(bright music)
(gavel tapping) - Adrienne N. Breitfelder, city clerk, you are hereby directed to call a special session of the city council to be held on Monday, August 17th, 2026 at 5:15 PM in the Historic Federal Building for the purpose of conducting a work session on data center information and community input. - Thank you.
Good evening and welcome to a special session of the Dubuque City Council for August 17th, 2026. As a reminder to viewers and listeners, due to the nature of tonight's meeting topic, public input is not accepted. However, you may contact the city council directly from the city's webpage at www.cityofdubuque.org/councilcontacts. Attendance for the session is as follows.
Mayor Cavanagh. - Here. - Council members Leyendecker. - [Leyendecker] Here. - Resnick. - Here. - Roussell. - Here. - Sprank. - Here. - Staver. - Here. - Wethal. - Here. - City Manager Van Milligen. - [Van Milligen] Here. - And City Attorney Brumwell? - [Brumwell] Here. - Thank you.
Our work session topic is data center information and community input report. I will turn it over to City Attorney Crenna Brumwell. - [Cavanagh] And Crenna, do you mind if I say a few things before we get started? - Please. Okay. - Yeah, so we're going to have a presentation tonight from our City Attorney Crenna Bremwell, backed up by our assistant city manager, Cori Burbach.
Thank you everyone for coming. Appreciate you being here. We also appreciate the process up to this point, so I'll have a little bit more to say about that as we get into it, but I just wanted to remind everybody about tonight.
So we've wanted to make sure we gave a lot of people some opportunities to provide us with input. Tonight is about us getting a chance to gather some more information from staff, the summary of all this, and then providing our own input. So I just wanted to remind everybody, there is no public input tonight.
So we do ask that you just please politely listen and be present, but then also take some notes, think about things you might want to ask us after this. There will be more opportunity for public input on this subject going forward. There's just no way there won't be. So I just want to make that really clear for everybody. But tonight, this is about us having this discussion.
So thank you very much for being here, and I look forward to hearing what we have to hear. Thanks. And Eric, if you could take us off the screen, please, I'd appreciate that. Thank you. - Good evening. Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney.
So as the mayor mentioned, I am going to kick us off this evening and I will be turning it over to Cori before I kind of come back at the end to tag team questions with Cori, discussion, things of that nature.
So, as we talk about data center regulations, there are some considerations for the city, and this is a brief summary or a compilation of the information that I have been able to gather. One thing to note is that this is an emerging area. There is an ever-changing landscape as it relates to this all across the country. And so there's new information available daily. So it's a little bit of a moving target, but this is what I've got to date.
So first question, because this has come up. - [Cavanagh] Oh, yeah.
There are screens coming alive here. - Thank you, Eric. All right, so the first question, because it has come up, is can we ban data centers completely and forever? Legally, this is possible, but that is the riskiest path that you as a body could take. The legal exposure of an outright ban is out there.
There are a number of pieces of litigation currently in Tennessee, Texas and a few other places related to bans. There's a litigation precedent here. Communities that have pursued outright prohibition, including voter enacted bans, have faced sustained legal challenge which we anticipate to be a year's long legal battle. There's takings and due process exposure.
So takings and due process a total permanent prohibition on a lawful use is far more vulnerable to a regulatory taking or a substantive due process claim than a use-specific standards-based ordinance, whether that is a standalone ordinance, a zoning ordinance, or a hybrid of the two. If you do a ban, there's loss of negotiating leverage.
A ban would foreclose the city's opportunity to negotiate siting, size limits, buffers, water usage,
water disposal, things of that nature, and community benefits. Those are tools that a standards-based ordinance preserves. And there also is a state preemption trend across the nation. Several states have moved to limit local authority over data center regulations.
Iowa has not done so to date, but Iowa has specifically adopted incentives at the state level for data centers based on sizing. So there's information in the materials that you have been provided that are also available to the public through the agenda link related to the Iowa code and the Iowa Department of Revenue Information that is supplemental to the presentation.
So from a legal standpoint, the recommendation is, rather than an outright ban, the recommendation to have a thoughtful, standards-based ordinance that gives the city real control and parameters for siting, size, utilities, infrastructure impact, and community impact among other items. So as I mentioned, there are two regulatory approaches or kind of a hybrid combo or blend approach. The first is a zoning ordinance amendment.
So this would be a regulation done through the existing zoning code. You would add a definition for data center, and you would plunk it into the zoning areas where data centers would be permitted. It would apply the existing district standards for setbacks, height, lot coverage, so on and so forth.
This would be the fastest and easiest to adopt because it builds on a code that we already have in existence. But as you know our UDC is currently undergoing some updates and review and things of that nature, so we would have to coordinate that to make sure that it was consistent
if that is the route you wanted to go. The second approach is a standalone data center ordinance. This is a dedicated chapter specific to data centers only outside of the zoning code. It's a purpose-built standard and covers all of the things that you would anticipate to be covered that have come up in the community engagement.
Noise, water use, energy, decommissioning, community benefits, infrastructure. It can apply citywide regardless of the underlying zoning district. It's easier to update as technology evolves and more impacts are identified. And it's a best fit when data centers pose issues zoning codes don't address, because there's a number of things that zoning codes don't cover.
And then of course, the combo or the hybrid approach is to have a zoning trigger and some standalone standards within the code of ordinances. So the zoning code flags the use and sets a size threshold potentially that triggers review.
So if certain parameters are met with a zoning application or a submission, it would then get kicked into the data center-specific ordinance provisions that would all have to be gone through, complied with, and worked out before it came back to zoning and possible siting within a particular zoned area of the community. So it lets you as a body calibrate the scrutiny to the project size if you want, small versus hyperscale type of data centers.
And it is the most common approach among peer communities from what I have gathered in looking all across the country. Just so that everybody is on the same page, when we talk about the types of data centers, there are four identified. This resource came from the University of Iowa College of Law.
They talk about Edge Data Centers or small facilities that are close to end users. These sometimes are called micro data centers. You have Enterprise Data Centers, sometimes referred to as small or medium. Those are built by a single organization. So think universities, hospitals, large manufacturers, things of that nature. You have Colocation Data Centers. Those are built to house equipment for multiple customers.
And the city of Dubuque's own data center is an example of a colocation data center. So it is the city's data center, but it has capacity to lease space to others for use. And then you have the Hyperscale Data Centers, which are the very large data centers supporting massive computing needs.
Typically what you think of from major tech firms, your Amazons, Googles, Metas, and your Microsofts. So when you look at the peer ordinances across the nation, several of them have requirements related to facility size, whether that is square footage or a power draw threshold that separates routine server rooms that don't require any extra review from large
or hyperscale facilities where in some cases they have to have a special exception for zoning purposes or a conditional use permit, or sometimes that combined with the standalone ordinance where you have a full standards-based review for whatever categories you all would prioritize from a standard standpoint.
Now, at the local level, so when I talk about peer communities, Linn County is one of them that I've looked at. Clinton County, or City of Clinton among others. When Linn County categorized them in their ordinance, small were considered 20 megawatts or less, using less than 50 gallons of water per minute.
They categorized large as 20 megawatts or greater than 20 megawatts and using more than 50 gallons of water per minute. So that's just one example. There are others where they talk about the square footage, the physical size of the structure, but then they sometimes combine that with the draw for kilowatt of kilowatts of power. So there are a number of different ways that this can be tiered.
But sizing small versus hyperscale seems to be the most common distinction that is drawn. Here are sampling of how communities across the country have chosen to regulate data centers. So you can see that I have counties and cities. You can see that some have done zoning amendments, some moratoriums. There's a standalone chapter, a hybrid.
Monterey Park, California had a ballot issue. One thing just to point out, Iowa law does not allow for a ballot issue. I've seen that as one of the questions that people have been putting forth saying, "Put this in front of the community for a vote." Iowa law does not allow that.
So y'all just need to know that upfront. One thing to point out is that Eagan, Minnesota, they actually were sued after just doing a temporary moratorium, and that is still pending. Here are how communities across Iowa have handled data centers. So you see hybrid zoning and moratorium.
You can see the Linn County, they did their ordinance back in February where they created a new zoning district for the large data centers or the hyperscale data centers. For the smaller scale data centers, they are just contained within a particular zoning classification, and then they follow standard zoning protocols that staff work through for the small data centers.
Allamakee County, you can see that they did micro and large. So micro are allowed in particularly zoned areas. The large are prohibited except as permitted by conditional use in particular districts. And they actually even had citing distance requirements, five miles between the small and 20 between the large.
So you can see kind of some different variations and the type of things that you could consider for purposes of an ordinance. Here are some additional communities across Iowa, and you can see that some of them are still pending. Wapello County just had a work session last week, and I believe they intend to reconvene and have further discussion.
And there are some where there are some moratoriums that are out just a little bit, where I believe there is an intent to have an ordinance in place before the moratoriums expire.
There are a couple communities where moratoriums were short-term and they're about to expire and they're talking about extending them because they're not ready to come back with an ordinance and they're still gathering data. So in looking at the research, the common themes and where the common themes came from, this is a sampling. I looked at information from the National League of Cities. They have a number of fact sheets available on data centers.
The Urban Land Institute, which included local guidelines for data center development, the University of Iowa College of Law, Hubble Environmental Law Initiative. They created an Iowa Data Center Decision Tool, which is to help communities prepare for data center discussions.
And then there was the Georgia Tech EPI Center Data Center Ordinance Hub, which was a comparative review of over 180 Georgia jurisdictions, land use standards and materials across the country, based on the different types of regulations that have been put in place or considered. And then there's additional materials provided, whether those are model ordinances, articles, studies, things of that nature.
The themes common to most ordinances relate to setbacks and buffer distances from residential uses and sensitive sites, water and energy consumption studies, disclosures and limits. Some of those studies are required after a period of time if a data center does locate in the community.
So say after one year or three years or five years, another study has to be done to compare the information known at the beginning versus once it's operational and actual usage. Noise standards tied to nearby zoning districts, facade screening and aesthetic requirements, decommissioning and site restoration obligations in the event that a data center ceases to be operational in a community. And as I mentioned, size thresholds scaling the level of review.
And at that point, I'm going to turn it over to Cori.
- Thanks, Crenna. Cori Burbach, Assistant City Manager. As the mayor mentioned, tonight's discussion is really building on several forms of community engagement that have happened already in the community. And so my job tonight is to summarize those as best I can.
And the reason I'm smiling when I say that, in your packet and in the agenda materials for the public and the audience you're going to find a fairly large file. It's over 100 pages. And in addition to the high level summary that you're going to hear from me, you'll see a memo that's about six pages that digs into these topics in a little bit more detail.
And then the thing that we have been telling the public every time staff gets a chance to talk to them, is it's really important for us that we don't become a barrier to them talking to you, because you're the policymakers.
And so behind that memo, what you're going to see is over 100 pages of verbatim all of the comments that we have collected through the survey that I'm going to talk about and through the in-person. So if someone is interested in digging into that, they're certainly welcome to.
So as I mentioned, there are two different forms of engagement that staff have served as facilitators for so far on this topic. The first I'm going to describe is on the left-hand side of your screen. We developed a survey that was directly mailed to every residence in Dubuque. So that's about 31,000 pieces of mail that went out. That survey was also available online.
And the intent in that survey was to be able to get a touch point where we could get some initial temperature gauges about where the community was at and ask about a few specific questions, but not make it so long that it was overwhelming for folks. So again, mailed to every residents and then also available online.
What available online means is that both Dubuque residents and non-residents, anyone anywhere could reply to that survey. We had 3,777 total responses received. Of those, about 2,500 were online and about 1,200 were paper. And I'm going to dig into what those look like in the results in just a second.
But the questions we asked residents to answer were, what are the most important topics a data center ordinance should address? And they were ranking those. We asked as the city considers rules for future data centers, which potential benefits would be most important to you for us to negotiate in an agreement or in a document or law like Crenna was just discussing? And then it asked them which statement best matches
your current opinion? And here they have the choice: I would support a data center in Dubuque; I would support a data center if certain requirements were met; I would not under any circumstance support a data center; or I'm not sure and I would need more information.
And then lastly, on that survey, they had a chance to write in any specific feedback that they had. We also worked with staff to develop two round table discussions. And the intent in these discussions, this was really intentional community engagement, meant to dig into those four questions. Now we have a pulse on the community. Let's take this opportunity to dig into what specifically.
So Crenna mentioned water, for instance. What specifically, resident, if you're interested in that topic, are you concerned about? What specifically could we do to mitigate those concerns? And the thing that I noticed, I had the chance to emcee those events. One evening we had about 300 attendees. One evening we had about 100.
We sat in tables of no more than eight together, staff and residents, and we were able to workshop these ideas. So the questions that we asked in those round table discussions that were held in July were, what are the most important topics a data center ordinance should address similar to the survey?
And there were two rounds of that where we talked about it and then I'll show you the results of a dot voting exercise. We did a deep dive into the topic that was of most interest to people. So everyone in the room got to pick the topic they were most interested in.
And we asked questions around what specifically concerns you about this. And if the city were to develop an ordinance, what rules would make you feel more comfortable and protected? And then the last question that we asked residents to discuss was what community benefits should the city consider or prioritize that would make you feel like there was value,
should a data center of some scale come to Dubuque? I want to recognize we had 50 staff in the room over those events, so we spread out and wanted the chance to get to really have discussion with people. I also want to recognize that I made several new friends those evenings that I see in the room.
So I want to say thank you to all of the residents that showed up and really participated in that form of government. It was really a great learning opportunity for us over those evenings.
The last thing I will recognize just about process is that we also did several targeted outreach where we were going to people asking them to come to those round tables. So in addition to social media, press releases, putting information in the city newsletter, we also did things like send a staff person to neighborhood association meetings, send a staff person to farmer's market with a QR code, so that everyone knew about the survey and the discussion. We hope, everyone.
And we tried to meet people where we were at so they were aware about how to engage. So again, I'm going to share with you very high level results of what staff learned through those two tools. First, I'm going to talk about the survey results. So again, about 3,800 residents or non-residents responded to this survey.
What you can see on the screen is, based on the self-identifying information people provided, we had about 84% of the folks that participated in that survey lived within the city of Dubuque. We had about 13% that identified that they lived in Dubuque County, but not within city limits.
We had about 2% that said they lived outside of the county and then about 1.4% that did not answer that question. So we have had that question come up and we know that stakeholders maybe in or outside of the city limits, and we wanted to recognize that as much as we could.
So then we asked "Which statement best matches your current opinion?" And this data includes city residents, as well as non-residents. So about 76% of the folks that responded to the survey indicated that they would not support a data center within the city of Dubuque. About 13.
9, 14% indicated that they would support a data center within the city of Dubuque with certain requirements. And again, in that data center, we didn't get in the survey, we didn't get a chance to dive deeply into that question. About 7% said they were unsure, they needed more information before they could answer that question. And about 2.
75% of the folks that responded to that survey said that they would support a data center within the city of Dubuque.
The next question that we asked on the survey asked, "What is the most important topic for you?" So again, this was that ranking system on a scale of one to seven. And we asked them to rank each of these questions.
So you can see that there are three kind of what I would say top runners that are really neck and neck before we see any break. And those are the three most important topics in the survey results were around power and energy use, water use, and environment.
And I will note that if you have a chance to dig into the comments around environment, oftentimes that is gathering lots of things that show up elsewhere on the survey. So water quality, impact on humans, impact on animals, gets batched into environment. Then you can see kind of as they move down that scale until we get to traffic and roads, community benefits and jobs were the items that showed up least often as being important to residents.
There's some nuance in this bar chart. So again, you can see the biggest sections are in orange there. Those are the folks that said, so if I take power and energy, for example, 2,706 folks said that they would not support a data center under any circumstances, and that power and energy was the most important topic to them.
In green there's 467 folks in that bar. So those would be the folks that said they would support with certain requirements and power and energy is their most important topic.
And so you can see, again, we see that would not support bar being the largest, but you can see how it impacts the different topics as we move through this bar chart.
We also asked the question in the survey of a list of potential benefits, what was the most important benefit that the city council should decision when thinking about the policy you may enact? And the item that came out on top is for council to consider how you could negotiate for improvements to roads,
utilities, or other infrastructure that would be paid for by the data center owner. And again, if I think about the overlap between this presentation and Crenna's when she talked about the different types of rules that you could enact and where you might have the authority to do that,
that's where you may want to consider some of those things. The other two items that came up strongly here before we see a drop off are consider funding for city services through property taxes that we would collect from a data center if it was within city limits.
And then consider how we might require payments or community benefits that would be provided by the data center owner, whatever that might look like.
This slide in and of itself has a lot of data to back it up within the documents that are attached to your agenda this evening. We ask that open-ended question, is there any other feedback that you would like to share? And so this uses some of our staff's talent and some software to analyze the comments
to look for themes. We saw 43% of the folks that responded in their comments somehow say no data centers or ban data centers altogether. And then you can see, as we move through here, kind of where the comments break down within the survey.
I'm going to shift now and talk a little bit about the round table results. And here, again, you'll be able to see in more detail the subtopics within category that people are interested in. We did ask folks to sign in when they showed up for our community engagement sessions. We did not require it.
So again, we had about 400 folks attend over the two nights, some overlap and people that came back both nights. Of the folks that were willing to sign in, about 130 of those were City of Dubuque residents. About 54 of them were non-residents and 38 put their name down, but did not put any address information.
That number does not add up to our 400, and that's because the other individuals chose not to sign in.
So this format had a lot more flexibility to it in the types of comments we got back. The value in that survey that we just looked at the results of is we had seven items we asked people to rank, and there was a very tight box that we could then do data analysis.
The value of this type of engagement is that we're digging into tell us what you're thinking and whatever that looks like, but it looks a little bit different when we report out.
So again, using software and staff analysis, these are the eight topics that clearly came to the top in all of the conversation that happened at the tables over those two nights. And when I say clearly came to the top, there's two ways that we judged that. One is by looking at how many times it came up in the things people wrote down, counting.
The other is that after the first round, we gave everyone attending seven dots, and we asked them to walk around the room to flip charts and place dots where they were on the topics that were most important to them. So we used the dots as a counting tool as well. And these are the topics that came up as most important that evening.
You'll see a lot of similarity between the survey and this. A little bit of shift in the order. So environmental impact, location and land use, noise, and light pollution and its impact on humans as well as animals. Water use and quality.
So here we're talking about both the water provided to the data center and then the wastewater product. Power and energy, jobs and economic benefits, ongoing monitoring and accountability. So this is a very big bucket, but it talks about some of the things Crenna mentioned, like doing environmental analysis before a center comes in, and then annual and being able to compare it to a baseline.
This also includes things like annual reporting and who has access to that information, what fines or fees might be in place if the data center did not comply, all of those kinds of things. And then eight is about community process and transparency.
And I would say it builds on seven, but it digs a little bit deeper and talks about things like who has access to that data and those audits. Things like requiring non-disclosure agreements and who would be able to dig through and query the data that is collected through those annual reporting mechanisms.
So then we asked the residents that were in the room to be part of the creation process with us, should you all give the direction that we are going to develop some type of ordinance. We asked them, of those topics that are important to you, water, power and energy, roads, for instance, what types of rules should we consider putting into the ordinance that would make you feel more protected
and make you feel like the community was getting value out of a business like this coming to town? So here we see seven themes that specifically came up. And if you get the chance to dig into the comments. Here's where you'll see residents and stakeholders who have done their homework and are citing, "Pull this from this ordinance.
I'm interested in this topic." So here we see the seven topics of having strict citing and zoning rules. So this could be everything from they belong in industrial parks only, to buffer zones, to how we might rezone farmland, for instance. The second category is around environmental protections, some of which we have already recognized.
Third is around noise and light regulation. And here there was a lot of reference to existing US or world standards that we could pull from, like the World Health Organization or Dark Skies Guidance. Fourth was around power and utility rules. And this is everything from how much you use to renewable energy to rates.
Fifth, there were many suggestions around job and economic requirements that ranged from the data center employing local workers, permanent versus temporary, using local unions, those types of things. Six, we had a lot of specific recommendations around enforcement and accountability.
So that could be what are the teeth that we put in an ordinance should something go wrong? And then seventh was how do we write in those community benefits that we have talked about? So things like making sure that any benefit that is available to the Dubuque community is shared equitably, but with priority for those that would most be affected.
And here, what we saw in the comments was with those living closest to a data center. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions at the end that dig into the details, but Crenna is going to bring you back to that policymaking lens.
- All right. So direction that staff needs from you all. Is there going to be an ordinance? Yes or no? If there is, what option do you want to pursue? A moratorium, ban, standalone ordinance, zoning ordinance amendment, or a combo or a hybrid approach? What the scope of your decision is if you choose a moratorium?
For how long? If it's a standalone zoning or combined approach, should that regulation apply citywide or do you want it limited to specific zoning districts? Sizing.
If you choose to have sizing as a trigger mechanism, what size or utility usage do you want to trip that heightened level of scrutiny? And then timeline. We need to talk about a schedule, and that schedule will depend on the direction you all seek. And I've got some additional information on that on the next slide here.
So for example, if you chose a standalone zoning or a hybrid ordinance, here is an example timeline of what that could look like. So November 2nd, I would come back to you with a draft for you to discuss, review, provide feedback on. Would not be asking you to do any voting to move it forward at that point.
It would simply be provide input, feedback, did we cover everything you wanted covered? Does it need tweaked? Are there things missing? Are there things you don't like you want removed or edited? Right? And then, would put that in front of the zoning commission for review and consideration, if applicable, because, of course, that would only be applicable if you were doing a piece
where you were amending the zoning, the Unified Development Code. And then November 16th would be the target date for a first reading. December 7th, a second reading, and December 21st final reading. And again, this was just me putting together an example to walk you through what a timeline might look like.
If you opted to do a moratorium or a ban, that would be quicker because it is less intensive. Because if we're doing a bigger ordinance, I'm going to need to work with staff on the logistics of those things and our subject matter experts. So, with that, I think Cori and I can answer any questions you all have.
- Right. Excellent. Well, thank you very much, Crenna and Cori. We really appreciate it. We've got plenty of time for everyone to hear from all the members of the council, so we'll make sure that we we give plenty of time for that. I'm going to kick us off with some thoughts.
And you'll have to forgive me, I did write some things down here because it was easier to put my head around this when I wrote this down. And we definitely had plenty of time this weekend and before that to be able to dig into this a little more on our own and read everything that was here.
First, a huge thank you to everybody who was a part of this process. To be able to provide this level of input in the way that you did was incredibly helpful for us to be able to make what, I hope, is going to be the best decision for Dubuque in this. We did it with civility, and I really appreciate that.
I have to give a major shout out to Cori Burbach. She's not going to take credit for this, but she really was the brains behind putting the process together in this way, which I think was really effective. So Cori, thank you very much for what you did.
And then Crenna and the legal team, obviously, always doing a lot of work, but on this one, a lot of work. And then all the city staff who spent extra time to go to the listening sessions, that's incredible to have staff that are that dedicated to show up and do that and work with everybody. So thank you to all of them.
And then of course, thank you to all of you who were at those sessions. Thank you to everybody who reached out to us and provided any sort of input at all. It was all very helpful to be able to read through and understand a little more where we are with this.
I've actually had other mayors reach out to me and ask us, you know, about Dubuque's process because they were like, "How are you guys pulling this off to do this process where this many people are providing input?" So I think that that speaks a lot to our community's level of collaboration and input in this whole process.
So, congratulations to everybody. And let's keep that productive conversation going. That's the other piece that I want to throw in there. All right. So give me a few minutes here. I got a few thoughts, but I'm going to begin by saying something very, very clearly. So there is absolutely no confusion about this.
My personal interest in this particular subject is to do the right thing for the people of Dubuque now and the people of Dubuque in the future. Generations to come. I am highly confident that that is the exact same situation for every member of the city council sitting here with me right now. Make no mistake about that.
I just want to make that very, very clear that our interest is in the people of Dubuque. I actually feel no sense of urgency at all to rush toward building data centers in our community.
I feel no responsibility for, nor do I feel any allegiance to any of the companies that are racing each other to advance artificial intelligence technology in our world right now. There are clearly some major benefits and advances that are available to humanity through artificial intelligence. You just can't argue with that. There are possibilities that are there, that are major benefits. And if we're going to have a rational conversation about this, we have to acknowledge that fact.
However, I need to take this opportunity to be able to say that I am growing increasingly concerned by the lack of safety regulations that these companies face as they race toward brand new technology that also has incredibly dangerous implications for our world, despite its obvious benefits.
So in my opinion, the international community needs to very seriously and very quickly put guardrails in place that will ensure the safety of artificial intelligence in our world. This is the role of our federal government. And I'm asking them to hear that right now because I think it's very important. And I think they need to take it seriously. This is actually a global concern of grave concern.
So I think that it's a very important point. But of course, the international implications of AI itself are not under our control as a city government. So that's not what we're here to discuss tonight. Our immediate issue before us tonight concerns the responsible construction of data centers within our community.
There have been no data center proposals brought to the city of Dubuque to build a data center within the city of Dubuque city limits. Nobody in the city of Dubuque government is doing anything secretly to move data center proposal forward or outside of public's view. There's nothing like that happening. And I just want to make that very clear for everybody.
There is no data center proposal being considered by the city of Dubuque, by this city council or anybody else that works for the city of Dubuque. Realistically, there really isn't anywhere in the city of Dubuque currently for a hyperscale data center. There's just no real room for it at the size that they currently are right now.
So within our city limits, there's no place large enough. There's no place flat enough. There's no place with current enough access to power to be able to do that. So I want to make that clear too. The size implications here are something we need to continue to discuss because that's an important point.
I think that's actually convenient in this moment because it's pretty clear to me from the responses that we got from everybody that the prevailing opinion in our community is to not have hyperscale data centers in the city of Dubuque. That's a pretty clear implication from what we just received from everybody.
Now, I know some other cities in Iowa have already, they have hyperscale data centers already. They've got plans to move those forward. I want those cities to know, from me speaking as mayor, that I don't fault them for making that decision for themselves. That's their decision. I can understand why they've chosen it.
There are actually some major financial benefits to having a data center in your community. And I can see why some cities would do that. And we can't have a rational discussion again about AI without talking about some of those benefits that exist for communities when you build something like this.
And many communities in Iowa are facing very real financial challenges. We are not alone in that. We are actually facing some challenges of our own thanks to changes in state legislation that have recently passed. Also, thanks to increased costs. Every single city is under some cost pressures, and that's something that we have to live with and it's very real.
However, if people resoundingly in our community do not want to pursue hyperscale data centers to solve financial challenges, then I don't see any reason to push for them. I think that we can simply find other ways, other paths forward to maintain fiscal responsibility. It's going to be challenging, but we can do that.
So I just want to make that very clear too. So now to the immediate matter of the city data center ordinance that we're talking about tonight. I hear our city attorney and her team very, very clearly regarding the risks of an outright ban on such facilities.
And I do not want to put Dubuque in a risky position of inviting lawsuits that challenge a ban like that. So in my assessment, I think it would be far more responsible for this council to create an ordinance that clearly and definitively emphasizes community benefit, community safety, ecological conservation, and also places all of the costs for any data center construction on the companies developing those centers themselves.
We need an ordinance, even if we don't have room for hyperscale data centers right now, we need an ordinance in place for our own safety and our own security. We do have smaller places where smaller facilities could fit. And I think we need to talk about size a lot as we do this.
There are major differences between the sizes of these different facilities, and we need to talk about what those are. So I think that a hybrid approach of a zoning trigger combined with standalone standards for data centers offers the most responsible, flexible approach for our city.
So that's my idea currently, and I'm looking forward to hearing what everybody else has to say. Real quickly, on the question of a moratorium, I actually don't see a reason for one at this time. And the reason is this city council has made very, very clear that we will not consider any data center project without a full ordinance in place.
And we stand by our word. That's plain and simple. So I don't think we need to do something extra other than develop this ordinance in a similar timeline to what our city attorney has laid out here. I think we have that capability to be able to do that.
So I look forward to a thoughtful and thorough analysis of a data center ordinance in the next few months, hopefully. And an equally thoughtful and thorough continuing conversation about any data center construction in our city if it were to ever happen in the years ahead. So those are my thoughts to begin with. I open it up to anyone else who would like to jump in.
- [Resnick] Mr. Mayor. - Mr. Resnick. - Ms. Brunwell, a few questions please. So in your presentation, you mentioned about negotiating certain aspects of a data center. And that implies give and take.
Wouldn't an ordinance be kind of a hard and fast thing? And we're not negotiating anything, once we get an ordinance set, are we? - The ordinances that I have reviewed have references to things like economic development agreements in them. So we do economic development agreements currently for a number of projects if a new manufacturer is going to come to town or if someone's going to develop new housing. So there is some back and forth in negotiating terms in some situations.
But, for example, Linn County in the economic development agreement provision of their ordinance includes in there that the entity would provide ongoing contributions to advance the county's fiscal infrastructure and community goals related to hosting data center facilities.
The county retains full reasonable discretion to determine the form, structure, and use of funds or benefits provided by any economic development agreement. And in a minimum, the agreement provides for the creation of a community betterment fund or a similar mechanism to support public infrastructure, services, environmental protection, so on and so forth.
So I think really what they're talking about in those agreements is this conveying the standards that are in your ordinance and memorializing them in an agreement that someone acknowledges and signs. So it's not just an ordinance like speeding is, you know, speeding is on the books, you have to comply.
In this scenario, it would be on the books, but there would also be this economic development agreement where the parties would acknowledge all of those requirements, they would commit to them, and then there would be some additional agreements as to what happens if they don't follow through, if there's a default, if they cure or if there's a penalty, things of that nature.
- But if those were just described in the ordinance particulars, or, as the mayor suggests, that there is no kind of economic cooperation
that, you know, if they build this, they get so much, you know, economic development funds. If they're simply on their own, and it just clearly says that, and the community benefit agreement is this, and it's all part of the, you know, if it's all in there, there'll be very little give and take then, right?
- The other bit to point out is that ordinance requirements, enforcement of those is rather formulaic by state code, whereas if you have an economic development agreement and it's signed by the parties, you have more flexibility for enforcement in a district court, for example, for breach of contract and things of that nature.
So you can have more teeth if you have an agreement in place in addition to ordinances. So I would envision that the ordinance would reference or include a requirement for an economic development agreement, so that we could get that more expansive remedies for the city and its- - Okay.
Two quick more questions, guys, because others want to speak. So, but if we adopt an ordinance, a standalone ordinance, that doesn't in any way obligate us to do something. If some company says, "Here, we would do everything in this ordinance," are we obligated then to have that data center assign that? And we don't have any legal way to say, "No, we'd rather,
you know, you're not the company we're looking for?" - Well, for city property, sure. But if- - I'm sorry, sure what? - If it's city property, the city can always say no to someone who's interested in doing something on city property. Hands down, no questions about it.
But if we have an ordinance and it involves private property and there's a willing seller and a willing purchaser and they're willing to comply with all of the requirements of the ordinance and enter into an economic development agreement with us, we could face a challenge if we said "no" and tried to kill a private deal. - So I'm glad we thought about that. Okay.
And then finally, I can understand why 76% of the folks said they didn't want an ordinance, didn't want any data centers, because in my research, a lot of the data center owners challenged in court.
They had this attitude of "make me" when they agreed to these points, and yet, in these mandated compliance, and then they take those to court, which makes things a whole lot longer. And things that look black and white, all of a sudden are in the courts and who knows what happens then? So how could we deal with that possibility? If we think, "Hey, this is ironclad.
" Is that really a possibility? - So what we would do in attempt to prevent that from happening, we could look at a couple different things. So for example we could explore whether there's letters of credit or bonds or things of that nature, so that if someone is non-compliant, we could call a letter of credit.
For entities like this, when they're financing and things like that, if you call a letter of credit, that is very damaging to any future business that they would do. It impacts their ability to get loans, to borrow things of that nature.
So we would explore remedies like that to broaden the scope of protections that are available in attempt to ensure that we have a credible entity that we are working with, and that the citizens are going to get what's required by ordinance and agreement. - [Resnick] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. - Ms. Wethal? - I watched a presentation that was given to the County Board of Supervisors last week. Great presentation.
And spoke privately with Eric Schmeichel from Dubuque County Watershed about some of the details of it. So I appreciate everybody taking the time to put that together, but also Eric to speak with me. The question I have is related to impervious surface stormwater management, and maybe this is a Wally Wernimont question. But if that is part of something that we can...
Because the impervious surfaces are a very big issue, in my understanding, of the watershed and protecting our environment, making sure that we put that as a very specific piece of any ordinance that would be drafted rather than just relying on the Unified Development Code. I'm hearing or getting a head shake From Wally.
- So when I mentioned that the timeline for coming to back, back to you was different if we did a hybrid ordinance or even the zoning or a standalone, it's because I need to convene with our water department, with our water resource and recovery center, with our zoning folks, with our stormwater staff in the engineering department,
because they are the subject matter experts on which I will rely using all of this research and data to evaluate it and whittle it down to determine what is a best fit in bringing something back to you. So yes, that is absolutely something that I would be consulting with them on and relying on them as the experts.
- So one question I had is regarding the Iowa Utilities Commission, because how do we control or do we have the ability to control writing in an ordinance language when the Iowa Utilities Commission regulates the rates and services of certain utilities in specific utility utilization and infrastructure? I have a lot of feedback about
putting in restrictions on energy use, water use, but some of that is under the jurisdiction of the Iowa Utilities Commission. And so I want to be clear, we can say whatever we want in an ordinance, but it's not up to us, right? I mean, we can't actually regulate that. - There are going to be limitations.
So for example, you may not be able to specifically regulate X, but you could require that they provide the city data on it. So the city can see the impact of it. And then we can evaluate what that data does or does not do.
What does it tell us? And does it allow us to do anything else about the specific impact that we are experiencing or not experiencing in the community? But as to the saying yes or no, that's where many of these lawsuits have started is to a challenge saying, "Hey, city or county, you don't have the ability to regulate that because that is a utility commission function.
" - And a similar question, different line. Can we legally create an ordinance language that directs tax revenue? Because I hear a lot of people say divert the taxes to fire EMS, infrastructure.
But do we really have control over that legally? - You want to chime in? - So the taxes are going to be according to state law. They'll be distributed based on the assessed value of the property. However, you can also require a payment in lieu of taxes which then you have more authority to decide how that money is spent.
- And that would be included in ordinance language, I would assume? - Yes, it could be. - Yes. So, that example that I was reading from, which was Linn County, it indicates that they retained the ability specifically to direct that with the reasonable discretion to determine the form structure and use of the funds
or benefit that comes out of any economic development agreement or community betterment agreement or fund. - Okay. Thanks. I just have a few things I want to say then. I think you've answered all my questions. Or actually you didn't answer all my questions. I just want to allow everybody time.
So as a child, every time I opened a refrigerator door, my mom told me it costs 10 cents. And every time I walk out of a room, I was to shut off a light switch. And when I brush my teeth, I turn off the sink.
And these are all things that I think I was taught as a kid and I'm trying to teach my kids as it relates to caring for our resources. Whether they need to be restricted or not based on availability, I think it's just being a good steward of our land and our community. The Council Bluffs...
So if you add up and start when I'm five. Add up my average kind of toothbrush washing water. I would estimate that to be in my lifetime, I've saved about 32,000 gallons of water. The Council Bluffs Google Hyperscale Data Center built in 2007 used 1.3 billion gallons of water in 2025. That's 3.
5 million gallons per day, 148,000 gallons per hour. It's less than 10 minutes of my lifetime saving by toothbrushing. So to me, that's unconscionable. And I understand that that's a older data center and that there is always developing technology that is going to make these data centers more, I guess, more thoughtful about their energy use and their water use.
But that one's still going. Nobody's fixed that. And I'm sure maybe the people that are there look back and say, "Oh man, we should have maybe done something about that." Now, my understanding from the Iowa DNR is that maybe they have different availability of water resources in one area versus the other.
And yes, we have the Jordan Aquifer and that is wonderful, but we can't overutilize that. We must, it is a long time to build that up. And if that goes dry, we don't have the ability in my children's children's children's lifetime to restore it.
And so I don't feel in any way, shape or form that we can ignore that as a community. And so I think that I am probably in favor mostly of a combination of a hybrid approach with a zoning trigger. I personally would agree to a moratorium, until we technically have an ordinance passed by council.
I appreciate that we all up here keep our word on this, and I believe that to be true. I think that it would create a mutually agreed upon thing that developers would know about before they came to any member of the community asking to buy their land.
And I want to be clear, not only will I not support the sale of annexing farmland by the airport, I will fight it. And I have a real problem with the idea of annexing farmland to the city of Dubuque to build any sort of a hyperscale data center. I can't imagine any opportunity in which I would consider it.
And so I want people to know out by the airport, there is no way, shape, or form that should be built. I don't care what ordinance we write. I don't care what we do moving forward other than know that under any circumstance, that should never be built there. It just shouldn't for the safety and wellbeing of all of us, specifically those who utilize the airport too.
So I want to yield the rest of this time because I'm sorry I used what I did, but I want to continue this conversation. - Thank you. - Yeah. - Mr. (indistinct), hang on. (gavel banging) We're glad you're happy. We don't do applause and booing or hissing or anything in here.
So just please just keep those claps to yourself. I do appreciate that. Yeah. Ms. Roussell. - Thank you. And I think my comments are very similar to what the mayor has said earlier. I think it's really important to protect ourselves, our residents, and our businesses now and in the future from the threats that have been identified.
And a simple moratorium may not hold up in court, maybe tied up in lengthy litigation. And generally I'm speaking about hyperscale data centers. So let's be proactive and state what we will and will not allow. And what requirements must be met and followed in a special data center ordinance.
A strong ordinance with clear requirements I think will be our best protection. It must be very clear to include terms from everything from beginning to end. Everything from size and site to environmental monitoring and decommissioning and so much more. And as one resident said in the information we received, to make sure the developer pays the costs and the city reaps the benefits.
And there are so many sample ordinances out there and great references included, especially in this agenda item. And since this is a national or global issue, we should certainly continue to look globally, as we craft that approach.
But I think of the three choices suggested, I would support the hybrid model with the zoning trigger where it allows the council to scrutinize the project size and then our ordinance would clarify the details. So if a center should choose to look here at some point, they would know the hurdles that they have to achieve in order to be successful here. And if they choose not to meet our requests, they will look elsewhere.
But, I guess my question, having said those comments, in my mind, it pertains to the hyperscale data centers. The other ones, I mean, we already have some. For example, Crenna mentioned the city of Dubuque data center or there are some small data centers in Dubuque.
How do we differentiate when we are looking at this? It seems like two totally different sorts of issues to deal with. You know, looking at a small city or a small maybe a hospital data center versus a hyperscale data center.
I would like to learn more about what are these other three? Is this something we should be concerned about? I mean, if we already have some of these here, are there issues we should be concerned about? - I don't have an answer to that specific question, but what I can tell you is, if the request is to bring something back to you, what I can do is provide a menu, if you will,
of options related to sizing so that you all could consider and choose what level you would consider to require additional scrutiny. - So you could take that list of four and give us a chart of saying, this type of data center is likely this size, and it would only trigger the ordinance if it reached
the hyperscale size, something like that is possible? - Yeah, whatever size you all decided. Hyperscale or large does vary by community. But what I could do is I could give you examples from a number of different places with the definition specific. We could try and put that in a chart.
And so you could then say, "Here's where we're drawing the line and here's what we consider to be hyperscale or large for Dubuque." - I think that would be very helpful. Thank you. - [Sprank] Mr. Mayor. - Mr. Sprank. - Thank you. How I look at this, I'm definitely no, since I know we got short time, no on hyperscales, period.
I would be in favor of a one-year moratorium. In a nice way, that tells developers to go away for a while, but I would definitely like an ordinance that's like a hybrid option and kind of my thoughts on an ordinance idea of trying to condense it to like 11 things. One would be size.
A smaller one because that's probably what will happen in the future. In 10 years, these organizations are going to want to build something smaller. So my thoughts were size. Something like 200,000 square feet. And you're like, "Oh, that's a lot." It's not as much as you think.
When Hempstead High School is 276,000 square feet, the mall is 274,000 square feet, the Menards is about 162,000 square feet, Target's about 91,000 square feet, and Lowe's is about 133,000 square feet. So that's about the size of one if I ever would see one.
Definitely no incentives, no TIF, a closed loop water system, some type of solar, backup power, noise reduction, buffers, if we can figure out this power and utility rules at all. Definitely some type of community benefit, something similar to like how the DRA is designed, where that goes back into so much the community. Local labor to build it.
And then finally a decommission because eventually this thing's going to want to be shut down and it's just going to be a toxic, you know, what are we going to do with all these computer parts? I don't want to be stuck with that. So those are my thoughts in a nutshell. I don't know how we can express that any better with our limited amount of time. So thank you.
- Thank you, Mr. Sprank. Mr. Leyendecker. - Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. Well, I want to thank as well, Cori and the staff for all the work that they've put into this. It was really helpful in analyzing where the community is falling on this. And I think the data pretty much speaks for itself.
And I think the data is tied to just the unknowns that we've talked about up here tonight of unknowing what does a data center mean to the environment, to the water, to the noise, to everything else that unfolds.
And so I also think there's something that I've been, that's been on my mind since this topic came up however long ago is I don't think the topography of Dubuque, like, allows for a hyperscale data center, right? Now, it's been talked about that, and as Ms. Wethal brought up is that, you know, this annexing of land. And I don't see us ever doing that to bring in a data center into the city of Dubuque.
And so as I was thinking about, you know, where I stood on this, I do think it, in short term, it's good to have a moratorium so we can understand kind of the nuances of what's going on in the environment, give us more time.
I think as more time, data will become available that we can continue to make decisions on. But then a hybrid ordinance, I think is prudent in making sure that we have that very well defined and to protect us. And, you know, I'm confident in the process that we're going about here in the dialogue.
So it's been, I'm looking forward to getting stuff in place and moving forward. But like I said, I think a moratorium in the short term with a hybrid ordinance would be prudent. Thank you. - Thank you. - Mr. Staver? - Yeah. I also want to thank Cori and staff and also the public for showing up and sharing all the information you have shared.
It's been very useful and helpful. I did have a question for Crenna. So on the legal challenges you talked about for bans, you know, other than obviously facing the legal challenge and the cost associated with that, have any of these, you know, AI actors been able to get into communities that banned them?
- There is one pending right now in Tennessee where there was a resolution prohibiting data centers and cryptocurrency mining operations that was adopted. And the lawsuit alleges that in that particular instance, the company had already spent money and time preparing the facility, and that they were going to lose roughly $120,000 a month
in anticipated profits after the ban in the delay. So they were able to, at least in a petition, monetize damages resulting from a ban. It's not resolved yet.
So I don't know how successful that argument is going to be, but they were able to put a dollar figure with it and say, "City," or in this case, it was a county, "here's how you have damaged us by adopting this ban." - Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I think that's all. Thanks.
You know, I think it's a complicated question. I mean, the devil's in the details, obviously. And things are changing. It's a moving target in some ways.
I think I would, I think a moratorium, you know, would be a smart move and I also think it would be important to come up with a hybrid ordinance and zoning that has some of the most restrictive language there is. So if somebody shows up and we're not a good target, that they know that they have some really big lifts to be in this community, that you know, the benefits for the community will be massive and the, you know, restrictions will also be massive.
So I think best case scenario, we eliminate any chance of, you know, I think, you know, like anything, especially technology, the size shrinks, but the output increases. So I think a square footage is maybe not a great way to look at it. I think we got to look at, you know, the damages will be primarily.
I think the big one is power usage and, you know, power companies looking out for their best interests and not our best interests. The water part of it sounds like there's, you know, some obvious correction already in that area, so I don't see that as big a risk as the power.
Obviously, the environment would be a huge thing to look out for. So I think we got to be really careful about our sizing restrictions. I think we, we really focus on the power consumption part of it.
And obviously the idea of having what do you want to call it? Penalties versus, you know, fines. I mean, shutdowns. If you don't comply, you're shut down. I mean, that makes a lot of sense to me. But also I think, some of these smaller, you know, we really have to define the AI portion of this.
These smaller ones might provide jobs and might be inconsequential. So I'm not worried about that so much as these really big ones, not in terms of size necessarily, but in terms of impact. So I think taking, having a moratorium to get that well-defined, I think would be smart. And I think the hybrid would be, I think I agree on that. So, thank you.
- All right. Thank you. All right. Well, we all got a chance to speak our piece there. So what I heard is that we would like to consider a moratorium at our next meeting, please, on September 8th. So, oh, please, Crenna, you're looking at me. - Timeframe. On a moratorium.
I can write a moratorium. I need a timeframe for it.
- Okay. So in the next two minutes, I want to try to decide what we could do with that. So Mr. Leyendecker. - We can always extend the moratorium? - [Brumwell] Correct. - Okay. - So how about you bring forward a six-month moratorium for us with the possibility of extension? And we can talk about that.
We can always change that at the next meeting. Let me just point that out. Like we don't need to decide this right now. We can do whatever we want at the next meeting. So if you could bring forward- - [Brumwell] I can start.
- The language, then we can actually address that at our next meeting on September 8th. - And if you at that time decided you wanted it longer, there could be an amendment to that and we can process that as we do. - Yes. We could.
We could even potentially make that decision between now and then, and have a different thing come forward to us on September 8th. So based on community input, so we could do that. Okay. And then please if you could create a, what I heard is the hybrid ordinance. Bring something, begin working on that and bring that forward at some point.
It looks like the timeline there is what you've got to work with, but we fully understand if that timeline is longer and if you need more time. As I pointed out, I don't think anybody here is feeling a rush to make sure that this is done, especially if we do establish a moratorium in the next couple of weeks. So whatever time this takes, let's do it right.
That would be my suggestion. So I hope we can pull that off. Thank you very much for a very good discussion tonight. Everyone who's here, just a quick note. We need to start our next meeting in the next two to three minutes. So if you stand in the hallway, it's super loud.
And so what I'm going to ask everybody to do is over the next few minutes, if you're not staying for the next meeting, if you could please make your way downstairs. It's a beautiful night outside. Go enjoy that. And then we appreciate you being here. If you are staying, please stick around.
We'll start here in a few minutes. But there is no further business in this work session, so we are adjourned. (gavel taps) (bright music)