2026 News | Gordon Gazette

Commissioners vote to extend moratoriums on data centers and anaerobic biowaste facilities through late January 2027

THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2026 | Brandi Owczarz, Gordon Gazette

At the Tuesday, July 7, 2026 meeting of the Gordon County Board of Commissioners, the five members voted to extend the moratoriums on both data centers and anaerobic biowaste facilities until January 29, 2027 in order to shore up tight requirements for the possibility of data centers in the unincorporated areas of Gordon County.

Gordon County first put a moratorium on anaerobic digestion facilities, also referred to as biowaste facilities, in early December 2025 to give the county time to research these types of facilities and determine if any ordinance changes would be necessary. The County made the decision after residents in neighboring Murray County worked shut down a proposed Vanguard Renewables Bioenergy Process Facility that was planned to be located at 3845 Berry Bennett Road within Murray County, which is a mostly residential and agricultural area. Residents there were very vocal of their concerns about the facility, expressing that bioenergy waste processing produces gases, namely ammonia, methane and hydrogen sulfide, which have been documented by the EPA to cause respiratory distress and unpleasant odors extending up to one mile from similar facilities. There were also concerns that runoff from these operations pose a high risk to local groundwater and private wells. Increased truck traffic, estimated at averaging 30–50 heavy loads per day, along with a 5 – 15% decrease in property value within two years of that facility operation beginning were also concerns expressed by the Murray County community.

Then in early February of this year, the Commissioners, seeing data centers being planned in neighboring Whitfield and Bartow counties, voted to place a moratorium on the building of data centers in the county until the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) could be updated with regulations for the building and operations of such centers.

As Gordon Gazette reported in April, the City of Calhoun had identified a piece of property on Hwy. 53 Spur, just over 50 acres between Brookstone Subdivision and Fair’s Auto, as a property that could be used to construct a data processing center. Public outrage forced the City Council to play a moratorium to look into and research data centers, and that moratorium has since been extended until January 2027.

Data centers have become a hot topic in Georgia, with dozens popping up in communities throughout the state just this year.

IBM describes AI Data Centers as “a specialized, highly modified facility engineered to train and run machine learning models. Unlike traditional data centers designed for standard cloud storage and web traffic, AI facilities act as massive ‘computational factories’ that require extreme power, dense hardware, and advanced cooling.”

Why are data centers suddenly becoming hot topics? In the summer of 2025, President Donald Trumps ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ passed, which included tax incentives for data centers.

In an executive order in late July 2025, President Trump said, “My Administration has inaugurated a golden age for American manufacturing and technological dominance. We will pursue bold, large-scale industrial plans to vault the United States further into the lead on critical manufacturing processes and technologies that are essential to national security, economic prosperity, and scientific leadership. These plans include artificial intelligence (AI) data centers and infrastructure that powers them, including high voltage transmission lines and other equipment. It will be a priority of my Administration to facilitate the rapid and efficient buildout of this infrastructure by easing Federal regulatory burdens. In addition, my Administration will utilize federally owned land and resources for the expeditious and orderly development of data centers. This usage will be done in a manner consistent with the land’s intended purpose — to be used in service of the prosperity and security of the American people.”

A group of concerned citizens have formed a coalition that has already held meetings to become more informed about data centers, with a lot voicing concerns that data centers could have a negative impact on the community.

“The ordinance that we’re drafting addresses both of those sorts (of facilities), and not just those sorts of things, there are different types of industries that are addressed, which is one of the reasons they haven’t been produced for everyone to look at. It is a larger and broader ordinance. We’re working on the final finishing touches to get it ready for public consumption,” said County Attorney Chris Jackson.

County Administrator Jim Ledbetter read some of the environmental and safety protocols that have been added to the ordinance at this time concerning data centers.

“It would be in an ordinance that is being called ‘Environmental and Safety Protocols for Commercial and Industrial Facilities,’ and they have particular provisions for data centers,” said Ledbetter.

Some of the points Ledbetter mentioned that are in the ordinance at this time:

There would have to be a pollution prevention plan; not only how they’re going to keep waste from being put into the environment, but how they’re going to clean it up.
Data centers will be located on a minimum site area of 50 acres with night-sky friendly lighting, setbacks from commercial/industrial properties of 100 feet and setbacks from residential properties of 500 feet.
There will be power, water, broadband and impact studies required.
There will be a requirement of a closed-loop water cooling system.
The data center would have to comply with local water efficiency standards.
The developer would pay for utility needs and adequate utilities.
The data center would have to exist as not to impact the public and not have members of the public paying increased utility bills due to a data center.
The data center would have to run on the power that is here and it can have back-up generators. It would have to have the latest technology to limit pollution and noise limits.
There would have to be an energy sustainability plan.
There would have to be an acoustic noise study including low frequencies; not just sound but not having a hum with a proposed noise level of 55 decibels at the property line.
There would be limits on whether turbines could be used and the type of turbines.
There would have to be a Net Zero Carbon Footprint requirement.
Data centers will only be allowed in certain zoning categories under special use, and would require a public hearing and approval by the Board of Commissioners.
There would have to be storm, wastewater management, emergency response, clean-up remediation and decommissioning plans together with a financial assurance bond at an amount set by independent engineering to determine how much it will cost to decommission the data center.
There would be audits and reporting requirements for compliance with inspections and penalties.

“None of this is set in stone; the commissioners haven’t been able to review this yet, but this is what we’re working on,” said Ledbetter. “Basically, we’re looking to protect the public from every aspect of this. Now, why would we be doing that? One, you can’t just outright say, ‘We’re not going to take this class of business; you’re not going to do that on your property.’ I think that would be overturned pretty quickly (in court) and we’d be wide-open to whatever wanted to come here, so we have to have rules in place. I think these match with what a lot of folks are saying.”

Ledbetter told the Commissioners that there is a data center application with a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) inside the City of Cartersville, located on 50 to 70 acres. That data center is planned to use 5,000 gallons per day, according to Ledbetter, who pointed out that Buc-ee’s Car Wash uses around 70,000 gallons a day and that golf courses use 300,000 to 1 million gallons of water a day.

“The one in Bartow will have a minimal impact that the City of Cartersville confirms that MEAG has sufficient power for it without impacting the citizens,” said Ledbetter. “The City of Cartersville would receive, based upon their current rates of taxation, $23 million dollars a year in tax revenue on that one data center according to the DRI application. The other factor I mention is our data is going to be stored somewhere; where are your medical records? Where’s your pension plan record? Where is every record that is maintained on you stored? It might be under a mountain in Colorado, it might be in a Microsoft facility in a desert in New Mexico, or it can be in China. And we’re in a race against China for who’s going to win the data storage and usage. If (data centers) are an evil, they might be a necessary evil.”

Commission Chair Bud Owens asked Ledbetter is there is anything in the ordinance that addresses “no tax incentive/no subsidization and no provision of infrastructure at taxpayer cost.”

“No infrastructure at taxpayer cost is in (the ordinance), where the developer would pay for all of the upgrades and so forth,” said Ledbetter. “We don’t have (in the ordinance) no incentives (because) Gordon County can’t really grant the tax incentive, because the Georgia Gratuities Clause of the Georgia Constitution would not allow this group to give a tax incentive. That’s why we have to use the assistance of the Development Authority, (who would) have to accept title to the property. The Development Authority always consults with us and I would be absolutely opposed to a tax incentive for a data center to locate here. The reason you want (data centers) here is for the tax revenues.”

Owens stressed before the vote was taken that the extension is to provide adequate time to make sure the ordinance is built and put together to take care of the community.

“We could put forth an ordinance (to vote on) tonight; however, the community continues to be concerned with (data centers),” said Ledbetter. “The community has not had an opportunity to read the ordinance yet. The law is in a continuous state of flux on data centers right now. The City of Calhoun is working on their ordinance. I know some of the members of the Board want to make sure that we put forth the correct ordinance, that we understand the will of the people and that if we think that Calhoun has put forth a good ordinance we can have a similar ordinance that will apply to both Gordon County and the City of Calhoun. We want the document to be direct and reflect the will of the people. I think when people understand the protections (we added) and that the data center will generate, right off the bat, tens of millions of dollars to offset property tax, I think the community should be in favor of a data center. Common business sense for Gordon County is if you can get those protections in place, then we can safely have a data center here. I think the problem is more of communication with the public. The public is receiving some disinformation on data centers that was maybe accurate before. We’re not going to put something in here that uses 20 million gallons of water.”

"We want to be very transparent with the community, and honestly, a data center being built today is not a data center being built six months ago; they evolve and continue to evolve," said Owens. "So a data center we may deal with if this (ordinance) passes in six months will be much different from what you see today."

"What I would like to see when this ordinance is drafted and is circulated, is there needs to be multiple townhall (meetings)," said Commissioner Kurt Sutherland. "This County has got to be educated before I'm going to vote 'yes' or 'no'. I'm going to stand behind the people of Gordon County that elected me and I want to make sure every one of them are educated on the decision that this Board makes is the right decision."

Ledbetter said the next job as the ordinance is shored up is to make sure the public is aware and educated concerning the ordinance. Public hearings will be held concerning the ordinance.

UPDATE ON CPD: Pyle attempted to file complaint against officer involved in suspicious vehicle call four-and-a-half years after incident

FRIDAY, MAY 9, 2026 | Brandi Owczarz, Gordon Gazette

The Gordon Gazette has learned, while updating the continuing stories at the Calhoun Police Department, that Chief Tony Pyle, who has been on paid administrative leave while an internal investigation takes place, filed a formal complaint in February of this year against the Floyd County Police officer who investigated a suspicious vehicle incident in September 2021 that ended up being Pyle with a female passenger in what appeared to be some sort of sexual encounter in an undercover vehicle.

As the Gazette originally reported in early April 2026, on Sept. 22, 2021, Floyd County PD responded to a suspicious vehicle 911 call in Floyd County involving Pyle and a female passenger. After the responding officer arrived on scene, he told Pyle and the woman that “Y’all know a bedroom is better than this, right?” and asked them to put their clothes on.

You can read that original story HERE.

At no time during that incident was a third person mentioned by Pyle or his female passenger in the bodycam footage, nor was a third person identified by the officer from Floyd County investigating the incident, and Floyd County 911 records only show the identification ran through dispatch for two individuals.

At the time the Gazette reported the incident in early April 2026, Pyle gave the Gazette a statement about the incident, saying, “At the time of the incident, I was in Rome for a business trip and was returning back to Calhoun. While traveling, I received a call from an informant who stated that she needed immediate assistance. She claimed to have information regarding a major drug dealer and that her life was in danger. After reassuring my passenger that this young lady who called me posed no threat and I believed she was in danger if I did not act. [W]e agreed picking the informant up in Shannon was the right thing to do. She (informant) was extremely distressed and hysterical due to a resent [sic] altercation with said drug dealer.”

Calhoun Administrator Paul Worley told the Gazette last month, before Pyle was placed on administrative leave due to the internal investigation, “This incident was reported to the City for investigation, and it was thoroughly investigated. The allegations are serious and would be a violation of City of Calhoun policy. At the same time, the allegations were vehemently denied and have not been substantiated. The body camera footage you reference does not itself show the violation, and the Floyd County officer did not issue a citation or a report that would support the allegation. Ultimately, the City has issued a reprimand that is appropriate to the severity of the allegations, but also considers the age of the alleged conduct (more than four years ago), the fact that they are not substantiated, and the long service of the Chief.”

That Floyd County incident has now taken another turn as the Gazette has learned, and obtained records, that Pyle contacted the Floyd County PD in February of this year, about four-and-a-half years after the incident, and filed a formal complaint against the officer that responded to the suspicious vehicle stop.

On Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, Pyle submitted a complaint saying, “This letter is a formal complaint on Officer (redacted) regarding an incident that occurred on September 22, 2021, involving a Floyd County Police Officer on Old Calhoun Road. I acknowledge that a significant amount of time has passed between the date of the filing of this complaint. However, due to the circumstances surrounding the encounter, I was unable to put any weight to matter, for which I will explain.

“At the time of the incident, I had just returned from Rome on a business trip and was back in route to Calhoun. While traveling, I received a call from an informant who stated that she needed immediate assistance. She claimed to have information regarding a major drug dealer. After picking the informant up in Shannon, she was extremely distressed and hysterical due to a recent altercation with said dealer. While attempting to calm her I nearly collided with another vehicle. Recognizing the danger, I pulled off the roadway onto a portion of a road that had been closed for years. I parked, turned the vehicle facing Calhoun Road and continued calming the informant in preparation to get back on the road to Calhoun. At some point a Floyed (sp) County Police Car pulled into the area where we were parked. The officer exited his vehicle and immediately stated “Get your clothes on” (Which I thought was an attempt at humor) However everyone in the vehicle was fully clothed, and there was no legitimate basis for such a remark. The vehicle I was in was a white Dodge Van with used for undercover purposes, equipped with extremely dark, mirrored window tint. (Including the windshield). The officer then went to the back of my vehicle to log the tag. He then came back almost immediately, as he approached, I rolled down the window, at which point he could clearly see everyone in the vehicle was fully dressed. We spoke briefly, and I attempted to redirect the encounter away from the informant. The officer asked a few questions and instructed me to leave the area. He returned to his patrol car and departed. Folling (sp) the officer departure, the informant again became hysterical, but I was able to calm her. We then proceeded back to Calhoun, conducted the interview. This is the back story, but more importantly, my primary complaint concerns Officer (redacted)’s conduct that occurred weeks after the incident.”

Pyle went on to say in his complaint that he had been contacted by an ex-trooper, who advised Pyle that at a dinner at Longhorns in Rome with several State Troopers present, the Floyd County Officer, who was at dinner with the group, said that he had “caught the Calhoun Police Chief nude in a vehicle in Shannon.”

Pyle said in the complaint that the officer’s body cam video did not support the statement, and said the officer continued to “embellish the story as the conversation at the dinner progressed.” Pyle said the ex-trooper stated that he had pulled the Floyd County officer aside and advised him that he “shouldn’t spread rumors about anyone or any police interaction, especially a sitting police chief.”

“While I recognize that PO retain certain free speech rights, the spreading of gossip, particularly regarding an incident involving another agency and for no legitimate law enforcement purpose is not protected speech when it serves only to defame or damage reputations. This information has since circulated back to my department, which leads me to believe the gossip is still being told by Officer (redacted),” said Pyle in the complaint.

An internal investigation into Pyle’s complaint began in early February 2026 at the Floyd County PD, according to documents received by the Gazette. Pyle was interviewed by the Floyd County PD on Feb. 4, 2026, where it’s noted that “he(Pyle) provided his version of the events that occurred on September 22, 2021. Although the events were similar to what he described in his February 3rd email, he added that there were three occupants in the van and the third passenger, a Hispanic informant, who was hysterical and panicked because of a recent dealing with a major drug distributor, was hiding in the back of the van to protect her identity.”

Pyle told the investigator that he was in the area because the passenger in the van had asked him for a ride to Sam’s to purchase supplies for that year’s BBQ, Boogie & Blues event, which was held in September of 2021 due to COVID.

“As Chief Pyle was explaining the incident, he was informed that it appeared the female in the vehicle was wearing a bra,” the investigator noted of the female passenger in the front seat. “He clarified that the garment was a sports bra and stated that, after returning to Calhoun, Georgia, he dropped (the woman) off at CrossFit, a gym in Calhoun.”

The report states that, when Pyle was asked why the woman was putting a shirt on over what he described as a sports bra, Pyle stated that he “questioned her about the same matter” and that she told him the police officer had instructed her to do so.

The report also noted that Pyle told the investigator that he was concerned about the bodycam video and specified that if the video were to be released, the perception of it would “not be good.”

The report then notes that Pyle contacted the investigator by email a week later, on Feb. 11, 2026, and requested that the complaint against the officer be withdrawn, with no reason given. The investigator notes that “since there was no proof that Officer (Redacted) made comments to the public, no internal investigation should be initiated.”

CPD’s Pyle placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation

FRIDAY, APRIL 10, 2026 | Brandi Owczarz, Gordon Gazette

On Friday morning, April 10, 2026, the Calhoun City Council met in a Special Called Meeting, immediately going into executive session, where they stayed for about two hours before adjourning. At that time, it was announced that no immediate decision was being taken.

Mayor Jimmy Palmer was not in attendance at the meeting, but Council members Ed Moyer, Al Edwards, Jackie Palazzolo and Bruce Potts, as well as Administrator Paul Worley and Attorney Brandon Bowen were all in attendance. Also present was Calhoun Police Chief Tony Pyle, who the Gazette began receiving allegations of misconduct and wrong-doing within the Calhoun Police Department months ago.

The Gazette has received complaints of morale issues and frustration among officers at the CPD due to alleged harassment of employees by leadership to the point where careers were jeopardized, alleged sexual misconduct and alleged sexual harassment, allegations of non-sworn officers appearing to look and act in a sworn capacity such as wearing a badge and carrying a firearm, along with accusations of general mismanagement and lack of leadership within the department. The Gazette has been told that the department basically works on a "skeleton crew" due to the large number of officers fleeing for other areas due to the "toxic environment" at the department. One former officer went so far as to allege that any serious incident within the City of Calhoun could be catastrophic if it involved police response due to the lack of personnel at any given time.

On Friday afternoon, Calhoun Administrator Paul Worley released a statement saying that Pyle had been placed on paid administrative leave.

“As of this afternoon, Calhoun Police Chief Tony Pyle has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an independent investigation. Lt. Colonel Ken Carson will be serving as Interim Chief during the investigation,” said Worley.

While the City is being tight-lipped about what the investigation concerns, the Gazette released a story last Thursday, April 2, which examined a questionable incident in September 2021 involving a suspicious vehicle 911 call in Floyd County involving Pyle and a female passenger. After the responding officer arrived on scene, it appears the incident was possibly a sexual encounter, with the Floyd County PD officer who responded telling Pyle and the woman that “Y’all know a bedroom is better than this, right?” and asking them to put their clothes on.

Pyle gave the Gazette a statement about the incident, saying, “At the time of the incident, I was in Rome for a business trip and was returning back to Calhoun. While traveling, I received a call from an informant who stated that she needed immediate assistance. She claimed to have information regarding a major drug dealer and that her life was in danger. After reassuring my passenger that this young lady who called me posed no threat and I believed she was in danger if I did not act. [W]e agreed picking the informant up in Shannon was the right thing to do. She (informant) was extremely distressed and hysterical due to a resent [sic] altercation with said drug dealer.”

It should be noted that the Floyd County officer who responded to the suspicious vehicle report and investiated the incident asked for the identification of both Pyle and the female passenger, and processed the tag of the van, which Pyle identified on scene as an undercover vehicle, through dispatch. At no time was a third person mentioned by Pyle or his female passenger, nor was a third person identified by the officer from Floyd County investigating the incident, and Floyd County 911 records only show the identification ran through dispatch for two individuals.

Calhoun Administrator Paul Worley told the Gazette last week that “This incident was reported to the City for investigation, and it was thoroughly investigated. The allegations are serious and would be a violation of City of Calhoun policy. At the same time, the allegations were vehemently denied and have not been substantiated. The body camera footage you reference does not itself show the violation, and the Floyd County officer did not issue a citation or a report that would support the allegation. Ultimately, the City has issued a reprimand that is appropriate to the severity of the allegations, but also considers the age of the alleged conduct (more than four years ago), the fact that they are not substantiated, and the long service of the Chief.”

You can read the original story on this page BELOW.

On Saturday, April 4, 2026, the Gordon Gazette received a voicemail from Marlene Pyle, the wife of Tony Pyle. In the voicemail, she stated, “I’m not having a great day, Brandi, thanks to you. If you don’t call me, I’m going to post on there (the social media post concerning the investigation) that I tried to contact you and you wouldn’t speak to me.”

Gazette owner Brandi Owczarz called Marlene Pyle back, where she told Owczarz that “you didn’t have the facts and posted a video not knowing what the hell you were doing.” She also asked Owczarz, “Did you have any idea a confidential informant (was in the van) that you could have gotten killed?”

Due to the talk by both Pyles of a confidential informant in the van at the time of the incident, on Monday, April 6, 2026, the Gazette sent the Calhoun City Council, Administrator Worley, Mayor Palmer and Chief Pyle the below follow-up questions concerning the 2021 suspicious vehicle incident. The questions we asked were:

1. Did Chief Pyle alert Floyd County PD that he was inside their jurisdiction performing a law enforcement action on Sept. 22, 2021?

2. What follow-up coordination did Chief Pyle perform with Floyd County PD after the alleged “emergency” with the “confidential informant” subsided, since it happened inside Floyd County’s jurisdiction?

3. Was the Rome DEA Office informed that Chief Pyle was working a case/informant in Floyd County? If so, please send over supporting documents.

4. Was Chief Pyle deputized on Sept. 22, 2021 at the time of the event through a local sheriff’s office or as a federal task force officer, in order to be legally operating outside of his jurisdiction in an official capacity. Please send documentation if so.

5. Was any corresponding information gained, by meeting the informant, passed on to the Calhoun Police Department’s Safe Streets Task Force detectives or action? If so, please send documentation.

6. Is there a Department of Justice press release, FBI press release or DEA press release addressing the arrest Chief Pyle mentions in his statement to the Gazette? If so, is the Calhoun Police Department mentioned in the press release as a participating and/or supporting agency?

7. According to the phone call the Gazette received on Saturday from Chief Pyle’s wife, the “confidential informant” that Chief Pyle met during the incident on Sept. 22, 2021 was hiding in the van, meaning the person seen in the front passenger seat in the body cam footage was just the female passenger, who has been identified off-record as a former City of Calhoun employee. Was that employee in the front passenger seat a sworn law enforcement officer privy to the sensitive case information that the informant would have been discussing with Chief Pyle? If not, what is the department procedure that permits non-law enforcement personnel to have access to that discussion?

The questions are very important concerning whether or not a confidential informant was actually in the vehicle; if Pyle was actually meeting with a confidential informant, despite how quick the meeting was or whether or not it was an emergency meeting, documents and reports would have been required to have been logged. Many within the law enforcement community question why Pyle, as a police chief, would be meeting with a confidential informant, especially outside of his jurisdiction, as it is not a job a police chief would typically handle but would instead be a job for investigative departments and/or a drug task force.

The limited response the Gazette received was from Chief Pyle himself, who said, “I am not required to alert anyone as far as just picking up an informant. No drug business took place in Floyd County. Look up O.C.G.A. 24-5-505 I will not be releasing any further info pertaining to said informant.” The City of Calhoun told the Gazette that Det. Don Colburn handled those types of information requests and was out of office last week.

The Gazette will continue to update on the Pyle situation as more information becomes available. Due to the severity of some of the alleged criminal activity that was reported to the Gazette to look into, the Gazette has passed every allegation they have received against the CPD, Pyle and many in leadership roles within the CPD, on to other investigative parties for a full investigation. For those allegations that were not criminal but possibly break internal rules, the Gazette continues to follow-up on those allegations.

Gazette begins to look into misconduct allegations at Calhoun Police Department

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2026 | Brandi Owczarz, Gordon Gazette

The Gordon Gazette has begun the task of looking into multiple claims of alleged misconduct and wrong-doing within the Calhoun Police Department.

For several months, the Gazette has received complaints of morale issues and frustration among officers at the CPD due to alleged harassment of employees by leadership to the point where careers were jeopardized, alleged sexual misconduct and alleged sexual harassment, non-sworn officers appearing to look and act in a sworn capacity, along with accusations of general mismanagement and lack of leadership within the department.

Due to the high volume of complaints, this is the first claim being examined that was used as an example of possible ethical misconduct within the department.

The Gazette learned that there was a questionable incident in September 2021 involving Calhoun Police Chief Tony Pyle and a woman stemming from a Floyd County 911 call. After the responding officer arrived on scene, it appears the incident was possibly a sexual encounter.

According to Floyd County 911 CAD records, which you can download HERE, at 4:45 p.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2021, a call was received concerning a suspicious vehicle around Calhoun Road NE /New Calhoun Highway in Adairsville-Floyd County just off of Hwy. 53 (Rome Road).

Body camera footage (that was redacted in some places), obtained by the Gazette from the Floyd County Police Department, shows an officer responding to the vehicle, a white minivan later identified as an undercover vehicle for the Calhoun Police Department.

The CPD uses undercover vehicles for drug and criminal surveillance purposes.

As seen in the video, the officer from the FCPD walks up to the van and says “Y’all know a bedroom is better than this, right?” The driver’s side window is slightly cracked at that time. The officer asks the driver, “Have you got your IDs on you? Go ahead and put your clothes on for me.”

The officer then walks to the back of the van, presumably to get the tag information.

At some point, the driver lowers his window more. The officer then walks back to the driver’s side and the driver, identified by viewing the video as Calhoun Police Chief Tony Pyle, says, “Man, who checks this (out here)?” The officer responds, “A police officer does.” The officer then asks Pyle if he has his ID on him; Pyle hands the officer ID, saying “One’s a driver’s license and one’s a motorcycle permit.”

While the windows on the van are dark, you can make out a woman in the passenger side front seat.

The officer then makes a call to dispatch to run the licenses and the VIN for the vehicle, and asks the woman in the passenger seat if she has ID on her.

Pyle then tells the officer that the vehicle’s tag will not come back, meaning that information on the tag will not be provided through running a search on the tag.

“Why does it not come back?” asks the FCPD officer.

“Because it’s an undercover car,” said Pyle. “It may come back, but I doubt it.”

The officer then seems to chastise Pyle.

“You should know better about doing it out here; you can get a room,” said the officer.

Pyle laughed and responded, “I didn’t think (unintelligible) when I pulled in.”

The officer hands Pyle the license back and said “Go on and get out of here. Y’all find somewhere else the next time.”

Pyle is then heard asking the officer, “You ain’t looking for a job, are you?” The officer responded that he was not.

“Rome takes all of my people,” Pyle said.

No incident report was provided to the Gazette, but it was requested, along with body cam, dash cam and 911 records. Dash cam was not provided. Two officers were originally called to the scene, but it appears one was called off according to the 911 records.

The Gazette has reached out to City of Calhoun Administrator Paul Worley, Calhoun Mayor Jimmy Palmer and Calhoun City Council members Ed Moyer, Al Edwards, Jackie Palazzolo and Bruce Potts to see if they are aware of this incident, and if so, if any disciplinary action was taken. According to Worley, the City is working on a response.

The Gazette additionally reached out to Georgia POST (Peace Officers and Standards Training Council) and the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police as to if this incident was reported to their organizations and whether this incident possibly violated any ethics standards or rules in the State of Georgia. The Gazette asked specifically if the incident on video was ever reported to POST or the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police and if so, if there was an outcome due to an investigation? The Gazette also asked if the actions in the video broke or violated any code or ethical standards of POST or the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police.

The Gazette did receive a response from Georgia POST, which included the Individual Officer Profile for Pyle, which showed no investigations ever being perform and no sanctions levied against Pyle during his career.

"We have no previous POST investigation on (Pyle)," said Jill Dalon with POST.

Interestingly, in February of this year, Calhoun Police Department Lt. Col. Kenneth Carson was appointed by Governor Brian Kemp to serve on the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council (Georgia POST).

The Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police has not responded to the Gazette's email.

Chief Pyle sent a statement to the Gazette, via email attachment, saying in the email, "Paul (Worley) contacted me this morning regarding an incident from 2022 that you were inquiring about. I wanted to provide you with a copy of the information I spoke to Paul about months ago about this incident."

The statement reads:

"At the time of the incident, I was in Rome for a business trip and was returning back to Calhoun. While traveling, I received a call from an informant who stated that she needed immediate assistance. She claimed to have information regarding a major drug dealer and that her life was in danger. After reassuring my passenger that this young lady who called me posed no threat and I believed she was in danger if I did not act. we agreed picking the informant up in Shannon was the right thing to do. She (informant) was extremely distressed and hysterical due to a resent altercation with said drug dealer. While attempting to calm her I nearly collided with another vehicle. Realizing the danger, I pulled off the roadway onto a portion of a roadway that has been closed for years. I pulled in, turned around with my vehicle facing old Calhoun Road, and continued to calm the informant in preparation to get back on the road to Calhoun. At some point a marked police vehicle pulled into the area where we were parked. The officer exited the vehicle and immediately stated 'Get your clothes on' (Which I thought was an attempt at humor, however one of the three people in the vehicle was wearing a tan sports bra, which could have made him falsely believe someone was partially dress ) The vehicle I was driving was a white Dodge Van with heavily tinted windows that make it almost impossible to see into the vehicle, this includes the windshield. The officer went to the back of my vehicle to enter the tag. He came back almost immediately, as he approached I rolled down the driver’s window, at which point he could clearly see everyone in the vehicle was fully dressed. (it would not be possible for a grown man at six-foot-tall and two hundred pounds get dress in a few seconds while sitting behind the wheel) We spoke briefly and I gave him some subtle clues about the tag being a UC Vehicle. At that point I thought he was beginning to understand the situation because he said something to the effect of 'Just Move on' As he was leaving I even joked that we were hiring. The informant again became very upset about being possibly exposed, but I was able to calm her. We proceeded to drive back to Calhoun where I conducted the interview. I said all this to give you the back story and understand why I could not come forward earlier out of fear of the informant being exposed before the trial.

"PS: The information I received from said informant helped ensure an arrest of a large-scale dealer. (several pounds of drugs were seized as well)

"PPS: This is all the information I feel safe in releasing about this incident. Even though the case has concluded there will always be an element of danger for the informant."

UPDATE: The City of Calhoun's Administrator Paul Worley has sent the Gazette a statement on this incident.

"This incident was reported to the City for investigation, and it was thoroughly investigated. The allegations are serious and would be a violation of City of Calhoun policy. At the same time, the allegations were vehemently denied and have not been substantiated. The body camera footage you reference does not itself show the violation, and the Floyd County officer did not issue a citation or a report that would support the allegation. Ultimately, the City has issued a reprimand that is appropriate to the severity of the allegations, but also considers the age of the alleged conduct (more than four years ago), the fact that they are
not substantiated, and the long service of the Chief."

Hoods enter guilty pleas, sentenced

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2026 | Brandi Owczarz, Gordon Gazette

On Friday, February 13, 2026, former Gordon County Commission chairperson Becky Hood and her husband, local businessman Scott Hood, both entered guilty pleas in Gordon County Superior Court concerning their years-long legal battle pertaining to child abuse charges.

The case was presided over by Senior Judge Ralph Van Pelt, Jr. of the Superior Courts of Georgia. No local judge from the Cherokee Judicial Circuit, which includes Gordon County, heard the cases against the Hoods due to conflict of interest.

In late March of 2025, Becky Hood was indicted on a count of 1st degree Cruelty to Children. According to that indictment, on or about Jan. 21, 2021, Becky Hood maliciously caused a minor child in the home, under the age of 18, cruel and excessive physical and mental pain by pouring coffee on the child, grabbing the child by the hair, pulling the child to the ground by her hair causing the child’s head to strike the ground, kicking the child, and calling the child a bitch.

At the time of Becky Hood's indictment, Scott Hood was indicted on a count of Child Molestation. According to the indictment, on or around Nov. 29, 2013, Scott Hood committed an immoral and indecent act on a minor child in the home, under the age of 16, with the intent to arouse and satisfy the sexual desires of the accused by touching the child’s vagina with his hand.

On Friday, Scott Hood entered a guilty plea on a charge of Sexual Battery on a Child Under the Age of 16 using the Alford plea.

Several noted law publications have described the Alford plea in detail. According to the University of Richmond Law Review, "When offering an Alford plea, a defendant asserts his innocence but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense." A Guide to Military Criminal Law states that under the Alford plea, "the defendant concedes that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict, but the defendant still refuses to admit guilt." The book Plea Bargaining's Triumph: A History of Plea Bargaining in America published by Stanford University Press defines the plea as one in "which the defendant adheres to his/her claim of innocence even while allowing that the government has enough evidence to prove his/her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Basically, in an Alford plea, the defendant tells the judge they are innocent but agrees that the evidence is strong enough to convict them, usually to avoid a more severe sentence. The judge must find evidence of guilt and ensure the plea is a rational choice.

On Friday, Scott Hood admitted guilt using the Alford plea. Hood acknowledged in court that if a jury heard the evidence against him by the District Attorney, the jury could find him guilty.

The Blue Ridge District Attorney’s Office handled prosecuting for the State due to a conflict of interest should the local DA’s office prosecute the case. The Blue Ridge DA’s Office, which exclusively covers Cherokee County, Ga., was appointed to the case in 2022.

On Friday, the DA present explained to the court how Scott Hood's charges came about. The DA said that in January of 2021, Becky Hood's case originated from a DFCS report of child abuse on one of the female children in the Hood household. DFCS sent an investigator to the child's school to interview the child. The child told investigators that she had been disagreeing with her mom about getting a haircut when her mom, identified as Becky Hood, slung coffee on the child, grabbed the child by the hair, yanked the child to the ground and by doing so caused the child's head to strike the ground and kicked the child. During that DFCS interview, the investigator told the child that the children in the Hood home would need to be removed for a formal investigation. The child, panicked and scared, contacted a sister of Scott Hood, who met the child and her older sister at the home. The child and her older sister told their aunt what had happened in the incident with Becky Hood, then the older sister told their aunt that Scott Hood had molested her several years prior. The DA said that the older sister was then given a forensic interview, where the child explained that during a movie night in Scott and Becky Hood's bedroom several years prior when she was in the fifth grade, Scott Hood had inappropriately touched her in her pubic region. The forensic interview showed that the child could remember other events in that timeline, with the DA saying that the day after the alleged inappropriate touching by Scott Hood, the child was showing pigs at a local agricultural event and, according to the child, Scott Hood told her at that event, in, private that he didn't mean to touch her the night before and that she should never tell anyone about it.

Scott Hood was asked if he understood all the charges and the plea deal, and he admitted that he did. Judge Van Pelt accepted the plea deal, and agreed to the sentence of 5 years probation for Scott Hood under the Alford plea, with Hood having to register as a sex offender. As of Friday night, Scott Hood was already listed on the Sex Offender Registry.

Judge Van Pelt did not grant the DA’s request to deny Scott Hood to attend his teenage son’s high school events, such as sports. Those listed on the sex offender registry are usually not allowed to attend events where minors are present, such as events held on school grounds. The judge said that because Scott Hood has been attending the games over the past couple of years prior to his guilty plea and sentence, he could still attend school events as long as he is chaperoned by an adult. It was mentioned that the decision could change if the school had issues with it.

It was also noted that Scott Hood did not qualify for a first time offender plea.

Becky Hood pleaded guilty to the charge of misdemeanor Reckless Conduct, admitting that she was guilty of the charges brought against her. She was given probation of one year, a $1,000 fine and mandatory anger management and parenting classes, which she said she had already completed.

The plea deals come after several orders and six subpoenas were filed in the case in Gordon County Superior Court over the last couple of weeks. Those filings indicated that the minor victim in Scott Hood’s case would be recanting her story and the State was “required to prove intent and to rebut the minor victim’s recantation in the case.”

One of the orders filed on Feb. 3, 2026 and approved by the judge granted the State’s motion to present other acts of evidence against Scott Hood.

In Georgia, "other acts of evidence" refers to evidence of a person's prior crimes, wrongs or similar acts under OCGA § 24-4-404(b). While generally inadmissible to prove character, this evidence may be admitted for other purposes, such as proving motive, intent, plan, knowledge or identity.

The “other acts of evidence” listed in that particular order filed in court was alleged child molestation by Scott Hood against two female relatives who are now adults.

In the order, one female relative stated that Scott Hood “committed a rape against the female when she was around fourteen (14) years old.” The order also granted the State’s presentment of other acts of evidence concerning an alleged child molestation against the second female relative, who stated that Scott Hood would have this female relative “go to the basement and would touch her” inappropriately in her private areas “over the clothes when she was approximately eight (8) or nine (9) years old.” When this female was approximately eleven (11) or twelve (12) years old, she alleges Scott Hood “repeatedly asked her to have sex with him, even offering to use a condom.” The order stated that this victim “refused these requests, and the act of sexual intercourse did not occur.”

The second order filed also granted the State’s motion to present other acts of evidence, and presented testimony by a female relative of Scott Hood who alleges she witnessed Scott Hood “masturbating to a framed photo of his daughters, including the minor child who is the alleged victim in the State’s indictment.” The female relative stated in the order that in the photograph, “the alleged victim was approximately ten (10) years old at the time it was taken.” The alleged incident by Scott Hood was to have taken place a few years prior to the acts alleged in the indictment. This order states that “The Defendant (Scott Hood) denies that these acts occurred. The State is required to prove intent and to rebut the minor victim’s recantation in this case. The evidence here is relevant to show an alleged sexual fixation on this particular minor victim and is not merely character evidence. Therefore, the probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect.”

Scott and Becky Hood released a statement Friday through their attorney, Jason Hood. The statement said that Scott Hood denied the allegation made against him but wished to resolve the case to relieve the stress and anguish these charges and the pending trial have been placing on his family, and noted that the court allowing Scott Hood to enter a plea and be placed on probation without acknowledging factual guilt was a rare occurrence in Georgia.

Commissioners unanimously vote to place moratorium on data centers until
ULDC can be updated

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2026 | Brandi Owczarz, Gordon Gazette

At the Tuesday night, Feb. 3, 2026 meeting of the Gordon County Board of Commissioners, all five members voted unanimously to place a moratorium on the building of data centers in the county until the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) can be updated with regulations for the building and operations of such centers.

Commissioner Chad Steward suggested the moratorium during the data center discussion in Tuesday night’s work session, saying he was going to bring the motion before the Board in the regular meeting.

Gordon County’s Unified Land Development Code is a comprehensive set of local regulations governing land use, zoning and development within the unincorporated areas of the county. It uses building, zoning, and development ordinances to control density, land use and infrastructure, with the purpose of protecting public safety, the environment and controlling growth.

When the ULDC was written in 2009, there really was no such thing as data centers, and now that they are becoming a huge economic factor in the state, the county wants to be pro-active in regulating the construction and operating of any data centers if builders were to find interest in Gordon County.

Gordon County Administrator Jim Ledbetter made many of the same observations in the work session discussion Tuesday night that Community Development Director Derron Brown made two weeks ago in the original meeting that began data center discussion.

“Gordon County, right now, currently has zero regulations, ordinances or codes pertaining to data centers exclusive of whatever you might quantify a data center as,” said Ledbetter. “So if a data center is an industrial operation, a data center right now could locate in Gordon County under whatever rules we have for industrial. There are some locations that are allowing data centers in agricultural locations. So we are the Wild West right now. I don’t know of any specific data center project that is coming here, but I do know that there are data centers that are looking at Gordon County and every other county that can meet that sweet spot of adequate power and adequate gas and gas pipelines. Water is not as big a deal now because they’re going to these closed loop systems. So what does that mean? I know a lot of people are talking about this on social media; a lot of them are just flat wrong about data centers. So we’ve all been studying and taking seminars on this, I’ve looked at other state ordinances.”

The big three data center counties in Georgia - Jackson, Spalding and Wayne – caught Ledbetter’s attention and he has particularly been reviewing the ordinances pertaining to data centers in those counties. Ledbetter said that those three counties have state-of-the-art ordinances on data centers.

“The bottom line right now is, we have zero regulations in Gordon County pertaining to data centers,” said Ledbetter. “The reason for that is, these are relatively new. We need regulations. I don’t think data centers are all bad. There are data centers that might be noisy; they might have batteries that we don’t like the toxicity of or they might have high water consumption. The best data centers, the kind that we would want to attract, are not going to produce that type of noise and have built-in sound continuation, they’re going to have setbacks and vegetative buffers, they’ve got to have noise studies that are done, they will be no more than 55 decibels at the property line (normal speaking voice), they will have closed-loop systems and emergency plans with the right kind of fire suppression. They will be designed so they do not make a negative impact on the system.”

Ledbetter addressed those on social media who are saying the County should outlaw data centers.

“You know, we can do that but it’s only going to last as long as the law suit lasts,” said Ledbetter. “Then we will have a court telling us that we have to allow them and would have to allow them under our existing rules for which we have none right now, except for the general rules on industry.”

According to Ledbetter, Jackson County has good regulations on how to build data centers to not be a nuisance; while Spalding County has good regulations on closure and removal when a data center has ended its needs. He said that he wants to combine those two philosophies into one ordinance for a county ordinance in Gordon.

“That way, when data centers come, we will get the benefits of them and not the burdens,” said Ledbetter.

Ledbetter also mentioned Loudoun County, Virginia, where there are currently 200 data centers in that area alone. Ledbetter has studied that county extensively, saying that a seminar presentation on Loudoun County offered advice such as, there must be restrictions on power usage, there must be a power usage plan, a water closed loop system and other needs. The good thing about Loudoun is that the county has a $1 billion dollar budget, with $900 million of that budget coming in from data center revenue.

“We guesstimate that in Gordon County, if we had three to five data centers, or three to four data centers, our millage rate could be reduced to next to zero,” said Ledbetter. “That is, we would have no ad valorem taxation or very small ad valorem taxation.”

Ledbetter said that right now, our neighbors are getting data centers, mentioning Bartow and Floyd counties.

“People are saying (date centers) are going to use up electricity (if placed in Gordon),” said Ledbetter. “Well, they’re going to use it up next door; electricity is regional. Electricity is a Southern region thing. They are sucking that electricity up in Adairsville from Gordon County. People say, ‘what about our water resources?’ Well, we require a closed-loop system that will have minimal impact. You can have environmental rules to protect the environment. Right now, these are the types of things we are looking at. But right now, we don’t have any of those rules.”

Ledbetter said that the social media comments from people saying data centers will ruin the environment could be true in certain circumstances if strict regulations are not put in place.

“That wouldn’t be true if you get the right data centers,” said Ledbetter. “If you get the right spot with the right regulations, it would be a money maker for Gordon County. The Loudoun County, Virginia guy was explaining that data centers basically consume four cents of county budget for every dollar of revenue the county would generate. Residential neighborhoods, on the other hand, basically consume every penny they generate in tax revenue, and I think industrial and commercial generate around 40 cents on the dollar.”

“There are many counties around the state that are facing this (issue) and each county is looking at it differently,” said Commission Chair Bud Owens.

Steward said that he has been keeping an eye on the bills moving around at the state legislative session concerning data centers.

As the Gazette reported last week, legislators have already proposed seven bills that would attempt to regulate data centers by eliminating tax breaks, prohibit costs from being passed on to residential electricity customers or temporarily halting their construction.

“There are a lot of concerns within those bills about protecting citizens,” said Steward. “That being said, in the regular meeting, I’m going to make a motion that we put a moratorium on data centers so we can work on making sure we are protecting our citizens.”

Once the regular meeting began, Steward did bring that motion and all five commissioners voted to approve a moratorium on the building of data centers until the ULDC can be updated.