Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs RFPs for data‑center technical reviews and approves formal McKenna planning-services agreement
Summary
After debating whether to hire industrial hygienists and tax consultants now or require applicant-funded reviews later, council voted to publish RFPs and incorporate application-funded industrial-hygienist and tax-consultant reviews into the draft data-center ordinance; council also approved a revised three-year agreement with McKenna for planning and building services.
Council debated two approaches to incorporating technical reviews into a proposed data-center ordinance: (1) retain industrial hygienists and tax consultants now to inform the zoning ordinance language, or (2) require those studies when an applicant submits a development proposal, with the applicant funding the review but the city hiring the experts.
City planner Jane Dixon and city administrator Rachel Witherspoon both explained the trade-offs. Dixon said the common practice in other jurisdictions is to require applicant-funded technical analyses at application time to ensure the review addresses project-specific conditions while the city retains control by hiring the reviewer. "Option 2 aligns the timing, cost and scope of technical analysis to actual development proposals, allowing the city to obtain more precise and relevant information," Dixon said.
Several council members insisted the city should engage experts earlier and sought language and cost estimates that could inform the zoning ordinance during the moratorium. After discussion the council voted to publish RFPs for industrial hygienists and tax consultants and to direct staff to incorporate application-funded industrial-hygienist and tax-consultant reviews into the proposed data-center ordinance.
Separately, council considered a formalized three-year agreement with McKenna for ongoing planning and building services to replace a prior, less formal arrangement. The draft would change revenue sharing from 95% to 90% to McKenna and was estimated to increase city revenue by an estimated $10,000–$20,000 depending on permit volume; council discussed permit-fee impacts on residents, contract length and 60/90-day termination language. After discussion the agreement with McKenna was approved by roll-call vote with termination provisions and staff follow-up to supply further data on permit fee impacts.
The council’s action sets a procedural path for how the city will evaluate future data-center proposals and secures interim planning support while staff and council complete ordinance revisions.
