2026 Primary: Candidate Responses on Innovative Land Use & Setbacks
These questions were submitted to each candidate listed below
Thank you for offering to serve Mason County as a _________. As a voter, I’d appreciate your thoughts on a topic that I believe is critical to our community’s future.
Mason County has lost tobacco, dairy, and major industrial employers over the past four decades. Innovative land uses — such as utility-scale solar and data centers — represent some of the most realistic opportunities to rebuild our economic foundation and restore the tax base that supports our public services, history, and quality of life.
I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1. Do you support innovative land uses — such as utility-scale solar and data centers — as tools to rebuild Mason County’s economic base, provided they comply with all local, state, and federal regulations?
2. Current setback requirements for wind, solar, and data center facilities are significantly higher than any other land use in the zoning ordinance. Are you inclined to maintain, increase, or reduce those setbacks — and what evidence or reasoning guides your position?
I will share each candidate’s responses received by 5 PM EDT on April 26, 2026, with fellow voters. Your response will be quoted accurately as submitted. Candidates who do not respond by that deadline will be noted as having chosen not to reply.
Thank you for your time and your willingness to serve.
Here are their responses
Mason County Judge/Executive
| Candidate | Response | |
|---|---|---|
| D | Owen Mc Neil | Good Morning Bill Thanks for reaching out my friend. I believe my actions have shown where I stand when it comes to new industry, businesses and our economic base with the recruitment and attraction of PPI, GJPepsi, Good360 etc and the retention of Mitsubishi/Melco, etc, and expansions of Stober, Spurlock, International Paper and others. Additionally, my focus and support of Mason County’s small businesses and entrepreneurs I believe has been self-evident. While your correct, we have lost big tobacco production, Browning’s and Jockey and others, our area has gained many as well such as Stober, Mitsubishi/Melco, PPI and others. I believe it’s indicative of the constant urban / rural battle that affects not only Kentucky, but evident across the US. Like anything in life, without constant evolution and forward thinking, stable leadership, communities can suffer. I’m a firm believer that communities must continue to grow and innovate or they’ll be left behind. That’s why I’ve worked incredibly hard in bringing new opportunities and projects to Mason County. While we have not attracted a Toyota to Georgetown or Blue Oval Project, we have seen a more than average economic project activity that has empowered Maysville and Mason County to reascend back to the economic hub of a 20 county region in Northeastern Kentucky. This activity is even more evident when compared to our contiguous counties. Even with the PPI’s, Pepsi’s, Spurlock Expansions, and more, we still lose almost 1%(est) of population annually while those counties around us experience double digit population loss. That’s why our teams are working every day to find new employment and economic opportunities for Maysville, Mason County and Northeastern Kentucky. I don’t know if they are innovative land uses, but I know they are needed. We are currently recruiting a transformational and generational project to Mason County that will bring many benefits to our area. The citizens I speak with are constantly wanting opportunities to retain our graduates and youth, this will. They want community partners that will bolster our current employers like EKPC / Spurlock by investing and paying 100% for all upgrades, generation, transmission and distribution through our national best practice of EKPC’s large load tariff policy, guaranteeing no costs are placed on residential or current cooperative owners bills. They want community partners that will finally repair and restore an aging water and wastewater infrastructure instead of water line breaks. Finally, they want high paying, career and family sustaining jobs and opportunities right here in Mason County, all while lowering the tax burden on current citizens. That’s what this data center project represents. Leadership statewide sees it, from Gov Beshear to Senate President Robert Stivers while leadership of the state’s technology task force compliment our team on their forward thought. As closer to libertarian than anything else, my thought process has always been driven more with the premise of letting a land owner do what they want with their own property. They’ve made the payments and they own it. I believe that’s evident in our Joint Planning Commission’s thinking behind our solar regulations. The unpaid, volunteer, citizen members of the JPC worked incredibly hard to craft rules and regulations for all land uses, including solar. I applaud and will support any landowner of Mason County to do with their acreage what they want provided they adhere to our regulations. If they want to option their acreage, utilize the income to support their families, I support it as that is my role. I believe that if solar if viable in Kentucky and Mason County, then the first project should adhere to what those established regs are as I believe a lot of thought was put into them. Additionally, while setbacks for solar may be larger than other land uses in Mason County, I believe they are in line with other solar ordinances across Kentucky. Ultimately, it’s up to each landowner to make a decision on solar as I’ve seen no viable projects in Mason County. I believe the guidelines that the JPC put in place do a good job of advocating for the person who actually paid for the ground while protecting their neighbors. Finally, I’ll say that our data center project has publicly stated they have no plans for local solar to power their operations as they’ll rely on our local partners with EKPC and Spurlock, while literally paying for their expansion and the bolstering of our ‘regional grid’. It is my understanding that in Mason County, while some landowners are still receiving option revenue to support their families, no project has contracted to sell their energy produced. Given the potential to employ 100s of locals with high paying full time jobs and 1000s of long term construction jobs, I believe partnering with a global top ten entity that will increase our median family incomes and support our community with infrastructure investment and lowered taxes is paramount to winning the ‘community lottery’. My thoughts on that have not changed a bit. I hope you guys are doing well. Owen McNeill |
| R | Eric Bach | These candidates have chosen not to respond. Before you vote, ask them directly where they stand on innovative land uses and setbacks in Mason County. If you get an answer? Send it to cwm@wozi.com before the May primary, and I’ll post it here so all voters can decide if it measures up. |
| R | Peggy S. Frame | |
| R | S. Max Moran |
Mason County Commissioner Board
| Seat | Candidate | Response | |
|---|---|---|---|
| District 1 | D | Rebecca Cartmell | !. I support innovative uses for Mason County’s land, especially those that bring jobs, affordable housing and tourism to our region. Examples include transforming brownfields into housing, investing in agritourism, preserving historic properties for public use and developing parks and trails. Just last week I participated in a forum with the Energy and Environment Cabinet and the University of Kentucky in Maysville to discuss what Mason Countians would like to see in our community. I am open to many ideas for revitalizing our community and I don’t believe a data center – or any other single project – is Mason County’s only path forward. 2. Setbacks are put in place to protect communities from the potential negative effects of large scale development, including fire risk, noise pollution and other health and safety concerns. A hyperscale data center is unique and a new kind of project unlike other industrial development initiatives and has the potential for significant impact on our county. It makes sense for the setbacks to be proportionally significant. My reasoning is grounded in firsthand experience visiting multiple data centers over the past year and real life accounts shared by people living near these facilities. I trust Mason Countians when they tell me what they need to feel safe. |
| D | Noah Kaleb Kalb | Mr. Marshall here is my response to your two questions Question 1 Do you support innovative land uses such as utility-scale solar and data centers — as tools to rebuild Mason County’s economic base, provided they comply with all local, state, and federal regulations? I support innovative responsible growth, provided it is transparent, safely managed, and rooted in facts rather than assumptions to ensure it truly prioritizes our community and future. Question 2 Current setback requirements for wind, solar, and data center facilities are significantly higher than any other land use in the zoning ordinance. Are you inclined to maintain, increase, or reduce those setbacks – and what evidence or reasoning guides your position? Stricter setbacks for wind, solar, and data centers are necessary to mitigate noise and safety risks. Since these facilities use significant power and water, they must be held to higher standards. Proper zoning ensures these projects don’t compromise today’s quality of life, Public Safety or the resource capacity we need for tomorrow’s growth. Noah Kalb | |
| R | Paula Cokonougher | Hi Bill below you’ll see my complete thoughts w/o 150 word limitation and edits by others than myself! Innovative Land Use (Solar, Data Centers, etc.) Mason County has faced significant economic challenges over the past several decades with the loss of key industries such as tobacco, dairy, and manufacturing. I do support exploring innovative land uses including utility-scale solar and data centers as part of a broader strategy to rebuild our local economy and strengthen our tax base. At the same time, we have to be honest about where we are headed as a county. If we are unwilling to thoughtfully advance with technology and new forms of industry, we risk being left behind. That reality doesn’t just affect today it impacts whether future generations can build a life here. Without new economic opportunities, we make it harder for young families to stay, grow, and succeed in Mason County. That said, my support is conditional. Any project must be held to strict standards to ensure it is a good fit for our community. This includes full compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations, as well as careful consideration of long-term impacts on farmland, infrastructure, property values, and quality of life for our residents. Growth should be responsible, transparent, and beneficial to the people who already call Mason County home. Setback Requirements Setbacks exist for a reason — to protect neighboring property owners and preserve the character of our community. At the same time, they must be reasonable and grounded in data, not fear or speculation. I am open to reviewing current setback requirements to ensure they are fair, consistent, and based on credible evidence. If existing setbacks are significantly higher than comparable land uses without clear justification, then they should be re-evaluated. My approach would be to work with planning experts, review how similar counties are handling these developments, and ensure that any standards we set both protect residents and allow for responsible economic growth. Ultimately, my goal is to strike a balance: protecting our community while not closing the door on opportunities that could help Mason County move forward. Thank you again for your thoughtful questions and for your engagement in this process. Sincerely,Paula Cokonougher | |
| R | Glenny Riggs Jr. | These candidates have chosen not to respond. Before you vote, ask them directly where they stand on innovative land uses and setbacks in Mason County. If you get an answer? Send it to cwm@wozi.com before the May primary, and I’ll post it here so all voters can decide if it measures up. | |
| District 2 | D | Henry C. Boone | |
| D | Janet Hauke Garrison | As a Christian, I believe we should be good stewards of creation. We should always try to leave the land in better condition than it was when we found it. These two beliefs serve to guide my views on land use. Responses to Bill Marshall from Janet Garrison – Candidate for County Commissioner District 2 Thank you, Bill, for the opportunity to go on the record regarding my views on land use for utility-scale solar and data centers. At first, I felt a bit apprehensive about responding as you seem to have associates who like to immediately smear anyone who voices a different opinion. But, since we have been friends for such a long time, I am going to trust you and your associates to refrain from attacks and to accept my responses with an open mind. I also think it is important to take the high road by being transparent instead of completely refusing to respond, which was the case with the 133 project-related questions our group submitted to the JPC, Fiscal Court, and data center developer prior to the March hearings. 1. Do you support innovative land uses — such as utility-scale solar and data centers — as tools to rebuild Mason County’s economic base, provided they comply with all local, state, and federal regulations? To rebuild and sustain Mason County’s economic base, we need to put thousands of people back to work in permanent jobs making products, not just 50 to 400. If we are bringing industry back to the US, why not include industrial hemp, bamboo, and other plant-based initiatives as part of your so-called “innovative land uses”? How about we replace plastics with hemp-based bioplastics and composites? How about we create food supplements, fiber, biofuel, paper, and building materials from industrial hemp and bamboo? The required processing facilities and sewing factories would employ many more people than a hyperscale data center or solar field. Utility-Scale Solar: Construction of a utility–scale solar field should limit how much the environment is disturbed by keeping grading of land and tree removal to a minimum. The construction phase is the only part that creates jobs although those are temporary. So, there is no real impact on economic development as far as jobs are concerned. In a previous Facebook post, you mentioned a slight gain in property tax revenues, so that is a positive. Utility-scale solar projects use continuous perimeter fencing (8-10ft tall) since the complexes are not staffed with employees that monitor the facilities. “Edge effects” occur when animals walk along the fence line looking for openings. Those edges often run along roads or cleared access paths resulting in greater numbers of animal casualties, roadkill, and displaced/confused animals on roadways near facilities. Inserting this kind of industrial complex into the middle of grassland, wetland, and small farmland habitat is catastrophic for the surrounding wildlife. It’s inhumane. Calling this “green” is offensive to the animals and endangered species. In addition, the polarized light effect has been documented where 1,000 acres of reflective solar panels resemble water to birds from above, causing them to dive into the panels to their deaths. Decommissioning a utility-scale solar field and returning it to agricultural use is highly questionable. Potato growing associations nationwide won’t touch land that has previously held solar panels. Food grown on decommissioned solar fields may not be safe for consumption due to the microplastics and toxic materials that have leached into the soil from the panels during their 25-year lifetime. I think this is of great concern considering that our area seems to have become the new tornado alley. Just one storm could cause a lifetime of damage to a once productive agricultural resource. Most landfills won’t take solar panels. They consider them a special “hazardous” waste. Solar panels are a mix of glass (about 70–80%), aluminum frame, silicon cells, plastics (like EVA encapsulant), and trace metals, including silver, copper, sometimes lead or cadmium depending on type. When the panels break, they create sharp, hazardous debris and are harder to compact than normal trash. This damages landfill equipment. The reality is that they’re being dumped on and near solar facilities (happening in upstate NY) instead of being responsibly recycled. Our children and grandchildren will be burdened with cleaning up the mess. In my opinion, for sustainable food production, the *only acceptable plan* for utility-scale solar on productive farmland would be to require: 1. Promote placement of solar panels on brownfields, roofs, and parking lots as a top priority before placing them on productive farmland. That is a great strategy for renewable energy that we can all get behind. Just imagine if Jerry Lundergan installed solar panels on top of all EDS warehouses! 2. Bonds for decommissioning that outlive the LLC that created the initial contract. It appears that utility-scale solar LLCs tend to dissolve and pop up many times throughout the lifetime of a solar field. A bond would serve to provide the funds to decommission the site thereby relieving the landowner or their heirs from that obligation. 3. No extensive grading or clearing the land of trees. Minimal disruption of topsoil and to prevent erosion issues. Minimal concrete pads and gravel. Use of cover crops to prevent erosion. 4. Dual-use set-ups that use non-toxic panels (currently more expensive with even better ones using algae still being researched). Dual-use solar, also known as agrivoltaics or co-location of solar, is the practice of installing solar photovoltaic panels on farmland so that primary agricultural activities (such as animal grazing and crop/vegetable production) can continue. Encourage minimal use of herbicides and pesticides. Incorporate regenerative farming practices to rebuild and sustain the soil. 5. More considerate design practices so that one landowner’s solar field does not infringe upon their neighbor’s quality of life. This involves locating the noise-emitting equipment (transformers, fans for inverters, etc.) within the center of the solar field rather than along the edges. 6. Planting trees that serve as a screen in front of industrial fencing. 7. Sufficient setbacks to prevent neighboring properties from being impacted by noise, solar field heat islands, and light trespass. 8. Training and equipment for emergency responders need to be incorporated into city/county ordinances to prevent injury and loss of life in the event of a fire at a solar field and/or battery energy storage system (BESS). In the event of a fire, special precautions such as covering panels with tarps or foam must be used to prevent severe injury even if the grid connection is shut-off because the panels exposed to sunlight are still generating electricity and capable of transferring that to emergency responders. Data Centers: Sacrificing 2.080 acres of farmland for 50+ jobs is not a great trade-off. Recent layoffs in the tech industry are not a good sign either. So far this year, Big Tech has laid off over 92,000 employees due to reallocating resources to AI and automating roles. It is estimated that 300,000 jobs have been replaced by AI across all sectors thus far. So, where will these displaced workers go for future employment? I have stated that I am against using thousands of acres of productive farmland for data centers and I still stand behind that. During the March hearing, I was shocked the land covered by the map amendment was referred to as non-profitable empty land or “scrub land” by our county officials. That land serves a valuable purpose as “pasture”. Here is the definition of pasture: “land covered with grass and other low plants suitable for grazing animals, especially cattle or sheep”. At the present time, the US is facing a shortage of beef. Land grabs of farmland will only make that worse. I have also stated that I feel there is a way for Mason County to have a “win-win” by locating the data center in an industrial park. It has been stated that Mason County has been unable to attract new industry because some of our current industrial parks lack necessary infrastructure. If the data center is paying for construction of needed infrastructure why not have them bring it to one of our existing industrial parks. That seems like a no-brainer! I am sure the data center company can pay for top notch engineers who can design multi-story structures that could be accommodated within an existing industrial park. They do it all over the world, why not in Kentucky? I am concerned about the overbuilding of data centers and how these companies expect a return on investment when they are currently losing money. Will they be able to afford everything they are promising to our county officials? Or will advances in technology result in reimagining data centers with smaller footprints or launched into space orbiting our planet? What happens if/when they abandon the Mason County facility? In my opinion, for sustainable food production and minimal disruptions to neighboring properties, the *only acceptable plan* for data centers in Mason County: 1. Work with the community from day 1. No more Non-Disclosure Agreements! 2. Promote placement of data centers within industrial parks and brownfields. (If the two decommissioned coal power plants in Adams County become data centers, some of our people can get jobs there with a 15-minute commute without destroying farmland in Mason County.) 3. Require data centers to reduce their footprint by designing multi-story structures. In those designs, the backup generators are housed on the lower floor reducing external noise. 4. Require data centers to use closed loop cooling with minimal chemical additives. 5. Require data centers to properly treat industrial wastewater to remove added chemicals before release into environment. 6. Require data centers to publicly report water and power usage. 7. Require data center to use only Tier 4 back up generators and to post testing schedule in advance. 8. Require a conditional use permit in order to be proactive in resolution of problems. 9. Require the data center to support sustainable economic development and environmental protection for Mason County. (They can start by funding industrial hemp or bamboo processing facilities.) Also provide training and equipment for first responders. 10. Require compliance with all currently stated requirements within the adopted ordinance 26-01. 11. Require similar requirements to utility-scale solar fields above. 2. Current setback requirements for wind, solar, and data center facilities are significantly higher than any other land use in the zoning ordinance. Are you inclined to maintain, increase, or reduce those setbacks — and what evidence or reasoning guides your position? I would be inclined to maintain the current setbacks. I am still not satisfied with the 500 foot setback for data centers – I still believe it should have been at least 1000 feet with it’s close proximity to farms and homes. My response provides the evidence that supports my position. | |
| R | Larry Fetters | Thank you for reaching out and for your thoughtful questions regarding the future of Mason County. I appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective on these important issues. Position on Innovative Land Uses (Solar & Data Centers) I strongly believe Mason County must continue to pursue economic growth and a stronger tax base. However, I do not support industrializing our county in ways that fail to provide stable, long-term employment opportunities for our residents or that risk negatively impacting our natural resources. While utility-scale solar projects and data centers are often presented as innovative solutions, I have concerns about their long-term benefit to our community. Many of these developments provide limited permanent jobs once construction is complete, while potentially placing lasting demands on our land, water, and infrastructure. Mason County’s strength has always been its agricultural heritage, natural resources, and close-knit communities. I believe we must be careful not to trade those long-term assets for short-term or uncertain gains. I am open to responsible, well-vetted development, but only when it clearly demonstrates meaningful, lasting economic benefit and safeguards our farmland, water resources, and quality of life. Position on Setback Requirements At this time, I am inclined to support maintaining current setback requirements. These standards exist to protect property owners, preserve community character, and reduce potential impacts on neighboring land uses. In some cases, I would consider strengthening setbacks if credible evidence shows a need to better protect residents, farmland, or critical resources. I would not support reducing setbacks without clear, local, and evidence-based justification that doing so would not negatively impact surrounding properties or the broader community. My approach is guided by a commitment to balance: encouraging responsible growth while protecting the people, land, and resources that make Mason County what it is. Thank you again for engaging in this important discussion and for your commitment to our community. I welcome continued dialogue with residents as we work together to shape Mason County’s future. Sincerely, Larry (Speedy) Fetters Candidate for Mason County Commissioner | |
| R | Dwayne Sharp | 1 I believe Mason County should approach any large-scale development opportunities with caution and careful consideration. While we do need to continue exploring ways to strengthen our local economy due to the long term decline of traditional industries, we also need to make sure we are making the right decisions for our community. Any large scale project should go through its own scrutiny, be evaluated carefully on its own merits, and meet all local, state, and federal requirements, with strong input from the community before any decisions are made. 2 On setback requirements, I believe they should reflect a balance between protecting nearby property owners, maintaining public safety, and preserving the rural character of Mason County, while still allowing for responsible development where appropriate. They should be fair, consistent, and based on sound planning practices. | |
| R | Jason C. Sheppeck | These candidates have chosen not to respond. Before you vote, ask them directly where they stand on innovative land uses and setbacks in Mason County. If you get an answer? Send it to cwm@wozi.com before the May primary, and I’ll post it here so all voters can decide if it measures up. | |
| District 3 | R | William Lawrence |
Maysville Mayor
| Candidate | Response | |
|---|---|---|
| D | Debra L. Cotterill | Responses to questions requested by Bill Marshall Do you support innovative land uses — such as utility-scale solar and data centers — as tools to rebuild Mason County’s economic base, provided they comply with all local, state, and federal regulations? For transparency, I was raised on a tobacco and dairy farm and continued working with my parents into adulthood. Along with my siblings, I remain a Mason County landowner. Although solar developers have expressed interest in our property, our family has chosen to continue operating it as farmland. Creating quality jobs with benefits is a central priority for Maysville’s future. According to the University of Louisville’s Kentucky State Data Center, Maysville’s average household income for 2025 is estimated at $59,710, compared with approximately $87,013 statewide. Median household income which more closely reflects what residents earn is $39,013. A broader concern is that Maysville’s economic growth has remained largely stagnant while the state and nation continue to expand. For Maysville to move forward, household incomes must better align with the cost of necessities such as housing, food, health care, utilities, transportation, and other quality-of-life needs. Meeting that goal will require attracting a diverse mix of employers, businesses, and industries. Solar development and data centers are not the only answers, but they could represent important components of a broader economic strategy. City government’s role is to ensure that any new development does not create an undue service or tax burden for residents. Concerns shared with me by citizens have been reviewed and addressed by city staff. Even projects located outside city limits can affect Maysville, and the city has worked with developers to respond to issues as they are identified. Maysville’s long-term vitality depends on residents being able to afford to live in the community. Continued infrastructure improvements and quality services are necessary to attract a wider range of employers offering living-wage jobs. Current setback requirements for wind, solar, and data center facilities are significantly higher than any other land use in the zoning ordinance. Are you inclined to maintain, increase, or reduce those setbacks — and what evidence or reasoning guides your position? Planning and zoning supported by comprehensive plans help communities ensure that decision-making reflects the needs and priorities of residents. Those serving on the Planning and Zoning Commission and other city boards play a key role in shaping policies with long-term impacts for the community. They take their responsibilities very seriously and work hard for the best outcomes for Maysville. The comprehensive plan process does not end when the document is adopted. Work continues to review ordinances, codes, procedures, and other systems to ensure alignment with the plan, while accounting for current economic conditions and evolving community needs. The plan is updated annually, and each section can be evaluated for practical adjustments such as setback standards and appropriate screening that may apply to development ranging from tiny homes to large utility facilities. I have personally seen how effective screening and natural buffers can reduce the visual impact of industrial uses, including large-scale utility sites, while still meeting functional requirements. Revisiting setback standards and considering additional screening options may help address resident concerns and, where feasible, enhance the appearance and value of surrounding properties. Respectfully, Debra |
| R | Robert Boone | Good afternoon, Bill. Please see my responses below: Question: Do you support innovative land uses — such as utility-scale solar and data centers — as tools to rebuild Mason County’s economic base, provided they comply with all local, state, and federal regulations? Answer: “Bill, thank you for giving me this platform. Before I can answer the first question you posed to me, I first want to say that words, phrases, and rhetoric matter. I take issue with the phrase in your question, “innovative land uses.” A data center, solar facility, or wind turbine operation are not innovative land uses. Rather, all three of these examples, which you cite as innovative land uses, are simply an exchange of land for a permanent impact. AI, solar, and wind are intrinsically innovative, but they are not innovative land uses any more than a 200,000 square foot Costco is an innovative land use. They are all, simply, a permanent change and exchange of the landscape. The rhetoric behind “solar farming” is a good example in illustrating my point. The term, “solar farm,” is problematic. Even more problematic is the rhetoric, “farming the sun,” which was used frequently by solar farm advocates. Solar installations are not farms. Harnessing the sun’s energy is not “farming” any more than taking a farm and replacing it with a grocery store is farming. When I go to the grocery store to select produce, I do not say that “I am going farming for produce.” That would be a ridiculous thing for me to say. Conversations about wind, solar, and now AI data centers, are framed in such a way to gain support through manipulative language. This reframing abandons the very definitions that allow us to discuss them for what they are: an exchange of land for some permanent impact. So, either those perpetuating rhetoric around “innovative land uses” think that those who do not agree are not sophisticated enough to understand their innovative insights, or they themselves really believe that projects like AI, solar, or wind are actually innovative uses of land. I encourage you and others to stop using bad rhetorical language that either assumes that you have some superiority over the people who do not believe it or stop using bad rhetorical language that you, yourself, may believe. Now that we have that out of the way, if the question posed to me was instead asked, “Do you believe that AI data centers, solar facilities, or wind turbine operations deserve to make permanent changes to land?” then that is a question I can answer. But first, I need to share the context for why my answer is what it is. I am a pragmatist in many respects. One of the best methods to gain future insight is to understand past performance. My insight into past performance is as follows: -Years ago, I was present during many of the public conversations regarding wind turbines. Although the public solar conversations occurred during a time when we were living out of town, I followed those conversations, nonetheless. I have been and continue to be present during the public meetings about the data center project. I am thankful that our community did not adopt solar or wind years ago because I think doing so would have permanently changed the land for very little local return. The wind and solar advocates in our county have largely transitioned to a pro-data center contingency. That personal observation leads me to think that some people are simply hell-bent on accepting any shiny thing coming down the pike with little consideration for a generational return on investment for our community. Given the current, sorry state of wind and solar projects across our country, I am thankful that our community did not follow (or rather fall for) such short-sighted rhetoric and hype. If anything, the primacy of the pro-solar and pro-wind coalitions did nothing but damage the current data center discourse, if there is any such dialogue to be had. -At present, I have a nearly 20-year career in workforce development, with five of those years dedicated to national projects. During those 20 years of service, I can point to about a dozen “transformational projects” that were hailed by elected officials and others as positively changing the trajectory of entire regions of our great country. In most cases, these projects have overpromised and underdelivered. In several cases, these projects did real damage to communities before shutting down. As the only candidate on the ballot with this level of experience, please forgive me for not being a “hype man” for this data center project. I cannot in good conscience, given my experience, hype a project that will likely, in a meaningful way, overpromise and underdeliver. More important than my own experiences, I have the privilege of representing the citizens of Maysville on the Maysville City Commission. I take that position very seriously. I could write at length about my own thoughts, but those thoughts do not matter as much as what my constituents think about this issue. I have opened my home to hear from citizens at least monthly; I have published multiple methods of contacting me, including my personal cell phone number; I have attended every public meeting regarding this data center project, and have been one of very few public officials or candidates to have done so. From what I can tell, at least 80% of my constituents are against this data center project. I am and want to grow even more toward being a voice for the community that I represent. To that end, I invite anyone to call me and discuss your thoughts regarding this project. You can reach me at 606-584-4842. I do not want to act only on what I think is best, but rather truly represent the majority of our community. After all, representing our community should be the primary focus of any elected or electioneering official. For another invitation, I encourage anyone who is in favor of this data center project, wind, or solar (as they were also outlined in these questions to elected officials) to publicly debate me on the topic. We can debate in person or virtually. My debate opponent can select the moderator and the locale. My assumption is that my debate opponent and I will likely agree on points and vastly disagree on others. I invite you to be creative with this offer. I will debate those viewed as data center experts, even those residing out of state, other candidates, or citizens. In closing, Bill, I want to offer you a clear and concise answer to your question. So, here it is: I am against the exchange of land for the permanent impact of this data center project. This answer is based on my past experience but is most importantly based on my current interpretation of the will of the people I represent and hope to represent as the next mayor of Maysville.” Question: Current setback requirements for wind, solar, and data center facilities are significantly higher than any other land use in the zoning ordinance. Are you inclined to maintain, increase, or reduce those setbacks — and what evidence or reasoning guides your position? Answer: “Wind, solar, and data center facilities, based on fact finding and community dialogue, are inherently different from other cases of economic development. If the majority of our community supported, wind, solar, and data center facilities, then I would be inclined to at least maintain those setback requirements as a response to community due process procedures that, in theory, support those setback determinations as recommended by the Joint Planning Commission to the Maysville City Commission and Mason County Fiscal Court. To answer the second part of your question, the only evidence or reasoning I need for my viewpoint is the community feedback gathered from the due process that is in place for public dialogue and hearings that are enshrined as constitutional rights in our country. |
Maysville City Commission At-large
| Candidate | Response |
|---|---|
| Kirby Bennett | 1. Yes I’m for innovative land uses if done the right way. Give the people what they want, I’m not for the Data Center, there are way to many questions they won’t answer, what are they hiding? plus our utilities will go up. The research that I have done and heard about was around 200%!!! 2. If Maysville grows enough in the future, then I’m for an increase. If not maintain where we at. The majority of our young people go off to college and don’t come back home because there’s no jobs for them. We need to do whatever it takes to keep our young people home. The one experience that I have with imminent domain was my first house which originally belong to my grandmother, now instead of good memories growing up with my grand mother and my first house is a black topped parking lot. (the original image received)  |
| Ann Brammer | These candidates have chosen not to respond. Before you vote, ask them directly where they stand on innovative land uses and setbacks in Mason County. If you get an answer? Send it to cwm@wozi.com before the May primary, and I’ll post it here so all voters can decide if it measures up. |
| David Cartmell | |
| Steve Chandler | As a candidate for Maysville City Commission, I support innovative land uses for data centers and industrial solar projects that comply with all local, state and federal regulations. Our community will be the recipient of significant tax revenues to fund infrastructure, schools, and public safety. Other tech-oriented business will build/invest nearby to take advantage of the low latency from the data center. This will result in more construction jobs and long-term employment opportunities. Although I respect the decision of the Maysville-Mason County Joint Planning Commission on the current setback requirements, I would be open to discussions on reduced setback requirements. We must implement responsible setback requirements. Balanced requirements mitigate environmental, visual, and safety impacts on neighboring properties and minimize taking valuable agricultural land out of production unnecessarily. Adding a landscape screening requirements may be a way to reduce the current 500ft setback (property lines) resulting in less farmland consumed and increased tax revenue. |
| David C. Doyle | This candidate has chosen not to respond. Before you vote, ask them directly where they stand on innovative land uses and setbacks in Mason County. If you get an answer? Send it to cwm@wozi.com before the May primary, and I’ll post it here so all voters can decide if it measures up. |
| Brey Foster | Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Bill, and for engaging on these issues with me. I agree that conventional cash grain farming has contributed to soil compaction and erosion over time. However, converting prime farmland to large-scale solar installations still represents a permanent loss of agricultural productivity. Even with ground cover, construction involves heavy grading and compaction, and full restoration after 25–40 years is uncertain and costly. Our most productive soils are a finite resource—we should protect them for future generations rather than treat them as temporary industrial sites. On the data center, I respectfully disagree. While it may bring short-term tax revenue and construction jobs, the long-term benefits are often overstated, with limited permanent employment and significant demands on water and infrastructure. In Mason County, preserving our agricultural heritage and avoiding new strains on local resources should take priority. I support transparency and genuine community input. Rather than a rush toward these projects, we need careful evaluation that puts long-term community interests first. That sounds like a great idea! If you’d like I’d be happy to meet and have coffee sometime soon, I’d be pleased to share my vision that I have for Maysville with you. Let me know a date and time and I’ll make it happen, Brey Foster |
| David Irwin | This candidate has chosen not to respond. Before you vote, ask them directly where they stand on innovative land uses and setbacks in Mason County. If you get an answer? Send it to cwm@wozi.com before the May primary, and I’ll post it here so all voters can decide if it measures up. |
| Rick Lawrence | Do you support innovative land uses — such as utility-scale solar and data centers — as tools to rebuild Mason County’s economic base, provided they comply with all local, state, and federal regulations? My perspective and future desires for my community are many. Growth is essential and both the economic and housing needs of our community. Those can come in many different forms. I would love to see Apprentice programs for the trades set up to encourage our students to pursue after graduation, particularly from the Magnet school program. The welding institute has proven that students can graduate, stay here and get a very valuable education, learn a trade and pursue dreams while making a very good living. Competing with other communities is a full-time job for growth, jobs and futures. As a former Economic Development Commissioner, I saw firsthand how many communities are competing for new development. Accompanying companies we attract bring many supportive opportunities. Suppliers, hotels, trade education, restaurants and administrative support. Increasing our tax base to provide community services will accompany new businesses. Our Fire, Police, EMS, Medical services can all continue to grow with improvement in tax base. There is no such premise of “stay the way we are”. There is no status quo in a community. If you are not growing, you are losing ground. Therefore, we must be at the forefront of competing for new opportunities. In the lead in recent years and today, technology will play a significant role. All companies are looking to increase productivity and reduce costs; computers play a dramatic role. With the loss of the tobacco industry and dairy farming we must concentrate on future opportunities. That can take many forms, warehousing, distribution, new crops, technology, off site management and online services. Any new industry, as in the past, must comply with multiple jurisdictional controls and regulations. Federal, State, Local administration and permitting is never ending. Always remember, we are in a never-ending competition to attract new business, retaining our workforce, improving living conditions, medical service and community protection. Current setback requirements for wind, solar, and data center facilities are significantly higher than any other land use in the zoning ordinance. Are you inclined to maintain, increase, or reduce those setbacks — and what evidence or reasoning guides your position? I believe setbacks should be specific to individual technologies, location and overall business plans. Unless new data comes forth disproving ordinance requirements, they should remain as specified. However, that is subject to change with new technology, topography and State and Federal rules as they emerge. Where technology and legal standards change, we must embrace new opportunities to maximize land use and embrace new improvements in production and methods. At this time, I am unable to comment on specifics of Data Center issues due to pending litigation. |
| Tommy Marshall Jr. | Mr. Marshall I do understand why you have asked the question about innovative land use and tried to narrow it down to wind, solar, and data-but realistically, innovative land use is much broader than that, it includes everything from agricultural development, conservation strategies and community-based redevelopment. First, I want to make clear I have worked closely with farmers and landowners most of my life and have watched as they have ridden the wave of highs and lows-many times wondering how they would make the next payment when tobacco and dairy income were no longer viable options. I am 100% pro-land (proprietary rights) meaning I support the landowners who have chosen not to sell (it is their land) and I also respect those who have chosen to sell and reap the rewards of their hard work and investment. I am an opportunist, and I believe we have to seriously look at all opportunities to advance our area for both landowners and residents. That includes energy projects, agriculture, housing, recreation, and new industries-but it also means being honest about what each opportunity brings. I do not like smoke and mirrors when interested in being a part of our community step out from behind the curtain and so we can be clear of intentions, long term impacts, and who ultimately benefits. Our city and county have real needs that must be addressed-whether that’s economic development, infrastructure, housing, or preserving what makes our communities strong. The question is not just what projects are proposed, but how they fit into a larger plan. Innovative land use should work for the people who live here, respect the land itself, and contribute to a sustainable future rather than short-term gain. Question#2 I support fact-based setbacks and very interested in protecting our community and residents or our community. Thank you Tommy Marshall Jr Candidate for Maysville City Commissioner |
| Victor C. McKay | Do you support innovative land uses — such as utility-scale solar and data centers — as tools to rebuild Mason County’s economic base, provided they comply with all local, state, and federal regulation? I support responsible economic development, including innovative land uses like utility-scale solar and data centers, as long as those projects follow the law and genuinely benefit Mason County. Projects such as these must be required to fully comply with all local, state, and federal regulations. We need to grow our tax base, create opportunities, and continue strengthening our local economy, but also protect the rights of property owners, and ensure that infrastructure, environmental, and community impacts are addressed in a responsible manner. Economic development can only strengthen Mason County, and I believe it can be accomplished in a positive way without compromising the values and quality of life of the people who live here. Current setback requirements for wind, solar, and data center facilities are significantly higher than any other land use in the zoning ordinance. Are you inclined to maintain, increase, or reduce those setbacks — and what evidence or reasoning guides your position? I sincerely appreciate the time and effort the commission has put into reviewing these setback requirements and their commitment to doing what they believe is best for our community. Members do not get the proper recognition they so often deserve and I can not thank them enough. That said, I believe setback requirements should not be so restrictive that they effectively prevent property owners from making lawful and productive use of their land. When setbacks exceed what is necessary to protect neighboring properties, public safety, and infrastructure, they can sometimes unnecessarily limit opportunities for landowners to benefit from projects such as wind, solar, and data development. At this point, I would be inclined to support reducing setbacks to a reasonable distance. My position is guided by the principle that regulations should balance community protections with private property rights. We should ensure projects are safe and compatible with surrounding land uses, but we should also avoid creating barriers that prevent responsible investment and limit economic opportunity for local property owners. Thank you, VIctor C. McKay |
| John T. Meng | This candidate has chosen not to respond. Before you vote, ask them directly where they stand on innovative land uses and setbacks in Mason County. If you get an answer? Send it to cwm@wozi.com before the May primary, and I’ll post it here so all voters can decide if it measures up. |
| LaRon Washington | Thank you for your time and efforts. Here are my responses. Thank you for reaching out. The future of Maysville’s economy is our youth. If we want this city to grow and stay strong long term, we need to invest in young people now. They need opportunities, direction, and reasons to believe they can build a life right here at home. If we make those investments now, we avoid paying for missed opportunities later. My focus is on building a stronger future for Maysville. QUESTION: Do you support innovative land uses such as utility-scale solar and data centers as tools to rebuild Mason County’s economic base, provided they comply with all local, state, and federal regulations? ANSWER: I believe we should be open to opportunities that can create jobs, strengthen infrastructure, and help grow our local economy. Mason County cannot expect different results by repeating the same patterns that have led many young people to feel like they need to leave to succeed. That said, growth should never come at any cost. Every project should be reviewed carefully to make sure it fits the area, respects residents, and brings lasting value to the community. Public input and transparency matter. My focus is simple. If something is coming to Maysville or Mason County, it should leave us better than it found us and create real opportunity for our future. QUESTION: Current setback requirements for wind, solar, and data center facilities are significantly higher than any other land use in the zoning ordinance. Are you inclined to maintain, increase, or reduce those setbacks, and what evidence or reasoning guides your position? ANSWER: I don’t believe this should be answered with one blanket number. Different projects and locations bring different concerns. Nearby homes, traffic, noise, safety, property impact, and the surrounding area all need to be considered before making that decision. I would base my position on facts, expert guidance, and public input from the people directly affected. Residents deserve to be heard, and decisions should be made with common sense, not politics. My priority is protecting quality of life while also allowing responsible growth when it makes sense. We need to think about today’s concerns while also creating jobs and opportunities that help keep the next generation in Maysville. Vote Laron Washington for Maysville City Commissioner. Your voice matters, our youth matter, and Maysville’s future matters! |
Ky State Representative District 70
| Candidate | Response | |
|---|---|---|
| D | Charlotte Harris | Good Morning Bill! I certainly agree that we have lost major employers and need to find new industry/jobs for our region. Building solar and wind energy will add to the tax base but construction will be done by skilled labor brought in from elsewhere. I believe the same can be said regarding Data centers and very few permanent local jobs will be created. As you know I believe a person has the right to do as they please with the land they own, as long as it does not adversely affect their neighbor. I am strongly opposed to using eminent domain to take a farmers land for the benefit of Private industry. Planning and zoning decisions are made at the local level, and as State Representative, I would not be able to control that. Keep up the good work! Charlotte |
| R | Mike Fisher | This candidate has chosen not to respond. Before you vote, ask them directly where they stand on innovative land uses and setbacks in Mason County. If you get an answer? Send it to cwm@wozi.com before the May primary, and I’ll post it here so all voters can decide if it measures up. |
| R | Travis Huber | Do you support innovative land uses — such as utility-scale solar and data centers — as tools to rebuild Mason County’s economic base, provided they comply with all local, state, and federal regulations? I continue to support land owner rights. If you own a piece of property you should do with it as you see fit – barring creating health issues for neighbors. Everyone’s circumstance is not the same. Thus I am not for large scale government decisions that would limit land use by an individual. If it works for your business plan then you should be able to give it a go. While I still support and participate in the agriculture economic base that helped build Mason County, that base is no longer a reliable building block for our future. We must explore new alternatives. For example – not only have we lost dairy and burley, but we also no longer have a farm implement dealer in the county. Change is a constant and we must adapt or become irrelevant. Current setback requirements for wind, solar, and data center facilities are significantly higher than any other land use in the zoning ordinance. Are you inclined to maintain, increase, or reduce those setbacks — and what evidence or reasoning guides your position? I dont see a need to create new sets of regulations for every new industry that wants to move to Mason County. Our current zoning regulations have set backs for residential, agricultural, and industrial use. If a rezoning occurs then the current set backs should suffice. It seems unfair to place undo economic burdens of larger set backs for specific industries. If the current zoning restrictions for industrial are not sufficient then we should adjust them for all industrial land going forward so it is a known for any industry looking at Mason County. Not change them like the wind for each new prospective employer. |
📢 A Direct Message to Candidates Who Have Not Yet Responded:
Yard signs and name recognition are not a platform. Your voters deserve to know where you stand. It is not too late to do the right thing. I am still accepting responses at cwm@wozi.com and will post them on this page alongside the candidates who have already responded.
In the interest of full transparency, any response received after 5 PM on April 16th, 2026, will be clearly marked as submitted after all other candidates’ positions were already made public. Voters have a right to know that context.
I am not asking you for a perfect response. I am asking you to respect the people who may elect you. Submit your responses and let Mason County voters hear from you — even now.