Brookwood, Alabama, has approved the next step for a proposed data center. It has not approved a completed facility, a utility contract, a tax-abatement package or a guarantee that the project will deliver the public benefits being discussed.
Those distinctions matter.
On September 15, the Brookwood City Council voted unanimously to annex and rezone 374 acres along Brookwood Industrial Parkway for Project Brookwood LLC. The property was rezoned for light industrial use, removing a significant land-use obstacle for a proposed data-center campus. Residents raised concerns about noise, environmental effects and the project’s proximity to Brookwood Middle School before the vote.
The decision changes what may be built on the land. It does not establish who will pay for roads, power infrastructure, water systems, emergency services, school-related protections or other long-term public obligations.
That is where the accounting begins.
A rezoning vote is not a revenue projection
Economic-development discussions often treat approval as if it were the same thing as investment. It is not.
Rezoning creates an opportunity. The developer still must arrange financing, complete engineering, secure utility service, obtain additional approvals, sign tenants or customers and decide whether the expected return justifies construction.
WBC’s earlier reporting on Brookwood made the same distinction: rezoning does not guarantee construction, and a state permit does not prove that a facility will ultimately be built. Approval is not the same as completion.
This is not a technicality. It determines when the public begins bearing risk.
Before construction, the developer generally controls whether to proceed. After a town commits to infrastructure, tax incentives or public improvements, the community may be left with costs if the project is delayed, reduced in size or abandoned.
Projected investment should therefore not be confused with actual investment. Projected tax revenue should not be confused with collected tax revenue.
Brookwood Mayor Joe Barger has said the development could provide money for services including grocery stores, medical facilities and parks. That may eventually prove true. But the claim depends on several unknowns: the facility’s final value, its tax treatment, the timing of payments, the cost of public improvements and whether the project becomes operational at all. A forecast is not cash.
The tax benefit may arrive later than the tax break
Alabama’s tax-incentive structure makes the timing especially important.
Under Chapter 9B, qualifying data-processing centers may receive abatements on certain state and local property taxes and sales and use taxes. For projects granted an abatement before January 1, 2027, the available period can extend to 10, 20 or, under specified investment thresholds, 30 years. The precise benefit depends on the project’s capital investment and the approvals granted.
Some taxes may still be collected. Educational taxes and certain state taxes are not fully abated under the program. But the public should examine the entire package rather than rely on the phrase “tax base expansion.”
A project can increase the nominal value of property while producing less immediately available revenue than its headline investment suggests. A city can announce a large capital project while receiving little net revenue after abatements, debt service and operating costs.
That is a familiar issue in corporate accounting. Revenue and cash flow are not the same thing. Local governments should apply the same discipline to major development proposals that businesses apply to capital investments.
The utility contract may matter more than the building
The most consequential financial terms may not be visible in the zoning file.
A large data center is a concentrated electricity customer. Serving it may require substations, transmission upgrades, distribution equipment, generation capacity and backup systems. Those investments may eventually serve more than one customer, but they may be accelerated because a specific project is expected to arrive.
Alabama’s Public Service Commission opened a proceeding in July to establish how contracts between Alabama Power and large-load data-center customers should be reviewed. Alabama’s Act 2026-610, which takes effect October 1, applies to agreements involving loads of at least 150 megawatts and requires them to be structured with the expectation that incremental costs will be recovered and existing retail customers will receive positive benefits.
“Incremental costs” are costs that would not exist without the new customer. The difficult question is what happens when the project changes.
Suppose a utility builds a substation and upgrades transmission capacity for a facility that later uses less electricity than expected. Suppose construction is delayed, the operating plan changes or a tenant never signs a long-term contract.
The infrastructure may still exist. The utility may still need to recover its costs. The question then becomes whether the customer pays, the utility absorbs the loss or some portion of the expense eventually reaches other ratepayers.
Alabama Power has said that large-load contracts may include minimum bills, minimum terms, upfront payments and security provisions intended to protect existing customers. Those mechanisms are sensible. Their effectiveness, however, depends on terms the public may not see.
The company has said regulators and the attorney general receive complete agreements while public copies may omit confidential commercial and financial information. That creates an uncomfortable gap: residents may be asked to assess the land-use consequences of a project without seeing the complete contract that determines many of its financial consequences.
Who benefits, and who carries the uncertainty?
The developer benefits first from optionality.
Rezoning gives Project Brookwood LLC a more valuable and more flexible property position. It does not force the company to build immediately. It gives the company time to arrange financing, negotiate utility service and determine whether market conditions justify proceeding.
That flexibility has value, and it is rational for a developer to preserve it.
The town may benefit from construction activity, future property value, business-license revenue, local spending and permanent employment if the project proceeds. But those benefits arrive only if the facility is built and if public costs do not consume them.
Residents face a different kind of risk. They may experience construction traffic, noise, drainage changes, pressure on roads and emergency services, and uncertainty about the nearby school before promised economic benefits appear.
Workers may benefit from construction employment. Those jobs can be substantial, but they are temporary. Permanent data-center employment is usually smaller and more specialized than a facility’s acreage or capital cost might suggest. Officials should distinguish construction jobs, permanent positions, indirect employment, wages and job duration rather than place them in one large number labeled “jobs.”
None of this proves that the project cannot be worthwhile. It means the benefits should be measured against the obligations that make them possible.
The next stage should be contract review, not celebration
Brookwood’s council has made a land-use decision. The next decisions should be more financially specific.
Before the town accepts major commitments, residents should be able to evaluate:
- the project’s expected peak and average electrical demand;
- the cost and ownership of substations, transmission and distribution upgrades;
- minimum electricity payments and default protections;
- the source and volume of water required for cooling;
- road, drainage and emergency-access improvements;
- construction and permanent employment estimates;
- proposed tax abatements and their duration;
- expected annual revenue after abatements;
- school-protection measures during construction and operation; and
- the consequences if the project is delayed, downsized or abandoned.
These are not anti-development demands. They are the ordinary terms of a responsible investment decision.
A company would not approve a major capital project based only on expected revenue. It would review financing, operating costs, customer commitments, downside risk and recovery plans.
A town should do the same.
Brookwood’s vote has made the project more possible. It has not made the project financially proven.
The central question is no longer whether the community wants economic growth in the abstract. It is whether the agreements behind this development ensure that those receiving the benefits also bear a fair share of the costs.
The public should not be asked to underwrite a private project with projections, confidentiality and hope.
Development becomes genuine economic progress only when the contracts are strong enough to survive the optimistic scenario—and the disappointing one.
