Sentinel Media records · public agendas and minutes, text only, refreshed nightly from each body's own site · not a newspaper
minutes meeting date 2026-07-16 · fetched 2026-10-18 · 35278 characters · read by OCR, check numbers against the source · official file · plain text
CITY OF CITY OF POCATELLO, IDAHO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 16, 2026 AGENDAITEMNO. | 1: ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Regular City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Mark Dahlquist. Council members present were Dakota Bates, Corey Mangum, Brent Nichols, Hayden Paulsen, and Stacy Satterfield. Council member Ann Swanson was excused. Mayor Dahlquist read a statement from Ann Swanson regarding her excused absence from the meeting. Mayor Dahlquist led the audience in the pledge of allegiance. AGENDAITEMNO. _ 2: INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Pastor Karl Pettit, representing First Baptist Church. AGENDAITEMNO. _ 3: CONSENT AGENDA Council was asked to consider the following business items: (a) MINUTES Waive the oral reading of the minutes and approve the minutes from the City Council Budget Development meeting of May 7, 2026. (b) MATERIAL CLAIMS Approve the Material Claims for the period of July 1-15, 2026 in the amount of $2,109,016.54. (c) |TREASURER’S REPORT Approve the Treasurer’s Report for May 2026 showing cash and investments as of May 31, 2026 in the amount of $111.992,202.69. (d) HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENT Confirm the Mayor’s appointment of Justin Smith to serve as a member of the Historic Preservation Commission. Justin’s term will begin July 17, 2026 and expire October 16, 2029. Rich Morgan gave a presentation of the Treasurer’s Report. A motion was made by Mr. Mangum, seconded by Mr. Paulsen, to approve the items on the Consent Agenda. Upon roll call, those voting in favor were Mangum, Paulsen, Bates, Nichols, and Satterfield. AGENDAITEMNO. 4: PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Dahlquist acknowledged the America 250 initiative, which encourages 250,000 acts of service throughout Idaho in celebration of the 250th anniversary of the United States. The City is participating in the initiative by recognizing community members who REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 2 JULY 16, 2026 contribute acts of service. Mayor Dahlquist recognized Steven Evans for clearing debris from storm drains and cleaning the streets in his neighborhood, helping improve the appearance of the area. Mr. Evans received a letter of recognition signed by Mayor Dahlquist. Mayor Dahlquist, proclaimed June 22 through June 28, 2026 to be Pollinator Week and encouraged citizens to participate in events, plant native species, reduce harmful practices, and support efforts that ensure pollinators continue to thrive for generations to come. Gloria Hansen, Portneuf Pollinator Partnership member, accepted the proclamation and thanked the Mayor and Council for the recognition. She highlighted the importance of pollinators and the need for education and habitat preservation to support them. Ms. Hansen outlined the Partnership’s efforts to increase pollinator habitat and native species throughout the Portneuf Valley and shared resources available on its website, including information on native gardens and plants. She noted that the Partnership collaborates with 13 local organizations. AGENDAITEMNO. | 5: CALENDAR REVIEW Mayor Dahlquist reminded Council members of the following meetings: July 20 Special City Council Town Hall meeting at 6:00 p.m.; August 6 Clarification meeting at 5:30 p.m. . and Regular City Council meeting at 6:00 p.m.; August 13 City Council Work Session at 9:00 a.m. Mayor Dahlquist announced Zoo Idaho will hold a special community event to reveal the cougar kitten’s name and introduce her to the public on July 17 at 12:00 p.m.; Southeast Idaho Senior Games continues through July 18; Idaho International Choral Festival continues through July 18; there will be a Red Cross Blood Drive at City Hall on July 23 at 9:00 a.m. The American Red Cross has declared an emergency blood shortage and blood donors are urgently needed at this time. Walk-in appointments are available; July 27 and 28 is Montana Shakespeare in the Park sponsored by the Pocatello Arts Council. “Merchant of Venice” and “Much Ado About Nothing” will be performed. Pre-show begins at 5:00 p.m. and performances begin at 6:00 p.m. at the ISU Quad. All performances are free to the public; Municipal Band Concerts on Sunday evenings at the Ross Park Bandshell from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. continue through August 2. The concerts are free to the community; Open burn ban in Wildland-Urban Interface areas continues. Due to the extreme heat, the following City facilities will serve as cooling shelters to those in need. Hours are: City Hall, 7:30 a.m. - 8 p.m. Monday - Friday, and 10 a.m. - 8 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays; Animal Shelter, 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday - Friday and Tla.m. -5 p.m. Saturday, closed Sundays. Pets are welcome too! Marshall Public Library, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday - Thursday and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Friday and Saturday, closed Sunday. AGENDAITEMNO. 6: ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE Nikki Taysom, Pocatello resident, thanked Council for the pollinator proclamation. She expressed concerns about government corruption, child safety, and moral decline, urging a return to constitutional and moral principles. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3 JULY 16, 2026 AGENDAITEMNO. 7: AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1APPROVAL - BIOTA RESEARCH AND CONSULTING, INC. Council was asked to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement between the City of Pocatello and Biota Research and Consulting Inc. for the Oxbow Project and authorize the Mayor's signature on all pertinent documents, subject to Legal Department review. The Amendment will increase the contract amount from $521,366.00 to $598,147.00 and increase the project match funding from the ARPA grant for this change order to account for a change in scope to complete revisions to the design plans. Christine Howe, Grants Manager, presented a proposed amendment to the City’s agreement with Biota Research and Consulting Inc. for the Oxbow Project. She explained that the project involves restoring historic oxbow meanders and portions of the floodplain and stream channels along the Portneuf River. Due to a new golf hole installed at Juniper Hills Country Club, the original design was affected, requiring two additional concepts to be developed. Ms. Howe said the amendment would allow three (3) options to be included in the 60% design, with the most viable option selected for final design and future construction, and would extend the contract through the end of the year. A motion was made by Mr. Mangum, seconded by Mr. Paulsen, to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement between the City of Pocatello and Biota Research and Consulting Inc. for the Oxbow Project and authorize the Mayor’s signature on all pertinent documents, subject to Legal Department review. Upon roll call, those voting in favor were Mangum, Paulsen, Bates, Nichols, and Satterfield. AGENDAITEMNO. _ 8: REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT - UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (UPRR): Council was asked to approve a Reimbursement Agreement between the City and Union Pacific Railroad Company for engineering services pertaining to the work at the location of the Montana Subdivision which includes closure of two (2) at-grade crossings and design of a new at-grade crossing at that location and authorize the Mayor’s signature on all pertinent documents, subject to Legal Department review. The proposed agreement replaces the agreement previously approved by the Council at the June 4, 2026 Regular City Council meeting. Tom Kirkman, Public Works Director, presented the revised agreement for the proposed at-grade railroad crossing on Phil Meador Avenue connecting to Bullock Street. He explained that the railroad requested minor changes to the agreement after it had previously been presented to Council, requiring the agreement to return for consideration. In response to questions from Council, Mr. Kirkman explained that the developer had prepaid $30,000 for the project and agreed to pay any additional costs if the project exceeds that amount. Any unused funds would be returned to the developer. A motion was made by Mr. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Bates, to approve a Reimbursement Agreement between the City and Union Pacific Railroad Company for engineering services pertaining to the work at the location of the Montana Subdivision which includes closure of two (2) at-grade crossings and design of a new at-grade crossing at that location and authorize the Mayor’s signature on all pertinent documents, subject to Legal REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4 JULY 16, 2026 Department review. Upon roll call, those voting in favor were Nichols, Bates, Mangum, Paulsen, and Satterfield. AGENDAITEMNO. 9: HEARING EXAMINER DECISION APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 26-003 - LEX DEVELOPMENT: Council was asked to consider an appeal from Lex Development, represented by Parsons Behle & Latimer (mailing address: 350 Memorial Drive, Suite 300, Idaho Falls, ID 83402) to affirm, reverse or modify the Hearing Examiner’s decision of Conditional Use Permit CUP26-003, denied by the Hearing Examiner on May 19, 2026. Mayor Dahlquist explained the City Council’s role in the pending appeal of a conditional use permit. He explained that Council is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and must review the existing record, consider the issues raised on appeal, and apply applicable City ordinances and Idaho law. He emphasized that Council cannot consider new evidence or discuss the merits of the appeal outside the official proceedings and explained the importance of avoiding and disclosing ex parte communications to ensure a fair and impartial process. Mayor Dahlquist and Council members disclosed any ex parte communications regarding the appeal. Mayor Dahlquist reported receiving unsolicited emails and comments from people in public but stated none would affect his judgment. Mr. Nichols reported no ex parte communication. Mr. Bates reported receiving three (3) unsolicited phone calls and numerous unsolicited public conversations, noting that the concerns expressed were reflected in the existing record and would not affect his impartiality. Ms. Satterfield and Mr. Mangum reported being approached in public but ending conversations because they could not discuss the appeal. Mr. Paulsen reported receiving emails, phone calls, and comments in public but stated he could remain fair and impartial. Jennifer Flynn, Assistant Planner, summarized the appeal of the conditional use permit for a proposed data center at 1800 River Parkway. She explained that data centers are not a classified use under City Code and therefore require a conditional use permit. Ms. Flynn reviewed the Hearing Examiner’s May 19, 2026, decision denying the permit based on criteria related to public facilities and services, environmental impacts, and whether the project would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or welfare. She noted that the Hearing Examiner identified the need for additional studies addressing power, water, wastewater, air quality, and environmental impacts. Ms. Flynn reviewed the property’s industrial zoning and examples of heavy industrial uses allowed under the code. She explained that the City had sent utility notices regarding the proposed development and received feedback from City utilities and other utility agencies and organizations. Ms. Flynn explained that Council’s role was to consider the appeal based on the existing record and that the item was not a public hearing. Council could affirm, reverse, or modify the Hearing Examiner’s decision and was required to state the reasoning for its decision. She also noted that notice of the appeal was published in the Idaho State Journal, provided to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, and posted on the City’s website. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5 JULY 16, 2026 In response to questions from Council, Jared Johnson, City Attorney, explained that one (1) of the three (3) issues raised in the appeal was whether the City followed the proper process by requiring a conditional use permit. He stated that, in his legal opinion, the City followed the process required by City Code and explained that the Planning Director’s determination and interpretation of the City Code required the conditional use permit process for the proposed use. The Planning Director was available to answer specific questions regarding the process. In response to questions from Council, Ms. Flynn explained that she prepared the staff report by reviewing the application against the seven (7) conditional use permit criteria and determining whether the proposed use met each criterion. She noted that the report was reviewed by other Planning Department Staff before advancing through the public process. Ms. Flynn explained that utility notices were sent to City utilities and external groups for input, which was then considered as part of the criteria review. Regarding criteria D4, she explained that staff reviewed the proposed water and wastewater needs at a preliminary level and used information from prior developments to provide that information to the applicant. Regarding criteria Dé, Ms. Flynn explained that environmental standards would be assessed through the building permit process and that, based on the limited information provided, staff anticipated the project would be required to meet those standards. She noted that staff considered the proposed use in comparison to permitted uses because the City had not previously authorized a data center. Regarding criterion D7, Ms. Flynn explained that staff evaluated the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics based on the information provided in the application and identified additional information that would be needed as the project progressed. In response to questions from Council, Mr. Johnson explained that if the Hearing Examiner’s decision is affirmed, the applicant would be required to wait one (1) year to reapply. He explained that the applicant could appeal the Council’s decision under the Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act by requesting reconsideration by Council and could then appeal to district court. In response to questions from Council, Brent McLane, Planning and Development Services Director, explained that when a use is not listed in the City’s use table, the Planning Director makes a determination whether it is sufficiently similar to other uses allowed within the zoning district. He explained that, although many characteristics of a data center aligned with uses permitted in the industrial zone, there were questions regarding water, wastewater, utility consumption, and other potential impacts. Mr. McLane said he determined that a conditional use permit process was appropriate to allow the City to evaluate the use and its potential impacts on infrastructure and the public interest. He explained that additional information regarding utilities was received after the determination to require a conditional use permit. Mr. McLane noted that the applicant indicated the facility would produce limited wastewater through a closed-loop system, but specific water and wastewater usage information had not been provided. He also noted that studies regarding power consumption, noise, emissions, and other potential impacts had not been provided. Mr. McLane explained that because data centers are not identified as an allowed use in the City’s code, the conditional use permit process was used to determine if the location met zoning requirements and what conditions would be necessary. He noted that once a use is established, additional studies, permits, and requirements would be addressed through the development process, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6 JULY 16, 2026 including determining whether the City’s infrastructure could adequately serve the facility. In response to questions from Council, Mr. Johnson confirmed that the property is located within a TIF district and explained that, although the TIF designation may have implications for the property, it was not a consideration in the conditional use permit criteria or part of the record reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. Therefore, Council should not consider the TIF designation as part of its appeal decision. Mayor Dahlquist observed that the City’s process was consistent with City Code, noting that the applicant’s legal counsel had compared the proposed data center to a heavy industrial use. He pointed out that the City’s definition of heavy industrial use involves the manufacturing, processing, or assembling of products from raw materials, which did not appear to apply to the proposed data center. In response to questions from Council, Gus Schultz, Lex Development representative, clarified his prior statement to the Hearing Examiner regarding water usage for the proposed data center’s closed-loop system. He confirmed that approximately 300,000 gallons would be needed to initially fill the system and stated that the property is allotted up to one million gallons of water per day. In response to questions from Council, Tom Kirkman, Public Works Director, explained that some of the City’s larger commercial water users consume approximately 150,000 to 300,000 gallons per day, making the proposed usage amounts relatively common for larger users. He noted that the City had provided the applicant with available capacity information based on the parcel size including that the site could be served with up to one million gallons of water per day. Mr. Kirkman explained that this was the extent of the information available and that the City did not have studies detailing the proposed facility’s specific water consumption or evaporation rates. In response to questions from Council, Mr. McLane confirmed that the property is located within a TIF district but explained that state statute exempts data centers from receiving TIF funds. Therefore, the proposed data center would not benefit from the TIF district designation. In response to questions from Council, Ms. Flynn explained that Idaho Power believes it can provide the requested power without impacting service to existing customers, but upgrades to transmission, substations, distribution, and generation resources may be necessary. She noted that the timing and cost of those upgrades would be determined through additional studies, after which Idaho Power would provide the applicant with information regarding the cost and timeline for providing the requested power. Mr. Paulsen commented that the matter appeared premature, noting that there was still limited information regarding water usage, power, noise, infrastructure, health, and safety. Mr. Bates stated that his decision regarding the appeal was based solely on the facts contained in the record, including public comments from both sides. He expressed appreciation for engaged citizens and thanked the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for sharing their thoughts. He noted that policy preferences and concerns not supported by the REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7 JULY 16, 2026 record were not permissible considerations in the appeal process. After reviewing the Hearing Examiner’s meeting and Mr. Schultz’s presentation, Mr. Bates stated that the applicant’s presentation of the controversial and unprecedented request appeared somewhat clumsy and casual. He stated that State law and City Code require the Council to base its decision on the facts and record and determine whether the Hearing Examiner’s findings and reasoning were supported. Mr. Bates stated that he believed there were deficiencies in the Hearing Examiner’s amended findings of fact and that the treatment of certain criteria was legally and factually incomplete. He recommended that the Council focus its deliberation on Criteria D4, Dé, and D7, which the Hearing Examiner found the applicant did not meet, noting that staff and the Hearing Examiner found the applicant compliant with Criteria D1, D2, D3, and D5. He asked to discuss as a Council these four (4) criteria. Mr. Bates discussed Criterion D4, stating that he did not believe an air quality analysis should be required because the City does not regulate air quality, although compliance with DEQ standards could be required. He noted that the applicant provided site-specific water usage estimates and information regarding wastewater and the closed-loop system. Idaho Power indicated that providing the requested power was feasible at the preliminary stage, and staff confirmed available water, sewer, and gas infrastructure. Mr. Bates emphasized that the conditional use permit is the first step in the development process and that final engineered numbers would be addressed through subsequent development processes. Based on the information provided, he stated that he believed the applicant met Criterion D4. Council questioned the approximately 300,000 gallons of water needed to fill the system and wondered how often it would need to be refilled. It was noted that the application described the initial fill as a one-time need and that the applicant testified to approximately five percent evaporation. Council discussed whether the City could adequately serve the use under Criterion D4. Mr. Bates discussed Criterion D6, stating that the criterion does not require there to be no environmental impact, but rather asks whether the proposed use would affect the environment to a greater degree than a use already permitted by City Code. He noted that the applicant provided comparative evidence regarding the size, scale, intensity, and wastewater impacts of other permitted uses. Mr. Bates pointed out that heavy industrial uses such as chemical production, large-scale machinery, and natural gas power plants are permitted outright under City Code. He stated that, based on the evidence in the record, including comparisons to HOKU’s polysilicon manufacturing facility, he did not believe the proposed use could be determined to have a greater environmental impact than other uses already permitted by City Code. Mr. Bates discussed Criterion D7, stating that the criterion considers whether the proposed use would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or welfare based on its location, size, design, and operating characteristics. He stated that the applicant provided sufficient evidence regarding the location, size, and design and that the proposed use fits within the industrial zoning designation. Mr. Bates stated that the primary question was whether the operating characteristics of a data center met the criterion. He noted that Criteria D3 and D5, which staff and the Hearing Examiner found compliant, addressed compatibility and harmony with surrounding permitted uses and stated that he had difficulty finding the proposed use noncompliant with its operating characteristics if it was compliant with those related criteria. Mr. Bates also noted that the applicant presented the facility as a low-impact operation and that, if approved, the City could use conditions to require REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8 JULY 16, 2026 verification and hold the applicant to those representations. He concluded that he did not believe the record supported finding the applicant noncompliant with Criterion D7. In response to questions from Council, Mr. Johnson explained that overturning the Hearing Examiner’s decision would not set a precedent for allowing other data centers in the City, as the conditional use permit application is specific to the subject site and application. He stated that unless the City Code is amended to allow data centers which meet specified criteria, future data center applications would be evaluated separately. In response to questions from Council, Ms. Flynn restated the conditions included in the staff report for CUP26-003. The conditions required compliance with all applicable City Code standards, compliance with applicable regulations for any activity requiring a separate development or building permit, coordination with applicable City departments before submitting a building permit to address required site improvements, and submission of Idaho Power’s impact analysis for power generation and construction to the City once completed. In response to questions from Council, Mr. Johnson explained that under City Code 17.02.130(E)(9), the Council has the authority to require additional studies as a condition of approval. He stated that any required studies would need to be satisfied before final approval of the conditional use permit, with the applicant having two (2) years from the date of approval to satisfy the conditions and the possibility of a one (1)-year extension. Mr. Johnson explained that if an environmental assessment or other study were required as a condition of approval, the applicant could proceed with the studies but would do so at its own risk because final approval would not occur until the condition was satisfied. He said the Council could either delegate to staff the authority to determine whether the conditions had been met or require the applicant to return to the Council for approval. Mr. Johnson noted that the typical practice is to allow staff to make that determination, particularly for studies based on engineering, although the Council could choose a different process given the circumstances. Mr. Paulsen stated that, regarding Criterion D7, estimates provided by the applicant do not establish that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or welfare. He questioned the accuracy of the applicant’s estimated water usage, noting that 350,000 gallons with a 5% evaporation rate seemed unusually low and did not demonstrate that the use would not be detrimental to the City and its residents. In response to questions from Council, Mr. Schultz explained that the 350,000 galions would be a one-time fill for the closed-loop cooling system, which would then be maintained rather than drained and refilled. He said the system would be tested monthly and maintained with the appropriate cooling-system solution, with water usage expected to be relatively low. Mr. Schultz stated that his estimates were based on information from professionals who design these types of systems and that, if approved, the final specifications would be provided to staff and verified through engineering to ensure compliance with applicable City and State requirements. In response to questions about whether a specific company was committed to the project, Mr. Schultz stated that he had multiple potential companies interested and confirmed that he had a signed letter of intent, although the companies were not present at the meeting. Mr. Schultz explained that the proposed seven buildings would be developed as a business park, incorporating some of the existing buildings on the property. He said detailed elevations and designs REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 JULY 16, 2026 had not yet been developed because the project was still in the conditional use permit stage. Mr. Schultz stated that, from an aesthetic standpoint, the buildings would resemble typical industrial or business park buildings, with exterior equipment such as coolers, and would not appear significantly different from other buildings in the area. Mr. Mangum stated that some aspects of the proposal seemed speculative and that there were many unknowns, while also acknowledging the community’s longstanding desire to see the site put to productive use. He noted concerns he had heard regarding the potential impacts to land, air, water, and power consumption, while also recognizing that the FBI operates a data center nearby. He agreed with Council Member Bates regarding the value of the community’s engagement and passion and said he would like to hear from other Council members as deliberation continued. Mr. Nichols stated that he believed the Hearing Examiner met the requirements of the conditional use process. He acknowledged that the applicant provided some general information about data centers but noted that several important, specific questions remained unanswered. Mr. Bates stated that this was a land use decision, not a final design or engineering approval, and that the primary question was whether the proposed use fit within City Code, which City staff had generally determined it did. He expressed concern that affirming the Hearing Examiner’s decision could lead to further appeals and judicial review and potentially expose the City to additional costs. He stated that, in his opinion, the best path forward was to reverse the decision with strict conditions requiring the applicant to comply with the representations and estimates provided and to complete an environmental study before any vertical construction. He also noted that concerns raised by the public regarding noise, vibration, and lighting are not fully addressed in City Code, ° including the lack of a specific decibel standard at the property line. Council Member Bates concluded that, based on the criteria established in the code, he believed the applicant had met the requirements and that reasonable but strict conditions could address the remaining concerns. In response to questions from Council, Mr. Johnson explained that any conditions placed on the conditional use permit would run with the land and would therefore apply to any subsequent applicant using the property. He stated that the conditional use permit would be recorded with Bannock County and attached to the parcel. Ms. Satterfield expressed appreciation to the Council and staff for their time and effort on the matter, noting the importance of getting the decision right for the community. She said the application contained a significant amount of information, but much of it remained vague, making it difficult to make a fully informed decision. Ms. Satterfield said she was not opposed to the data center but wanted more information and agreed with Mr. Bates that the City Code was vague in this area. Mr. Paulsen expressed concern about the City’s ability to monitor and enforce conditions, citing the ongoing difficulty to enforce electronic billboard regulations. He questioned how the City would enforce conditions such as water use and noise restrictions and what recourse the City would have if the facility were built and repeatedly violated those conditions. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10 JULY 16, 2026 In response to questions from Council, Mr. Johnson explained that conditions tied to the permitting and building process can be enforced by withholding a certificate of occupancy or other approval until the conditions are met. He noted that ongoing conditions are more difficult to enforce but would constitute a contractual obligation between the City and property owner, with violations subject to civil remedies. In response to questions from Council, Mr. McLane said ongoing conditions could be monitored through periodic inspections, similar to existing site requirements such as landscaping and stormwater maintenance. He noted that a regular inspection schedule could be established, but the City would be responsible for enforcement. In response to questions from Council, Mr. Johnson explained that if a court found the criteria were applied incorrectly, it would likely remand the matter to the City with instructions, and the ability to impose additional conditions would depend on the court order. He said the Council could amend the City Code and waive the 12-month requirement, but any future application would be subject to the Code in effect when it was submitted. He added that changing the City Code would not be considered punitive, provided the changes were constitutional and enforceable. Mr. Bates said he saw two potential paths for the Council: reverse the Hearing Examiner’s decision with conditions or affirm the decision while modifying the timeframe for reapplication. He noted that Mr. Schultz likely had additional detailed information he could provide but had not been able to present new evidence during the appeal process. Mr. Paulsen said he leaned toward affirming the Hearing Examiner’s decision and using the time before any future application is received to address changes to City Code which establish appropriate regulations for future data centers. Mayor Dahlquist said he believed the City needed time to revise the City Code to better address data centers and establish clear regulations before considering future applications. In response to questions from Council, Mr. McLane said the City Code had been modified extensively over the years, but its original basis was dated in the 1990s. He explained that the City is working toward a complete Code rewrite to modernize it. He confirmed that Al data centers are not specifically addressed in the current City Code. A motion was made by Mr. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Paulsen, to affirm the Hearing Examiner’s decision of Conditional Use Permit CUP26-003, denied by the Hearing Examiner on May 19, 2026, as the Hearing Examiner met the requirements of the conditional use permit process regarding an appeal from Lex Development, represented by Parsons Behle & Latimer. Council members discussed whether to modify the 12-month reapplication timeframe, with some members expressing interest in allowing additional time to review and potentially revise the City Code. The Council ultimately agreed to leave the motion as-is as the 12-month timeframe is established by ordinance. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 16, 2026 In response to questions from Council, Mr. McLane said he estimated the broader Title 17 rewrite could take approximately 18 months and that addressing data centers specifically could take approximately 8 to 12 months. Mr. Bates stated that he remained concerned the applicant could seek judicial review and that the City could lose the opportunity to impose conditions on the development if a court ruled in the applicant’s favor. He noted the applicable appeal and judicial review timeframes and said he was voting against the motion due to concerns about the potential for litigation and costs to taxpayers. Ms. Satterfield expressed concern that judicial review could take the matter out of the Council’s hands and leave the decision to a judge. She said she would vote in favor of the motion but acknowledged that the outcome of any potential judicial review would be uncertain. Mr. Mangum said he concurred with Mr. Bates’s concerns regarding judicial review, noting that the matter falls within the Council’s purview and that the Council should also consider the desires of the community. Mr. Nichols’ motion was voted upon at this time. Upon roll call, those voting in favor were Nichols, Paulsen, Mangum, and Satterfield. Bates voted in opposition. The motion passed. Mayor Dahlquist thanked the Council for its participation and efforts, acknowledging that the process had been difficult and involved significant community participation and extensive study. AGENDAITEMNO. 10: ADJOURN There being no further business, Mayor Dahlquist adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. APPROVED BY: ponte el MARK DAHLQUIST, MA ATTESTED BY: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 12 JULY 16, 2026 PREPARED BY: AUBRIANA T. RESENDES, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Text is extracted by machine from the official file linked on each page; the official file is the record. Sentinel Media, LLC.