On the agenda: Iowa City Board of Supervisors - Joint Meeting (w/ Planning & Zoning Commission) - Jul 22, 2026 — data center (Jul 22)

Board of Supervisors - Joint Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, July 22, 2026
5:30 pm
Joint Meeting
Boardroom 301, Health & Human Services Bldg., 855 S. Dubuque St., Iowa City
Phone: 319-356-6000 | Website: www.johnsoncountyiowa.gov
View livestream: https://www.johnsoncountyiowa.gov/meetings
Participate by joining the Zoom Meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84388010803
Meeting ID: 843 8801 0803
Listen live by dialing (312) 626-6799 (audio only)
A.

Agenda for Joint Meeting between the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of
Supervisors

B.

Welcome
Meetings of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors are open to the public and are generally
livestreamed. To join electronically, please visit johnsoncountyiowa.gov/meetings. Written
comments may be submitted to [email protected]. If you require accommodations to
participate, please contact the Board Office at (319) 356-6000 prior to the meeting. Public comment
is at the discretion of the Chairperson and will be limited to three minutes. Due to public meeting
laws, the Board may only discuss or act on matters presented on this agenda. Welcome.

C.

Call to Order
1. Call to order
2. Roll call, establishment of quorum
3. Approval of agenda

D.

Business from the Public
1. Public comment, limited to 3 minutes per speaker

E.

Joint Meeting Business
1.

F.

Discuss outstanding questions and provide policy direction to staff to finish drafting a
proposed ordinance amendment related to data centers

Adjournment

Agenda

Board of Supervisors - Joint

Wednesday, July 22, 2026

1

Board of Supervisors - Joint Meeting
July 22, 2026
Agenda Item E.1

Department:

Planning, Development and Sustainability Department

Initiator:

Joe Wilensky

Item Owner:

Joseph Wilensky

Item Type:

Information (Update, Report, Presentation)

Item Title:

Discuss outstanding questions and provide policy direction to staff
to finish drafting a proposed ordinance amendment related to data
centers

Item Explanation:

In fall 2025, Planning, Development and Sustainability (PDS) staff
drafted a proposed amendment to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) that would allow Data Centers as a primary use in
commercial and industrial zoning districts, and as a conditional use
for small scale installations in the A-Agricultural zoning district. PDS
staff presented this initial draft to the PZC on October 13, 2025. The
Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) recommended approval of
the draft ordinance with several amendments related to
infrastructure cost allocations, and requirements for power supply,
power quality, and grid stability certifications.
PDS reviewed the draft ordinance and the PZC’s recommendation
with the Board of Supervisors (BOS) at an October 2025 work
session. The BOS elected not to adopt the proposed supplemental
conditions for Data Centers, and instead directed staff to draft a
moratorium prohibiting Data Center permitting so that additional
research could be conducted and presented to the BOS and a more
thorough ordinance amendment could be considered. The
requested moratorium was approved by the BOS in November
2025, pausing Data Center approval and permitting for one
calendar year. The current moratorium expires on November 8,
2026.
PDS staff conducted additional research and presented preliminary
facts and findings to the BOS during a public work session on
December 10, 2025. The BOS provided staff preliminary direction
on some decision points, requested additional information on others
for a future joint work session with the PZC, and requested staff to
arrange for BOS members to visit example Data Centers in Iowa.
See attached memo for more detailed history and specific policy
direction questions.

2

Fiscal Impact:
Budgeted:

N/A

Finance Dept Review:

N/A

County Attorney Office
Review:

Approved

Recommendation:

Provide Planning, Development and Sustainability staff with policy
guidance on identified decision items to inform a potential data
center development ordinance amendment to the Unified
Development Ordinance.

Attachments:

Data Center Joint Work Session Memorandum 2026.07.15.pdf

3

PLANNING,
DEVELOPMENT AND
SUSTAINABILITY
Date:
To:
Re:

JOSH BUSARD
AICP, LEED-AP, CFM
DIRECTOR
NATE MUELLER, AICP, CFM
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

July 15, 2026
Board of Supervisors;
Planning and Zoning Commission
Requested PDS Update on Data Centers for July 22, 2026, Joint Session

This memorandum serves as the requested update on Data Centers by Planning, Development and
Sustainability (PDS) staff. This memo is meant to inform regulatory guidance from the Board of
Supervisors (BOS) and the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) to PDS staff for a Data Center
ordinance amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
The following information is derived from interviews with, and presentations by, local and nationwide planning officials; adopted and draft local and nation-wide Data Center ordinances; professional
journal articles; discussions with Data Center representatives and visits to two Data Center sites;
questions posed to Iowa Utilities Commission staff; national and industry media reporting on Data
Centers and the power sector; and inquiries on emerging Data Center trends and potential impacts
with local, regional, and national non-profit organizations including the Great Plains Institute, the
University of Iowa (UI) Law School, the UI IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering , Run on Climate, the
Tulane Institute on Water and Law Policy, and the Iowa Environmental Council.
This memorandum and today’s discussion include six primary sections:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Actions to Date: A review of previous actions on Data Center regulation by PDS staff, PZC, and
BOS;
Executive Summary
Data Center Visits Observations: An outline of staff observations from site visits to two local
hyperscale Data Centers;
Decision Points: Information related to selected topics on which the BOS requested additional
briefings, with the actual decision points shown in blue and underline;
Settled Items: Confirm items on which the BOS has provided clear policy guidance; and
Next Steps: A timeline for ordinance drafting, public hearing, and consideration, including a
proposed moratorium extension to facilitate the drafting and public hearing process.

A Decision Point Tracking Sheet is also included at the end of this memorandum to facilitate
discussion and guidance by the PZC and BOS.

Action to Date
In fall 2025, PDS drafted a proposed Data Center UDO amendment that would allow Data Centers as
a primary use in commercial and industrial zoning districts, and as a conditional use for small scale
installations in the A-Agricultural zoning district. PDS staff presented this initial draft to the PZC on
913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET, SUITE 250, IOWA CITY, IA 52240-4273
PHONE: (319) 356-6083 FAX: (319) 356-6084

www.johnsoncountyiowa.gov

4

October 13, 2025. The PZC recommended approval of the draft ordinance with several amendments
related to infrastructure cost allocations, and requirements for power supply, power quality, and grid
stability certifications.
PDS reviewed the draft ordinance and the PZC’s recommendation with the BOS in an October 2025
work session. The BOS elected not to adopt the proposed supplemental conditions for Data Centers,
and instead directed staff to draft a moratorium prohibiting Data Center permitting so that additional
research could be conducted and presented to the BOS and a more thorough ordinance amendment
could be considered. The requested moratorium was approved by the BOS in November 2025,
pausing Data Center approval and permitting for one calendar year. The current moratorium expires
on November 8, 2026.
PDS staff conducted additional research and presented preliminary facts and findings to the BOS
during a public work session on December 10, 2025. The BOS provided staff preliminary direction on
some decision points, requested additional information on others for a future joint work session with
the PZC, and requested staff to arrange for BOS members to visit example Data Centers in Iowa.

Executive Summary
This memorandum serves as the requested update on Data Centers by PDS staff to inform the public
and help the PZC and BOS set policy on Data Centers and adopt regulations for their construction and
operation.
PDS staff also recommend extending the existing 12-month moratorium on permitting new Data
Centers to ensure it does not expire during the drafting, review, and consideration process of any
Data Center Ordinance amendment. We suggest a six-month extension of the moratorium until May
8, 2027, to allow time for PDS staff to finish drafting, time for County Attorney staff to review, and
time for the PZC and BOS to notice and hold public hearings on any proposed ordinance
amendments. Consideration and discussion of a possible moratorium extension will be put on a
future, separate BOS meeting for discussion and possible action.
At the July 22nd joint session, PDS staff seek policy guidance on the following topics:
1. Potential zoning classification(s) appropriate for a Data Center;
2. Potential permitting review and approval pathways for a Data Center;
3. Direction on ordinance direction related to Data Center water use including:
o Operational water use; and
o Water balance studies;
4. Power supply ordinance direction for Data Centers as permitted by jurisdictional authority
limitations including:
o Primary power supply,
o Backup power supply,
o Power reliability studies, and
o Power efficiency requirements;
5. Decommissioning and Site Restoration/Reclamation requirements;
6. Data Center size restrictions; and
7. Scope and potential content of Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs).

5

PDS staff believe that sufficient guidance has already been provided by the BOS on the following
items:
1. Prohibition on Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs);
2. Prohibition on Economic Development Agreements;
3. Ordinance requirements for potential construction impacts including:
o Site disturbance, and
o Public road impacts;
4. Site Planning Requirements;
5. Parking provision;
6. Road maintenance agreements (construction and operations);
7. Public road icing;
8. Emergency response training and notification requirements;
9. Waste management (operations and construction);
10. Noise limitations; and
11. Potential airport operations impact.

6

Data Center Visits Observations
Staff arranged two Data Center tours, one at a Meta facility currently operating in Altoona, IA, and a second at a Quality Technology Services
(QTS) facility currently under construction in Cedar Rapids, IA. Both locations are or are planned to be “hyperscale” Data Centers. Staff
toured the facilities with two Supervisors (Supervisors Fixmer-Oraiz and Remington). Altoona City staff accompanied the Meta facility tour
and answered questions from the local authority perspective; no Cedar Rapids staff accompanied the QTS facility tour.
PDS previously presented information to the BOS on Data Center size, with rough sizing categories for structure footprints including
modular container (micro), 5,000 – 50,000 sq ft (enterprise), 50,000 – 600,000 sq ft (co-location), and above 600,000 sq ft (hyperscale—
typically above 1,000,000 sq ft).
Other jurisdictions identify Data Center size as a function of their power requirements rather than structure size. St Louis identifies centers
with power requirements of 5 MW or less (micro), 30 MW or less (standard), and more than 30 MW (major). Linn County defines centers
below 20 MW of power draw as small-scale Data Centers and those above as large-scale Data Centers, with an added qualifier for each
category related to water consumption.
Modern data centers are often described by their power consumption and not by the size of their structures.

META FACILITY – ALTOONA – VISIT DATE MARCH 31, 2026
The Altoona facility is a 60-Megawatt (MW), five-million-plus (5,000,000+) sq ft facility on 500+ acres. The site opened in 2014 and has
undergone at least seven facility expansions since their initial development. Meta is the sole user of their facility.

QTS FACILITY – CEDAR RAPIDS, IA – VISIT DATE APRIL, 13, 2026
QTS is at least a 300-MW facility on 600+ acres with a planned build-out of just under seven-million (7,000,000) sq ft.. The site is currently
under construction and is anticipated to be completed in two phases, with the first phase to be completed in the fall of 2026. The site
includes multiple one-million-plus (1,000,000+) sq ft buildings, including two that are each one mile in length. QTS operates as a service
provider, leasing out server capacity to multiple users. Three primary user types were identified on the tour: Federal and State
governments, co-location/enterprise users, and hyperscale users.

7

OVERVIEW OF TOURS
Item
Zoning &
Permitting

•
•
•

Water Use

•
•

•
•
•

Energy Use
and Power
Supply

•

•

Meta
Data Centers are a permitted use in the M-1
(Limited Industrial) zoning district in Altoona City
Code.
No conditional uses or variances were granted for
the property or use.
Altoona staff can keep up with building permit
review demand for this site without degrading
customer service to other residents.
No external permit inspectors required.
The site uses evaporative cooling and consumes
approximately 150,000 gallons of water a day, 55
million gallons a year (approximately 3 percent of
city water capacity).
City staff note that Meta is not the largest
commercial consumer of municipal water.
Meta’s representative noted that other Meta
facilities use a closed-loop cooling system, with
site-specific features dictating the system used.
Evaporative systems require considerably less
energy than closed loop systems.

MidAmerican services the site, with an existing
agreement where Meta pays for all power
capacity provision, including the creation of an
off-site wind turbine facility to offset their power
use.
Back-up power is provided via on-site diesel
generators.

•
•

•

•

•
•

•

•

QTS
Data Centers are a permitted use in an industrial
zoning district with an accompanying developer’s
agreement.
Some building permit reviews are managed by Cedar
Rapids, while others are done by third party reviewers
with submission of reports to the City.

The site will use a closed-loop cooling system, which
requires an initial “charge” (approximately 1 million
gallons) and a small refresh (between five and ten
percent, 50,000 – 100,000 gallons) every year or two.
Cooling is managed via separated closed loop heat
exchanger similar to home or industrial HVAC systems,
with food-grade glycol used in the chillers (but not the
entire water supply).
This glycol is not regularly replaced or extracted but
may need to be replaced after a period of many years
or decades.
Glycol disposal is managed by recycling businesses and
should not be released untreated into the
environment.
Alliant Energy constructs and manages a power
substation(s) on-site and is developing non-renewable
power generation plants for the grid within their
power generation portfolio.
QTS representatives indicated that 100 percent clean
energy requirements are not feasible nor make
economic sense for a hyperscale Data Center project.

8

•
Community
Benefit
Agreements
(CBAs)

•

Taxes

•

•

•
•
Economic
Development

•

Construction
Impacts

•

Active participation in CBAs focused on tech
adjacent schooling (primary and technical college)
opportunities.
Geographic area benefiting extends beyond
Altoona.
Has a property tax abatement agreement with
Altoona that will soon begin expiring for oldest
buildings.
Provides Payments in Lieu of Taxation (PILOT) in
conjunction with a recent facility expansion
approval.
Altoona staff note that future tax incentives for
further expansions would not be approved.
Site selection centers on specific characteristics
including powered land, workforce and fiber
availability; land costs; and employee
attraction/retention potential.
Site expansion was currently ongoing, but no
specific construction impacts beyond permit
review workload was noted by Meta or city staff.

•
•

•

•

Information on site selection criteria was not provided.

•

QTS maintains the primary road network they use,
including cleaning, maintenance, and snow removal.
Initial road use degraded road surface which QTS
repaved at the request of local jurisdictions.
Construction traffic creates intensive localized
congestion and some speeding concerns (e.g. Fairfax).
Average of more than 4,000 construction workers each
day across a wide range of skills and trades, with a
preference for local union hires.
Out-of-state workers make up most of their workforce
as QTS said they have nearly exhausted the local
workforce and need to import construction workers.
This influx has led to housing shortages in surrounding
communities.

•
•

Jobs

•

•

400 ongoing jobs onsite for a range of positions,
including highly paid engineering to more
modestly-paid facilities management, security,
and food services positions (onsite restaurant for
staff).
Construction jobs have persisted for 10 years.

Back-up power will be provided via on-site diesel
generators.
QTS supports job training programs at Kirkwood
Community College.
QTS funds trail connections, park projects, and postderecho re-vegetation programs in surrounding
jurisdictions.
Cedar Rapids has entered into 20-year, 70 percent
property tax rebate agreement with QTS.

•
•
•

9

•
•

Noise
(Operations)

•
•

Waste
Management

•
•

Landscaping

•
•
•
•

Little to no discernable noise outside of the
facility, including vibrations.
Altoona city staff noted no concerns or complaint
history for noise, including during backup
generator testing.
Altoona staff noted no landfill issues but did not
mention any waste diversion practices.
Graphic Processing Units (GPUs) refreshed every
5-7 years in the facility, with spent GPUs being
recycled/destroyed on premises.

•

500+ acre site with mowed grass and Five+
million sq ft of building footprint.
Extensive on-site stormwater management.
Little use of landscaping to obstruct sight lines of
facility with an ornamental boundary fence.
Small parking provision relative to the facility size.

•

•

•

•
•

When both phases are under construction, onsite
workers will increase to approximately 13,000 workers
for a short time.
Permanent workforce is estimated at approximately
1,000 but is dictated by what their future customers
require.
No operational noise information available as site is
still under construction.

QTS has a waste diversion program for construction
waste, but Linn County Landfill has issued a notice that
their waste segregation requirements have not always
been followed.
GPUs replacement will be managed by individual
clients.
600+ acre site with three constructed structures (two
1.2M sq ft and one 445K sq ft). A second phase should
begin in fall 2026. Total planned sq ft is just under
seven-million sq ft.
Large detention ponds are planned with significant
amounts of tree cover to be planted to help screen
surrounding properties (thousands of trees).
Construction staging takes up a large area, with
existing hardscape for construction parking and
staging to be removed once the site is built out.

10

Decision Points
PDS is requesting BOS and PZC direction on specific decision points in the following policy areas to
inform the final content of a proposed Data Center ordinance.

1. ZONING CLASSIFICATION
Data Centers are large industrial facilities in terms of site design and infrastructure requirements,
though the QTS facility is an exceptionally large example. The County has both limited existing
commercially and industrially zoned areas, and limited commercial and industrial growth areas on the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM), mainly located near incorporated areas and on paved roadways.
Rezoning applications for properties in appropriately designated FLUM areas are accepted by PDS
every month, however amendment opportunities for FLUM growth areas are limited to once a year,
outside of the full Comprehensive Planning process which is only undertaken approximately once
every ten years.
If Data Centers are considered appropriate use for commercially and industrially zoned areas, then
the expected relative size could consume large amounts of currently zoned land – especially for
hyper-scale facilities. Without updating the growth areas on the FLUM, this could potentially restrict
the availability of land within designated growth areas for other commercial and industrial uses to
establish in Johnson County.
Rather than writing into an existing zoning district, the Board created a new rezoning district (the RERenewable Energy zoning district) for utility scale solar operations. The RE-Renewable Energy zoning
district is identified as a “compatible” or “potentially compatible” zoning in multiple specific FLUM
designations, meaning it has more flexibility to potentially locate in different parts of the county. As
part of a rezoning application, applicants are required to include substantial amounts of project
information to provide the PZC, BOS, and the public with a clear picture of their proposal prior to
consideration of the rezoning request.
The creation of a new Data Center zoning district would give the PZC and BOS maximum flexibility to
consider the suitability of a specific parcel or parcel group as part of a rezoning application public
hearing process.
PDS asks for direction on what zoning category for a Data Center would best serve our community.

2. PERMITTING PROCESS
Zoning districts contain primary, accessory, and conditional uses, with primary uses allowable by right
or with an additional approval process, accessory uses by right when a primary use is already
established, and conditional uses permissible only after approval by the Board of Adjustment (BOA)
following a public hearing process. BOA members, like PZC members, are not directly elected but are
appointed by the BOS.
It is possible to stipulate that primary or accessory uses are only allowed contingent on additional
review by the BOS or staff before they may be established. This additional layer of approval allows
the BOS the opportunity to undertake additional suitability review for a proposed project as part of a
public meeting and/or public hearing process. The UDO currently requires additional approval of
11

certain primary uses in the form of administrative approval by the Zoning Administrator. It would be
possible to create a mechanism to require formal approval by the BOS via resolution prior to a new
Data Center use being established.
Conditional uses and primary uses subject to additional approval authority (by the Zoning
Administrator or the BOS) require the most review, while primary and accessory uses which are
allowed by right require the least.
PDS asks for direction on what permitting approval process the Commission and Board would prefer
for Data Centers.

3. WATER USE – WATER OPERATIONS & BALANCE STUDY
This section begins with background on how the DNR permits large user water requests and
information on the two key aquifers in Johnson County. The section then outlines two water-related
decision points.
In Iowa, water withdrawal and disposal is ultimately governed by the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). The DNR’s water use permit review process is focused on larger systems that
extract more than 25,000 gallons per day while smaller wells are permitted by local Public Health
departments. Examples of larger wells include commercial wells, public wells, and municipal water
departments.
Water Use (or Water Allocation) studies are focused on the suitability of a site to provide adequate
potable water supply for a “beneficial use” without an adverse impact on nearby water users or on
the public waters of the State. These reviews are site specific, conducted by the DNR, and can involve
public meetings and site visits in the jurisdiction. Water use permits are issued for no longer than 10
years and the DNR reserves the right to re-consider issued permits if conditions change or concerns
arise. Any approved water use permit requires an annual water use report to be submitted to the
DNR detailing monthly water consumption.
In Johnson County, potable water is often sourced from the Silurian Aquifer, which serves portions of
eastern, central, and northeastern Iowa. In 2024, Johnson County commissioned a report through the
U.S. Geological Survey that indicated that the aquifer is slowly being drawn down (i.e. withdrawal
rates exceed recharge rates). Some water in Johnson County is also provided by the Jordan Aquifer,
for which the DNR has specific requirements and limits for extraction. Recent permit issuances for the
Jordan Aquifer between North Liberty, Coralville, and Cedar Rapids have been very short-term (three
years).
It is expected that any future large water user in the county would request to source potable water
from the Silurian aquifer.
Construction and Water Use
De-watering wells are entirely permitted by the DNR, with regulatory concern largely focused on
proper on-site storage and protection of surface water bodies from contamination via water
discharge. Smaller well permits are readily issued. More individualized reviews are given to sites that
intend to extract larger amounts of water (25,000 gallons or more per day).
12

PDS notes that de-watering wells are permitted and regulated by the DNR, and future developments
will be subject to state regulations.
Operations and Water Use
Data Center water use varies dramatically depending on what type of cooling system is employed.
Evaporative and closed-loop systems are currently the two primary systems used and generally
represent the two ends of the water use spectrum. Evaporative and closed-loop systems present a
trade-off, with evaporative cooling using less power but more water, while a closed loop system uses
more power and less water. As noted by a Meta representative, individual cooling systems are
chosen based on site- and facility-specific considerations including local water supply, facility
workload, power costs, and the environmental features of a specific site (average temperature,
humidity, and potentially subsurface characteristics).
Evaporative cooling systems are the most water-intensive systems and are used by many large
industrial users, including Data Centers, hospitals, and university campuses. Enterprise-sized centers
(5,000 – 50,000 sq ft) consume similar amounts of water as two to three golf courses on an annual
basis.
Closed-loop cooling systems may employ a variety of cooling mechanisms such as geothermal,
community and district heat exchanges, or HVAC processes with segregated water and refrigerant
loops, similar to residential or commercial central air conditioning systems. Closed-loop systems are
typically “charged” (filled) when initially established and require small annual or bi-annual
replenishments as the water in the system is slowly lost (approximately 5 to 10 percent a year). With
a closed-loop system, a site’s water consumption is comparable to an office park or a small number of
residences, with one Montana planning director noting that a hyperscale Data Center in his
jurisdiction annually consumes the same amount of water as approximately five typical residences to
recharge the system (approximately 635,000 gallons a year) Closed-loop systems may need to be
completely refreshed over longer periods, approximately once every ten years.
The Meta facility in Altoona is an example of an evaporative cooling system, consuming
approximately 150,000 gallons of water per day, 55 million gallons per year. As noted by City of
Altoona staff, other industrial users served by the municipality are larger water consumers than the
Meta facility. The QTS facility in Cedar Rapids plans to use a closed-loop, HVAC-style system with
“food-grade” glycol as the refrigerant.
PDS recommends a closed-loop cooling system for Data Centers in Johnson County.
PDS asks for direction on what type of cooling system for Data Centers would best serve our
community.
Water Balance Study
A water balance study requires a water user to identify a proposed water source capacity, potential
demand, and assumed water use. Studies may also include expectations of efficiency measures by
the user, system reliability considerations, and potential use curtailment during supply interruptions
or emergencies. Studies are often prepared by a third party, and if a municipal source is proposed,

13

endorsed or agreed to by the servicing municipality. Linn County has integrated a requirement for a
water balance study in their recently adopted Data Center ordinance, but they are not the only
jurisdiction to have such a requirement.
If a closed-loop cooling system is employed, operational water use is greatly reduced and may make a
water balance study unnecessary. See the “Operations and Water Use” section of this memorandum
for further discussion of closed-loop cooling systems.
PDS asks for direction on whether requiring a water balance study as part of an application package
would best serve our community.

4. ENERGY USE AND POWER SUPPLY – PRIMARY, BACKUP, RELIABILITY, AND EFFICIENCY
This section provides an overview of data center energy use in the context of utility and grid historical
trends and recent or proposed changes. The section then outlines four energy-related decision
points.
Energy Use Discussion
Data Centers, while always large users of power, have historically been integrated into the existing
energy grid without much issue as US energy consumption has declined due to efficiency
improvements and the de-industrialization of our economy. These customers have acted like many
other large users, increasing energy wholesales volumes with existing or limited new infrastructure,
helping to keep energy prices stable or even slightly reducing prices for all users. The recent spike in
Data Center growth, combined with the relative size of these new facilities, threatens to upend this
historic dynamic, requiring large amounts of new generation and supporting infrastructure.
The national grid is managed by regional operators, and each “territory” has different generation and
consumption profiles, and, correspondingly, may see different challenges integrating new large
demand customers such as Data Centers. As regulated monopolies, utilities are required to serve
customers, though users are not guaranteed all requested power immediately. The electrical grid is
balanced around “peak of the peak” power consumption and reliability considerations, so large users
can cause the gird operators and utilities to acquire and install increased capacity and infrastructure
to responsibly manage new loads, even if average system utilization levels seem low (“utilization” is
the amount of power that can be sent over the network divided by the theoretical capacity of the
network).
National movements to require large load customers like Data Centers to pay for their own capacity
and energy transmission infrastructure have arisen, including a voluntary pledge by some large firms
to do so, but have not yet resulted in requirements at the regional or national level.
Locally, representatives from MidAmerican Energy noted in a statement included in the PDS
December 2025 data center presentation that “[MidAmerican Energy]…works with their customers to
help with managing their loads and the costs to serve. Agreements are entered into to help with
managing the risks for all parties involved as well as ensuring other customers are not harmed.” They
further note that “…if a commercial or industrial business requires 10MW or more, then an onsite
substation will need to be built. MidAmerican’s tariff requires a balance between customer
commitments and MidAmerican’s costs. For very large loads, 50 MW and above, MidAmerican has
14

implemented additional customer protections in the form of a load commitment agreement, which
ensures minimum customer payments.”
The Altoona Meta facility has a power draw of 30 MW and the Cedar Rapids QTS facility is planned to
draw 300 MW. Commercial facilities with comparable power draws include an auto assembly plant
(35 MW to 40 MW with a peak of 100 to 200 MW), or a steel manufacturing plant (40 MW to 300
MW depending on processes and equipment). Neither of these examples exist in Johnson County.
The UI power plant has a 39.6 MW capacity.
Primary Power Supply
Data Centers usually draw power directly from a utility that is part of the power grid. Grid-based
power provides reliability and cost-effective production that is difficult to replicate on-site (i.e.
“behind-the-meter”) or from an islanded facility cut off from the grid. Some Data Centers provide onsite power generation sources when the available power for a location is not sufficient for their
purposes. This power bridging is usually for short-term provision while the larger network builds out
available capacity, but some facilities are considering more long-term on-site generation, favoring
speed to power over the reliability a grid connection would provide.
The BOS previously indicated a preference for ordinance requirements that would prohibit data
centers from connecting to the grid, with the intent to protect existing local power customers from
infrastructure or generation costs. The BOS also indicated they would like energy use by data centers
to be from renewable generation sources if possible.
Following discussion with the Iowa Utility Commission, other regional jurisdictions, regional
nonprofits, and the County Attorney’s Office, PDS believes that State and Federal regulations prevent
local jurisdictions from (1) outright preventing a utility customer service request or (2) from requiring
through an ordinance specific renewable energy standards for any entity whether they be from grid
generation resources or on-site “behind the meter” power provision. Development and/or use of
renewable power supply provisions may be possible as part of a negotiated CBA.
PDS asks for direction on whether incentivizing renewable power as part of a Community Benefit
Agreement (CBA) would best serve our community.
Backup Power Supply
Data Center backup power supply is generally provided by diesel generators. It is unclear whether
Johnson County can require back-up power provided by a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) or
some other alternative to diesel generators. Municipalities may regulate when backup generators
may be tested, however. This may also provide an incentive opportunity as part of a negotiated CBA.
PDS asks for direction on whether incentivizing an alternative backup power supply as part of a CBA
would best serve our community.
Power Reliability
According to Douglas Bryan and Colin McCormick, PhD, of Carbon Direct, Data centers can affect grid
reliability in two notable ways. First, to protect their hardware, a Data Center typically installs
equipment that rapidly disconnects and reconnects the Center from the larger grid during

15

fluctuations in power supply or frequency. These disconnections and reconnections can occur during
relatively small power fluctuations that other large customers would typically “ride through”. While a
manageable item in isolation, several systems responding to the same signal with the same action
(“correlated simultaneous disconnection”) may have serious grid reliability impacts.
Second, fluctuating demand for a Data Center’s advanced computing functions can cause large swings
in power demand and grid frequency as a Data Center’s computational work ramps up and down,
impacting the stability of an unprepared electrical grid.
These operational characteristics are serious enough that the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) noted reliability concerns associated with Data Centers in their 2025 State of
Reliability Report and in a recently issued national alert on Computation Load for grid operators.
Locally, representatives from MidAmerican noted, also in their December 2025 statement, “…[i]f a
power draw is too large, energy generators and machinery can be damaged and is on the customer
side the majority of the time. This is not typically an issue with data centers, as they are proactive
and have the experience and expertise to avoid this problem.”
Commissioner Erin Hazen, in her capacity as a member of the PZC, recommended that any Johnson
County Data Center ordinance include a power provision study, prepared by a third party,
documenting that the proposed power source for a Data Center is sufficient to meet the anticipated
demands and operational characteristics of a proposed center and also outlines what steps a Data
Center or utility would take to mitigate or prevent adverse effects on grid voltage, frequency, and
power quality.
PDS asks for direction on if requiring a power provision study as part of a Data Center application
package would best serve our community.
Power Efficiency
A Data Center’s power use may be measured by how efficient their operations are. A standard metric
known as a Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) calculates the total energy consumed by a facility
divided by the power used by their computing equipment. A PUE of 1.5 is a considered “average” for
a Data Center, while a 1.2 PUE reflects a very efficient facility. Alphabet Company (Google) claims an
average PUE of 1.09 across their Data Center facilities.
More efficient facilities may reduce a facility’s power requirements and may reduce the need for new
or upgraded grid infrastructure.
PDS asks for direction on if requiring an operational PUE for a Data Center would best serve our
community.

5. DECOMMISSIONING AND SITE RESTORATION/RECLAMATION
Decommission and site reclamation plans are used to ensure that a specific plan is in place to fully
remove installed infrastructure and return a site to its pre-developed state when a specific facility or
use has reached end of life and/or operations have ceased. Johnson County’s UDO requires this type

16

of plan for BESS, commercial communication towers, commercial wind energy facilities, mining &
mineral extraction, public utility facilities, and utility scale solar facilities.
An assumption for most of these uses (excepting mining & mineral extraction) is that development
impact will be limited in scope and it would be relatively easy for a site to be reverted to a predevelopment state.
Johnson County does not have a decommissioning and site restoration/reclamation plan requirement
for most commercial and industrial uses in the County. The extent of onsite development work and
installed infrastructure makes decommissioning requirements for most commercial and industrial
uses a large undertaking and there is more potential for re-purposing a constructed commercial or
industrial facility than something like a solar field or an abandoned cell tower.
PDS asks for direction on whether requiring a decommissioning and site restoration/reclamation plan
for Data Centers and associated infrastructure (including on-site supporting power supply items)
would best serve our community.
If a reclamation plan is required, there is also the option to include requirements for up front financial
surety to allow the County to execute the prepared decommission & reclamation/restoration plan if
an applicant or user fails to complete said plan in the specified timeline. Financial surety
requirements generally include that a percentage of estimate costs be secured before site
disturbance may begin, with a regular ramping requirement to cover the full decommissioning costs
(plus a contingency) after a certain number of years. The decommission cost estimate would come
from a licensed engineer or other acceptably credentialed source and would be regularly updated to
consider increasing costs over time.
Utility Scale Solar and Commercial Wind Energy Facilities both require financial surety for
decommissioning and site reclamation/restoration, with an optional surety for BESS at the discretion
of the approving body.
Johnson County’s utility scale solar surety requirements include a letter of credit, bond or similar
instrument for 50 percent of the estimated cost before site disturbance may occur, 75 percent of the
cost five years post-approval regardless of when site disturbance commences, and 100 percent of the
estimated cost at year eleven. Every ten years from approval the cost estimate must be updated, with
a 90-day “true-up” window following the updated estimate.
If a Decommissioning & Site Restoration/Reclamation Plan is required, PDS asks for direction on
whether a financial surety requirement at the time of permitting would best serve our community.

6. DATA CENTER SIZE RESTRICTIONS
PDS previously presented information to the BOS on Data Center size, with rough sizing categories for
structure footprints including modular container (micro), 5,000 – 50,000 sq ft (enterprise), 50,000 –
600,000 sq ft (co-location), and above 600,000 sq ft (hyperscale—typically above 1,000,000 sq ft).
Other jurisdictions identify Data Center size as a function of their power requirements. St Louis
identifies centers with power requirements of 5 MW or less (micro), 30 MW or less (standard), and 30

17

MW or more (major). Linn County defines centers below 20 MW of power draw as small-scale Data
Centers and those above as large-scale Data Centers, with an added qualifier for each category
related to water consumption.
PDS asks for direction on whether a limit on size of Data Centers would best serve our community.
If so, should facility size be a consideration during CBA negotiations.

7. COMMUNITY BENEFIT AGREEMENTS (CBAS)
A Community Benefit Agreement, or CBA, is a legally binding contract between a private developer
and a community organization or approving body that outlines specific enhancements, impact
mitigation steps, and/or local investments made by the developer in exchange for support or
approval of a development project. A CBA may support public infrastructure, services, environmental
protection, workforce development, housing development, and/or other community benefits as
determined by the community or governmental authority authorized to enter into an agreement.
An economic development incentive or agreement, in contrast, primarily serves as an incentive
package to entice companies to locate in a jurisdiction. The difference between a CBA and an
economic development agreement may be primarily seen as one of leverage. Communities use CBAs
to offset the impacts, or enhance the local benefits, of a project when a company wants to locate in
their region; whereas an economic development agreement is used when a community wants to
attract a company in the first place and is willing to offer incentives to do so. Either agreement type
may be used to get the right deal or development for a region, and entering into neither, one, or both
types of agreements with a prospective Data Center is entirely up to the BOS.
The BOS has previously stated that CBAs should be a requirement of an ordinance, and that
economic development incentive packages should not be considered (see Settled Items 2).
While the full scope of a CBA may be broad, these agreements are not necessarily a carte blanche
wish list for communities. Any item identified as a requirement for approval must have a reasonable,
logical connection between a development impact related or attributable to the project and a
legitimate government interest to protect the health, safety, and/or welfare of the public. This is
known as a “rational nexus”.
Provisions for items without a rational nexus are possible, but they must either be a voluntary
offering by the developer or come paired with a specific incentive provided by the community.
Incentives need not only be financial and may take the form of additional flexibility or allowances in
an ordinance.
For example:
• An ordinance requirement protecting water quality or quantity in response to a
Comprehensive Plan goal to protect potable water supply has a rational nexus.
• A requirement that a developer must provide all community members with an annual stipend
or dividend would not have a rational nexus.

18

•

Increasing the permissible size of a Data Center in exchange for the deployment of renewable
energy resources or a BESS for backup power provision would be a provision paired with an
incentive.

PDS asks for direction on whether flexibility in an ordinance should be considered to allow
negotiations as part of a required CBA.
If so, direction where flexibility in the ordinance would be agreeable is also sought.

Settled Items
Staff feel we were given adequate direction on the following topics during the December 2025 public
meeting, and PDS is incorporating these items into the draft Data Center ordinance requirements
unless otherwise noted.

1. NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS (NDAS)
The BOS previously expressed a desire that non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) not be allowed for any
County projects or projects related to development applications, not just those involving Data
Centers. Development of an overall policy should engage the BOS Office and the County Attorney’s
Office as it applies to all County projects and not be part of an isolated UDO amendment.

2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES
The BOS previously expressed a desire for no economic development incentives associated with a
Data Center project. This position may impact the scope of a CBA, as has been previously outlined in
this memorandum.

3. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
The BOS previously expressed a desire for ordinance language to mitigate Data Center construction
impacts, including ground disturbance and public road impacts due to construction equipment and
materials transportation.

4. SITE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
Johnson County requires specific site planning considerations that govern hard surfacing, road
widths, screening, parking and loading area provision, and compliance with adopted sensitive areas
and stormwater management standards. To uphold these County priorities, PDS intends to require
that a Data Center comply with the UDO’s full Site Plan requirements regardless of the permitting
pathway.

5. PARKING
Johnson County’s UDO contains minimum off-street parking standards for a variety of uses, generally
tied to the floor area of the buildings and/or the number of employees on site. Data Centers have a
large footprint in relation to their employee counts. To avoid overprovision of parking and hardscape,
PDS intends to create a specific off-street parking standard for Data Centers.

6. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
The BOS previously expressed a desire that ordinance language clearly specify that developers must
work closely with County and other impacted jurisdictions’ staff to identify and mitigate public road
19

impacts, including potential roadway upgrades and traffic controls to accommodate increased
average annual daily traffic counts.

7. PUBLIC ROAD ICING
Linn County has experienced icing along the public road frontage of commercial facilities, potentially
due to evaporative cooling systems that increase ambient air humidity in colder months. PDS intends
to require coordination between an applicant and Secondary Roads to prevent public road icing, if
any, due to Data Center operations.

8. EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The BOS previously expressed a desire for ordinance language to ensure proper emergency response
for a Data Center, including how to respond to a diversity of primary and back-up energy sources onsite. PDS will include such requirements with input from appropriate sources.

9. WASTE MANAGEMENT
The BOS previously expressed a desire for ordinance language to ensure responsible construction and
operation waste management. PDS will consider and incorporate best practices from other
jurisdictions.

10. NOISE LIMITATIONS
The BOS previously expressed a desire for ordinance language for limits on facility and accessory
structure noise levels, including noise during back-up generation testing, using existing UDO
benchmarks as a reference.

11. AIRPORT OPERATIONS IMPACTS
The BOS has previously expressed a desire for ordinance language to ensure local airport operations
are not impacted by Data Center operations.

Next Steps, including Proposed Moratorium Extension
Any proposed amendments to the UDO require a public hearing process consistent with Iowa Code
and the County’s ordinance. This includes two public hearings: the first of which is before the PZC
where they will consider the proposed amendment and vote on a recommendation of approval,
denial, or approval with specific modifications. This recommendation is then provided to the BOS,
which in turn holds another public hearing on the amendment and then votes to approve, deny, or
approve with modifications.
The BOS’s decision will require three readings of the ordinance spread over multiple (typically
successive) meetings, as well as publication of the final adopted text in the County’s paper of record
after it is voted on before becoming effective.
Staff anticipate that drafting an ordinance amendment responsive to feedback received at the July
22, 2026, joint work session should be completed in the fall of 2026. This would allow for public
hearings and consideration by the PZC and BOS in late 2026 and early 2027. Final readings and
publication of any adopted ordinance in the paper of record would follow. Either the PZC or the BOS
could defer consideration and/or continue their public hearing to a subsequent meeting if they feel

20

additional information or public comment on the proposed ordinance is warranted. The BOS may also
defer the second and/or third reading of an ordinance following the public hearing.
The existing Data Center moratorium expires on November 8, 2026. If the moratorium expires before
an ordinance amendment is adopted and effective, a developer could potentially submit an
application for a new Data Centers under the current ordinance – which is a permitted use in the MH
– Heavy Industrial and the ML – Light Industrial zoning districts, subject to the County’s Site Planning
requirements but without any specific supplemental conditions or unique requirements.
To prevent the expiration of the moratorium and the potential submission of an application while a
proposed amendment is moving through the public hearing process, staff recommend that the BOS
extend the current moratorium on the approval of new data centers for an additional six months.
This would put a new expiration date of May 8, 2027. If so directed, staff would place consideration
of a possible moratorium extension on a future, separate BOS meeting for discussion and possible
action.
Respectfully,

Joseph Wilensky, AICP, CFM
Planner
Planning, Development and Sustainability
Cc:

Erin Shane, Executive Director, Board of Supervisors Office
Josh Busard, PDS Director
Lynn Rose, Assistant County Attorney

21

Decision Point Determination Tracking Sheet
1
2
3A
3B

4A

4B

4C

4D
5A

5B

Decision Point
PDS asks for direction on what zoning category for a Data
Center would best serve our community.
PDS asks for direction on what permitting approval process the
Commission and Board would prefer for Data Centers.
PDS asks for direction on what type of cooling system for Data
Centers would best serve our community.
PDS asks for direction on whether requiring a water balance
study as part of an application package would best serve our
community.
PDS asks for direction on whether incentivizing renewable
power as part of a Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) would
best serve our community.
PDS asks for direction on whether incentivizing an alternative
backup power supply as part of a CBA would best serve our
community.
PDS asks for direction on if requiring a power provision study as
part of a Data Center application package would best serve our
community.
PDS asks for direction on if requiring an operational PUE for a
Data Center would best serve our community.
PDS asks for direction on whether requiring a decommissioning
and site restoration/reclamation plan for Data Centers and
associated infrastructure (including on-site supporting power
supply items) would best serve our community.
If a Decommissioning & Site Restoration/Reclamation Plan is
required, PDS asks for direction on whether a financial surety
requirement at the time of permitting would best serve our
community.

Determination

22

6A

6B
7A

7B
8

PDS asks for direction on what size of Data Center would best
serve our community, independently of or in coordination with,
CBA negotiations.
If so, should facility size be a consideration during CBA
negotiations.
PDS asks for direction on whether flexibility in an ordinance
should be considered to allow negotiations as part of a required
CBA.
If so, direction where flexibility in the ordinance would be
agreeable is also sought.
Should PDS draft a moratorium extension?
If so, for how long?

23