People stand outside the doors of the packed gym during a city council meeting about a proposed data center at Burgin Independent School in Burgin, Kentucky, on July 9, 2026. Drew Metanchuk/The Watchdog

BURGIN, Ky. – The Burgin City Council voted 3-2 in favor of the first reading of an annexation ordinance that includes land involved in a proposed data center development.

Over 200 people filled Burgin Independent Schools’ cafeteria while others gathered outside during the Council meeting on Thursday, July 9.

Although the meeting did not allow for public comment, some protestors voiced opposition during the meeting, calling on Council members to vote no on the ordinance.

Before Thursday’s meeting, two meetings regarding the annexation were canceled, including one scheduled for June 22, where the city cited “legal issues” as the reason for cancelation.

Mary De Lima speaks to community members outside of Burgin Fire and Rescue in Burgin, Kentucky, after the city canceled a meeting regarding the proposed data center on Tuesday, May 26, 2026. Isabella Sepahban/The Watchdog

The ordinance seeks to annex some of Mercer County’s land into Burgin, which is located in the unincorporated area of Mercer County. Annexation is the process of extending a city boundary, according to the Kentucky Association of Counties.

The annexation includes land involved in a proposed data center development that has drawn pushback from the community due to concerns about potential environmental, health and financial impacts.

During Thursday’s meeting, Councilmember Sindicat Dunn was one of two Council members to vote against the first reading. Dunn said he plans to introduce a data center moratorium at the next City Council meeting.

Despite his belief that Burgin could have benefited financially from data center developments, Dunn said the issue was not about him.

“It’s about the people, and I stand with the people no matter whatever my opinion is,” Dunn said. “That’s not what I was elected for.”

Councilmember Melinda Wofford, who also voted against the first reading of the annexation, asked that the motion for the first reading be withdrawn and Council consider allowing public comment on the ordinance.

“I know for sure that my constituents do not want to move forward with the data center,” Wofford said. “I do think that we’re being reckless. We have the opportunity to have Planning and Zoning, we’ve talked about that, but yet, that’s not even coming to the forefront.”

The information presented to Council came “straight from the developer,” according to Wofford, who said she was concerned there would be no regulations on the development.

Councilmember Scott McCoy, one of three who voted in favor of the first reading, said the city of Burgin does “not have to have planning and zoning,” and there could instead be an agreement with developers.

The developer’s agreement could then be taken to constituents, according to McCoy, and they can discuss concerns such as water usage, light and noise.

“So, there’s a developer’s agreement, that the developer has indicated that they would not move forward without that developer’s agreement,” McCoy said. “They want to be made sure that the stakeholders, the constituents, have input into any development that is done.”

After Council voted, McCoy proposed there be a second reading of the annexation legislation on July 20. Dunn raised concerns about scheduling the meeting 10 days from the first meeting.

Dunn said he thought Council should hold a town hall meeting to share information with the community and allow residents to voice their input.

“So why 10 days, why so soon?” Dunn asked during the meeting. “Why not two weeks? Enough time to actually get people able to come together and talk about what’s really going on.”

McCoy said the reason for proposing that the second reading take place on July 20 was due to “scheduling with the members.”

Mercer County’s Joint Planning and Zoning Commission previously held meetings on a draft ordinance to create Industrial Technology Zones where data centers would be permitted.

Under the ordinance, IT Zones are not intended for manufacturing uses, but instead for emerging technology uses requiring large physical footprints.

Community members sit in and listen during a city council meeting about a proposed data center at Burgin Independent School in Burgin, Kentucky, on July 9, 2026. Drew Metanchuk/The Watchdog

In an email shared on social media by Wofford, McCoy said he spoke with Brian Luftman, a Fayette County resident and founder of American Farm Investors, who owns land in Mercer County.

Luftman said he allowed data center developers to submit offers on his land and sent a letter to the Mercer County Joint Planning and Zoning Commission, calling the draft ordinance “much too specific and restrictive for any data center to be developed within Mercer County.”

According to the email, when McCoy asked Luftman why there seemed to be a “rush” to move the annexation forward, Luftman said the developer needed to write a check to Kentucky Utilities by August 1 to begin securing materials.

“If the annexation of the ‘data center’ property is not approved by that time the developer will lose their place in line with KU,” McCoy wrote in his email, “and the electrical demand will be allocated to the next development on the list.”

Although the development team originally tried to work through Mercer County, according to McCoy’s email, “it died” in the county’s Joint Planning and Zoning Commission.

“Thus the desire to be annexed into Burgin city limits where we do not have P&Z,” McCoy wrote.

Angela Lee poses for a photo at Burgin Fire and Rescue in Burgin, Kentucky, after the city canceled a meeting regarding the proposed data center on Tuesday, May 26, 2026. Isabella Sepahban/The Watchdog

Luftman said there is no “hard deadline” for August 1, but that KU has expressed urgency to the data center developer.

In his letter, Luftman said companies interested in developing in the area would prioritize other projects that have “less red tape.”

“I hope that your commission and/or Mercer County’s Fiscal Court swiftly realizes that adoption of this ordinance will simply create a worthless layer of regulation,” Luftman wrote. “Drafting an ordinance with which no developer can comply, and then designating a specific area as an ‘Industrial Technology Zone,’ is actually quite amusing to me.”

According to Luftman, the land he owns in Mercer County is an “ideal site for a data center” in the eyes of developers.

“There’s a world class developer that wants to develop with a world class tenant on my property,” Luftman said. “I don’t think there’s not many people who, if they were in my position, would do any different.”

Luftman also called data centers “low impact developments,” and said such facilities are compliant with rules about commercial development.

“If you’re not standing right next to it with your ear up against it, it’s not that big of a deal,” Luftman said. “Like, if you’re over 100 yards away, you can’t hear it.”

Dr. Rick Angel, a resident of Mercer County, spoke about the impacts noise could have on the surrounding community at a Mercer County Joint Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on February 18.

During public comment, Angel said a major concern was the persistence of low frequency noise, which travels much further and can penetrate walls and windows.

According to Angel, noise from data centers can cause issues with concentration, mental health and sleep.

“It’s a loud noise, it’s a persistent noise, it’s never ending,” Angel said. “People that live in urban areas maybe could adapt to it, but in our rural area where we’re accustomed to very quiet nights, it could be an issue.”

Community members sit in and listen during a city council meeting about a proposed data center at Burgin Independent School in Burgin, Kentucky, on July 9, 2026. Drew Metanchuk/The Watchdog

The lack of a planning and zoning commission in Burgin has also raised concern for community members such as Bethany Corea, who said it could lead to less regulation.

“There’s a lot less steps, there’s a lot less people that have to vote on the matter,” Corea said. “And there’s a ton less oversight as far as writing ordinances, regulation, and there’s literally not a commission to check on the regulation.”

Diane Floyd, a Mercer County resident and member of We Are Mercer County, called attempts to push the development forward with less restrictions “shady.”

According to Floyd, the unwillingness to follow what Mercer County Joint Planning and Zoning would set in place shows that developers do not have the community’s best interest in mind.

“Because what does that say about the data center proposal that they’re wanting to build?” Floyd asked. “They want less restrictions and less protection for citizens, so they must not be great neighbors, right?”