
Palo city council approves data center ordinance despite resident opposition
Palo's city council approved a data center ordinance by a four-to-one vote, despite significant resident opposition who argued the rules were not strict enough to protect natural resources. The decision comes as Google considers building a data center in Palo, after previously rejecting plans in Linn County due to more restrictive ordinances there. Opponents urged the council to strengthen protections for water quality and consumption.
Palo, Iowa's city council approved a data center ordinance on Monday with a four-to-one vote, despite strong opposition from residents who argued the new rules do not adequately protect the community's natural resources, particularly regarding water quality and consumption.
The vote occurred as Google evaluates building a data center in Palo. Google had previously abandoned plans for a data center in unincorporated Linn County after that jurisdiction enacted a more stringent ordinance. Residents filled the council chambers, calling for stricter standards, with Shelley Jacobus emphasizing the need for a solid ordinance, stating, "We have one shot at this and one ordinance, and it needs to be solid."
Palo's approved ordinance largely aligns with existing state regulations for water, rather than adopting Linn County's more restrictive approach. The ordinance only requires the city to receive copies of paperwork submitted to the state's Department of Natural Resources. Council member Eric Van Kerckhove, who voted in favor, asserted the ordinance meets community needs by setting clear expectations and safeguarding residents. However, Council member Taylor Burgin, who also voted yes, expressed reservations about the Google project but noted that a future development agreement could bring financial benefits to the city.
Opponents, including Jacobus, accused the city of deferring accountability to the state and urged reconsideration before the final vote, emphasizing "Put AI last, our residents and resources first, voices first." Council member Doug Hanover cast the lone dissenting vote without providing a specific reason. The meeting was held in the regular council chambers, with the mayor citing a $5,000 setup fee as the reason for not using the larger community room for this vote, which had been used for previous discussions on the matter.