GENEVA – An ordinance for a 12-month moratorium on data centers in the City of Geneva was sent to committee after council member William Baker led a successful effort to table it at the April 27th Geneva City Council meeting.
On the meeting agenda, the ordinance was up for a first reading.
It called for imposing a 12-month moratorium on the acceptance and processing of applications for zoning and/or occupancy permit approvals for data centers within the City of Geneva.
After being tabled, it was sent to the planning committee.
“So, we’ll table that,” council President John Barbo said after the split vote.
Barbo and council members Jeff Griffiths and Dana Schenk voted no on the tabling, and council members Baker, John Travis, Brad MacMichael and Bob Rosebrugh, the council vice president, voted yes.
At the previous council meeting, Griffiths introduced the ordinance, saying a moratorium would give council “the safety and the chance to do it right” when it comes to data centers.
Griffiths thought council should do its “due diligence and have a pause.”
He was concerned about “the uncertainty of everything with them” as well as the long-term impact on water.
Online information states that data centers “use significant amounts of water, primarily for cooling their servers and managing heat generated by high-performance computing systems.”
When Griffiths introduced the ordinance, Baker referred to a presentation by Sarah Jammal of Verdantas at a past council meeting in which she addressed the possibility of data centers in the area.
“I know when Sarah was here, I asked her pointedly if there was any plans at all, and she emphatically stated we are not even in consideration of anyone having a data center in our area,” he said.
At the April 27th council meeting, Baker repeated those comments after Barbo opened the proposed ordinance to discussion.
“Everything I’ve heard says Geneva is not even in any kind of running (for a data center),” Baker said. “Can we include nuclear power plants, automobile manufacturing, oil refining, and chip manufacturing into the whole thing? I mean, if we’re gonna come up with arbitrary stuff.”
He was firm in his opposition to the moratorium in the ordinance.
“I don’t think this is needed, and it’s a waste of time,” he said.
In response, Griffiths said data centers are a topic throughout the country.
“And there are across-the-aisle folks discussing this,” he said. “We currently do not have zoning in place or any guard rails for data center development or people looking for that development in our city.”
He said the ordinance “offers an opportunity for our planning commission and us to not rush into anything.”
Griffiths was cautionary in regard to Baker’s claims that Geneva wasn’t in consideration for a data center.
Just because someone else has said that the city isn’t the running for a data center doesn’t mean someone wouldn’t approach the city “and try to make something happen,” he said.
“We don’t know,” Griffiths told Baker. “You’re not a mind reader; no one is.”
Griffiths said the moratorium “provides for time to pause and plan” and to “not rush into anything as a community” and to “make sure we’re protecting the health and well-being of our community.”
“Like any resolution or ordinance, we have a right to vote yes or no,” Griffiths said.
Baker referred to a part of the ordinance that he said reads, “there are credible concerns of health, safety and power usage surrounding data centers.”
“But I’m trying to think, what health and safety concerns are there that people have come up with?” he asked, indicating he was the only one on council who had been in a data center or visited one.
Griffiths cited several concerns.
“There are heavy metals that are used and health issues with regard to respiratory and cardiovascular stuff, with regard to air pollution,” he claimed. He also said there are concerns over water, electricity, and noise issues.
Griffiths spoke of “the hum from the diesel generators and the HVAC systems that are running to power these things.”
“As opposed to the normal generators that are used in any industrial park?” Baker shot back.
Griffiths responded by saying that council had an opportunity to discuss and vote on the ordinance.
“I don’t see your data center expert badge on, either,” he told Baker.
Schenk, meanwhile, pointed out that a resident was in the audience who wanted to hear about data centers.
“Clearly, we have one person coming in already with concerns,” she said.
Baker then opined that the ordinance should go to committee.
“And a committee should write the resolution (ordinance) based on what they find, or change this,” he said.
Barbo told him, “We’re going to continue with this, and we can certainly go to committee on it, just like we’re going to with the cannabis issue.”
Barbo was referring to a first reading council provided at the meeting for an ordinance to establish a six-month moratorium on the acceptance and processing of applications for zoning and/or occupancy permit approvals for cannabis operations in the city and the issuance of such approvals in the city.
As the discussion over the data center moratorium ordinance continued, Baker then asked if he could make a motion to table the moratorium ordinance “until such time as it’s been reviewed in committee.”
“You can make a motion,” Barbo told him.
“Then, I make a motion we table this ordinance until it has been reviewed by a committee,” Baker said. There was some silence, but finally Travis seconded the motion.
Barbo said the planning committee would take up the data center moratorium at 5 p.m. May 11 in council chambers.
The resident in the audience who wanted to hear about data centers, Mary Jo Janson, asked about how the public would be informed about the committee meeting.
“The planning committee meeting will be posted on our website, and it will be in the paper as well,” Barbo told her.
