Planning commission directs staff to draft 12‑month moratorium on data‑center applications

The Wisconsin Rapids Planning Commission voted to direct staff to draft a 12‑month moratorium on new data‑center applications to give the city time to study public‑health and infrastructure impacts and to consider stronger zoning rules. Commissioner Eric Daven moved the directive and the commission approved it 6–0 with one commissioner recused.

Alderman Paul Palmquist framed the request as a consolidated set of options — moratorium, ordinance amendments, and potential referendum — intended to ensure consistent, enforceable rules for any future data‑center applications. "As the concerns presented apply to all potential data centers, there's a clear vulnerability with this approach," Palmquist said, arguing the existing ordinance relies too heavily on ad‑hoc conditions attached to individual applications.

City Attorney Sue Schell told the commission that a development moratorium is an available tool under state statute but requires findings and, in some cases, expert verification that public facilities would be overburdened. She described the typical moratorium process and timeframe: "That would allow the city 12 months to then work on... beefing up the ordinance," she said, adding that municipalities can seek a six‑month extension where justified.

Director of Community Development Kyle Kearns urged the commission to use the pause to pursue ordinance language addressing power, noise, water, generators, decommissioning and electronic waste. "You can proceed with ordinance review immediately and concurrently pursue a moratorium if the commission wishes," Kearns said, noting staff could return proposed amendments to planning commission and council within the timetable required for public notice and hearings.

Under the motion, staff are to draft a 12‑month moratorium over Chapter 11, Section 14.03 (data center) to address public‑health, safety and ratepayer equity concerns; the commission also requested a special meeting to act on the draft as soon as feasible. The motion record shows a recusal due to a conflict of interest and the commission recorded the vote as "Ayes have it, 6 to 0."