A citizen advocacy group has filed suit against the Jack County Commissioners Court, alleging county officials violated the Texas Open Meetings Act while considering a proposed CyrusOne data center and related tax-abatement request. The lawsuit seeks temporary and permanent injunctions that would halt further action until a court determines whether the county complied with state transparency laws.
Although the lawsuit involves Jack County, the issues extend beyond county lines. Until Texas redrew legislative districts in 2021, Jack County shared House District 68 with Fisher and Stonewall counties. More importantly, the case raises questions about public notice, transparency and economic development that apply to every Texas governing body, including those in the Double Mountain Chronicle’s coverage area as local officials continue evaluating large-scale energy and data center projects.
The lawsuit, filed July 8 by North Texas Heritage Association LLC, names Jack County, County Judge Brian “Keith” Umphress and the county’s four commissioners in their official capacities. The organization, whose members include Jack County residents and taxpayers, alleges officials conducted public business outside the requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act while considering a proposed CyrusOne data center and tax-abatement agreement.
According to the petition, CyrusOne has pursued a data center project in Jack County while seeking “a tax abatement agreement or similar tax-exempt status.” The filing says the proposal generated substantial public controversy because of its potential effect on county tax policy and public revenue.
At the center of the lawsuit is a May 20 tour of an operating CyrusOne data center in Allen Tx. The petition alleges county officials began organizing the visit weeks earlier.
It cites a May 4 group text message from Umphress telling recipients to “Save The Date” for a May 20 “Cyrus One Data Center Tour,” followed by additional communications coordinating transportation, security requirements and the visit itself.
Plaintiffs allege the commissioners court later posted notice of the event on May 19 — one day before the scheduled tour — identifying it as a workshop at the Allen facility. They contend the notice failed to satisfy the Open Meetings Act’s advance-notice requirements and did not provide the public a meaningful opportunity to attend a gathering held inside a secured private facility more than 100 miles from the Jack County courthouse.
The lawsuit further alleges at least three members of the five-member commissioners court attended the tour, constituting a quorum. According to the petition, officials toured the facility, observed nearby residential areas, considered landscaping and sound mitigation, asked questions of CyrusOne representatives and discussed issues directly related to the proposed Jack County project, including taxable value, projected tax revenue and a proposed 10-year tax abatement.
The petition also alleges Jack County failed to prepare minutes or a recording of the meeting and improperly relied on a series of communications outside a lawful public meeting while deliberating the proposal.
“This suit seeks redress for illegal decisions made in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act concerning a proposed CyrusOne data center in Jack County,” the petition states. It later asks the court to enjoin “these decisions made illegally in secret.”
Among other requests, the lawsuit asks the court to temporarily and permanently prohibit county officials from relying on information or consensus allegedly developed during the May 20 tour, prevent approval of any CyrusOne tax-abatement agreement until deliberations occur in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, preserve related records and award attorney’s fees and litigation costs.
Jack County responded with a statement posted on its website after the lawsuit was filed.
“Jack County is aware of the lawsuit concerning the May 20 visit to a CyrusOne facility and related matters,” the statement reads. “Because the case is now pending before the court, the County will respond to the allegations through its legal counsel and as part of the appropriate judicial process.”
The county also said it is reviewing its procedures.
“Jack County and the Commissioners’ Court take their obligations under the Texas Open Meetings Act seriously,” the statement said. “The County is reviewing its procedures with legal counsel to ensure that future meetings, workshops, site visits and communications fully comply with all applicable notice, access and recordkeeping requirements.”
The statement further emphasized that no final action on any economic-development agreement would occur outside the public process.
“No final decision regarding a tax abatement or other economic-development agreement with CyrusOne will be made outside of a properly posted public meeting,” the county stated. “Any proposal brought before the Commissioners Court will be considered through the legally required public process, with notice provided to residents and an opportunity for public participation.”
The case also highlights issues that have become increasingly familiar across rural Texas as counties evaluate large-scale technology and energy projects. In its concluding request for relief, the lawsuit acknowledges commissioners may properly consider questions involving “taxable value, sound, road use, water, energy, and public revenue,” but argues those deliberations must occur openly, after lawful notice and with a public record available for inspection.
The case remains pending in Jack County district court. No ruling has been issued on the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief at the time this article’s publication.