A Botetourt County citizen’s lawsuit alleges that the county violated Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act when it approved documentation advancing the Google data center project in Troutville.
Robert Dallas, a retired anesthesiologist who said he lives near the Botetourt Center at Greenfield site, filed the suit on Monday, seeking to invalidate the county’s economic development performance agreement with the limited liability company behind the project.
The suit asks the Botetourt County Circuit Court to “rescind all actions” carried out in connection with the June 2025 economic development performance agreement.
Dallas identifies the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors, the county itself, its economic development authority and Helio Capital LLC as respondents. All were part of the performance agreement, which set in motion the land sale and the county’s support of the Google development, among other items.
According to the suit, the county’s board of supervisors did not disclose on its published agenda that it would be discussing the agreement or a resolution to enact it in a closed meeting on June 24, 2025. After the board returned to public session, it voted 5-0, with no discussion, to approve them, after they were added to the agenda during the meeting, the case alleges.
After a recess, the board returned to address another “walk-on” item — announcing the data center project. A final item that didn’t appear on the agenda was a board resolution approving Google’s agreement with the Western Virginia Water Authority, Dallas alleges.
“At no time … did the board reasonably identify the substance of the performance agreement resolution or the performance agreement itself, despite having agreed to both at the closed meeting immediately preceding the performance agreement resolution’s being added to the agenda as a walk-on item,” the lawsuit reads.
The agreement set in motion Google’s $14 million deal with Botetourt County for 312 acres in Greenfield. The tech giant plans a data center campus including three data centers, three substations, an office building, access roads, utilities, parking areas and stormwater management facilities, according to a March 10 Army Corps of Engineers notice soliciting public comment on the project.
The board of supervisors engaged in “subterfuge” by adopting what the lawsuit called the key contract related to the data center, without adequate disclosure, “not only undermining the will of the people but violating the Virginia Freedom of Information Act,” the suit states.
The open government and records law in question requires localities to identify such projects. Quoting Virginia law, the suit states, “Except as specifically authorized by law, in no event may any public body take action on matters discussed in any closed meeting, except at an open meeting for which notice was given as required by” the law.
Dallas spoke during a Monday afternoon news conference at the Roanoke law firm Fishwick & Associates, which filed the suit on his behalf. He said that he has lived in Botetourt County for 36 years. His home is about a half-mile from the proposed Google complex, where work has already begun. He said his land is protected by a conservation easement he had recorded about three years ago.
“I know this community well, and like many, I was surprised when the county suddenly announced the data center project with no public input in June of 2025,” he said. “I filed this petition because I strongly believe that the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors should follow all the rules of procedure and give citizens like me and many others the chance to make our voices heard.
“The board did not do so on June 24, 2025, when they agreed to the performance agreement for the Google data center, outside of the public eye, in a closed session, and then voted to adopt it without offering even a hint of what it was. This case is about holding our leaders responsible and having open and transparent government.”
Nor had it been open with county residents in the year and a half preceding that day, during which Botetourt officials “cultivated” an “atmosphere of secrecy” concerning negotiations about the project, Fishwick’s firm stated in both the lawsuit and a news release.
Dallas is asking the court to rescind actions including the county issuing expedited permits and granting Google eligibility to participate in the county’s third-party inspection program. If the county chooses to adopt a similar resolution in the future, it should comply with the Freedom of Information Act, according to the suit.
Botetourt County, through its spokesman, sent an email to reporters on Monday.
“As this matter involves pending litigation, Botetourt County will not comment on the specific allegations or discuss legal matters,” the email read. “The county respects the legal process and remains committed to providing accurate and appropriate information to the public as the matter moves forward.”
$1 billion investment from Google per data center
A nondisclosure agreement was part of the process leading up to the deal, County Administrator Gary Larrowe has said. Google will pay a property tax rate of 70 cents per $100 of assessed value, same as any other landowner in the county, Larrowe has said.
The county has made the performance agreement public, however. It includes Google’s commitment to make capital investments of at least $1 billion to develop each data center on the property, while promising to invest $4 million over five years in community projects that include public safety and parks and recreation items.
John Fishwick, talking to reporters during the news conference, said that the law calls for a hearing on the case within seven working days. Circuit Judge Joel Branscom presides in Botetourt County.
“So we’re in the process of trying to schedule that and hoping to have an answer from the judge sometime in the near future,” Fishwick said. “If not within seven days, then sometime in the near future.”
Asked whether a judge could stop the work that has recently begun, or delay it, Fishwick said he was staying focused on winning the lawsuit.
“We claim that they did not follow the Freedom of Information Act, and there could be ripple effects from that, as outlined in our lawsuit and our press statement,” he said. “But we’re keeping our focus now on winning this lawsuit. We feel good about it. We feel like the law supports us, and we’re looking forward to being heard.”
