Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Solano supervisors direct staff to take a data‑center tax measure to the November ballot
Summary
The Solano County Board of Supervisors voted 4–0 to direct staff to take a staff‑presented tax measure related to data centers to the November ballot after public commenters urged a moratorium or ban and supervisors described limited local authority. Staff noted zoning and general‑plan constraints.
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Solano County Board of Supervisors voted 4–0 to direct staff to advance a staff‑presented measure related to data centers for placement on the November ballot.
Supervisor Mashburn, who moved the action, said the county has limited time to place an item on the ballot and argued the measure would give the county a tool to discourage siting and mitigate local impacts. "We have a very limited window of time in order to get something on the ballot to initiate a tax to make them feel some pain," Mashburn said. Supervisor Williams seconded the motion and said the board must balance deterrence with the risk of state preemption.
The move followed public comments urging a moratorium or total ban on data centers on environmental and economic grounds. County staff clarified that several of the sites shown in prior presentations are inside city limits and that even industrially zoned parcels would require a general‑plan amendment to allow data centers: "those were zoned industrial... and those sites... don't allow for data centers on them. So there would be a general plan amendment necessary to allow them," a county staff member said.
The clerk announced the motion was ordered approved by a vote of 4–0. The board directed staff to return with implementing materials and ballot language; supervisors emphasized the need for plain language so voters understand the measure is a tax measure, not an explicit approval of a facility.
The board did not adopt a moratorium at the meeting; members repeatedly noted uncertainty about how much local authority remains when state law intervenes and said any permanent zoning changes or moratoria would follow the planning and ordinance process.

