remarks, he said there was “still a lot of misinformation out there.” He then claimed, “There is no pollution with these,” described the project as a “closed-loop system,” and later repeated, “If the worry is pollution, these things don’t pollute.”
Those are broad claims, and residents should not be expected to accept them on trust.
A closed-loop cooling system may reduce certain water impacts, but it does not mean there is no impact. EPA’s own case study of a closed-loop data center cooling-water reuse system in Quincy, Washington explains that even in a closed-loop system, salts still have to be removed, concentrated in lined brine ponds, and disposed of properly. The same EPA case study also notes the system still needs make-up water because water is lost through evaporation and brine management.
Peer-reviewed research published in npj Clean Water also explains that data centers consume water directly through cooling and indirectly through the water required for electricity generation. The study notes that data centers can rely heavily on potable water depending on the system and location.
Power demand is another major question. The Department of Energy reported that data center load growth has tripled over the past decade and is projected to double or triple by 2028. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s 2024 report was produced to estimate historical and future U.S. data center electricity consumption through 2028.
And if backup generators are part of the project, residents deserve to know that in writing. Washington State’s Department of Ecology states that data centers can have many diesel-powered backup generators that are tested regularly, and that the related air pollution can include diesel exhaust particles and nitrogen dioxide. EPA describes diesel exhaust as a complex mixture of gases and particulate matter and a major contributor to ambient air pollution.
To be clear, the April 29, 2026 site-plan packet we have does not clearly confirm what type of backup power system would be used. It shows a large proposed industrial campus with 11 buildings and approximately 1,877,396 square feet of total building area, but it does not clearly answer whether diesel generators, natural gas generators, battery storage, fuel tanks, or other backup systems would be used on site.
That is exactly the problem.
Commercial Point has since adopted Ordinance 2026-03 prohibiting gas-fired electric generation facilities utilizing turbines within the Village. That shows power-generation concerns are real enough for the Village to regulate, but it still does not fully answer what backup power, fuel storage, emissions, testing, or emergency systems would be tied to this specific data center campus.
The Core Issue Is Trust
Scala says he cares about Commercial Point. Residents can listen to him and decide how they feel about that. But K-Nova is not the village. K-Nova is not the residents. K-Nova is a private developer with land and financial interests tied to this outcome.
The public deserves more than verbal reassurances from a developer. We deserve independent studies, clear records, and direct answers.
Before any further approvals move forward, residents are still asking:
- Where are the independent studies on water demand, wastewater, power infrastructure, backup generators, emissions, noise, traffic, lighting, stormwater, fire and EMS capacity, and property-value impacts?
- Where are the documents explaining exactly what changed after Ordinance 2024-02 died due to a lack of motion?
- Why was Chapter 1143.04(e) changed before Ordinance 2024-07 was passed?
- Why were Ordinance 2024-05 and Ordinance 2024-07 both passed as emergency measures?
- Who signed NDAs or confidentiality agreements connected to this project?
- Did confidentiality agreements limit what residents were told?
- Who knew Amazon or AWS may be involved, and when did they know it?
- Were nearby homeowners ever clearly told that a massive data center campus could be built behind or near their neighborhoods?
- And should private developers be able to frame this as inevitable before the community has seen the full facts?
This video is not being shared to attack someone personally. It is being shared because residents deserve to hear the tone, the framing, and the assumptions for themselves.
The core question remains:
Should the future of Commercial Point be shaped by the people who live here, or by private developers telling us the decision has already been made?