Data center petition falls short

A recent petition seeking to add three questions to this year’s general election ballot, one of which deals with data centers, failed to receive enough verified signatures in order to move forward.

The representative for the Initiative Petition Committee met with the city clerk on the evening of June 26, the deadline for the signatures to be dropped off to the city clerk.

Regarding the initiative called “Voter Approval Required for Data Centers,” the petition contained 1,284 signatures. However, a minimum of 1,541 valid signatures were required for sufficiency.

“Because the petition did not contain enough signatures to meet the statutory requirement, the petition committee representative chose not to formally submit it for signature verification,” the city said in a statement to the Review. “Regarding the other two proposed initiatives, the committee representative, likewise, did not submit them to the city clerk, acknowledging they had well below the number of signatures required for sufficiency.”

According to the city, under Nevada Revised Statutes initiative petitions must be signed by registered voters equal to at least 15% of the number of voters who participated in the preceding city election. At the Nov. 5, 2024, general election, 10,272 votes were cast from 12,228 registered voters, establishing the required threshold of 1,541 signatures.

The citizen initiative regarding data centers sought to require majority voter approval in the general election before the city approves any type of agreement to build a data center exceeding 10,000 square feet on city-owned land retroactive to Jan. 1, 2026.

The other two questions that sought signatures dealt with a charter amendment to provide that the municipal judge is not a separately appointed city office, but instead is appointed ex-officio and filled by the elected justice of the peace.

The other asked that the city’s municipal golf courses be operated as a self-supporting enterprise fund.

Brynn deLorimier, who spearheaded the three ballot initiatives, said she’s proud of the grassroots movement and appreciates all the volunteers and supporters.

“Although we did not reach the 1,541 signatures needed to qualify our initiative for the November ballot, 1,284 Boulder City voters signed the official petition,” she said. “A heartfelt thank you to every volunteer who spent hours collecting signatures in extreme summer heat—I am beyond grateful for neighbors like you.”

deLorimier said that even though they did not receive enough signatures on any of the three, specifically the one for data centers, she’s hoping the community is “more aware of the detrimental effects of data centers on a community.”

“We are asking the council to uphold the planning commission’s recommendation to deny the TS2 application, and to adopt a moratorium on all current and future data center proposals, at least until voters can weigh in on the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area ballot question this November,” she said.

“I hope the council will respect the community’s desire to be heard before any reckless and irreversible decisions are made.”

In late May, the Boulder City Planning Commission voted to recommend denial to city council to allow a data center to be built by Townsite Solar 2 LLC on 88.5 acres of city-owned land in the Eldorado Valley. Council will be discussing the matter at its July 14 meeting.

What is on the ballot

Boulder City residents will consider a ballot question this November about whether data centers can proceed in what’s known as the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area. To move forward with a new type of project for that 107,400-acre land area, according to the Boulder City charter, voters must approve it as an acceptable land use.

It does not apply to the proposed Townsite Solar 2 data center, which is outside of that zone.

Data centers will be one of two questions on the ballot. They are:

Question 1: Should data center facilities be an approved land use within the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area outside of the Multi-species Habitat Conservation Easement?

Question 2: Shall the city of Boulder City be authorized to expand available funds from the Capital Improvement Fund in an amount up to 50% of the most recent audited fiscal year’s ending cash balance in the Capital Improvement Fund each year in place of the previously-authorized amount of $1,000,000 per year for capital improvement projects for the benefit of Boulder City residents and visitors?