Aurora City Council Study Session - September 15, 2026

This study session covered the consent calendar, a resolution opposing Colorado Proposition 132, an ordinance on turf and water conservation, and extensive discussion on data center regulations including classification, setbacks, and screening requirements.

Consent Calendar

• Item 2C was pulled by Mayor Partino for clarification on the appointment process. It was moved to the next study session without objection. All other consent items (2A–2B, 2D–2H) were approved as part of the consent calendar.

Discussion Items

• 3A – Resolution opposing Colorado Proposition 132 (mandatory minimum sentences for fentanyl possession). Councilmember Horton introduced the resolution, arguing it lacks evidence-based effectiveness, increases overdose risk by discouraging Good Samaritan calls, strips judicial discretion with minimum sentences of 8–32 years, and would cost taxpayers $433 million over five years. Councilmember Lawson and Hancock opposed the resolution, citing $13.1 billion in total costs from the fentanyl crisis and the need to hold dealers accountable. The resolution advanced to the regular meeting with additional research after a vote: 5 in favor (Horton, Jackson, Andrews, Mayor Partino, and one other) and 3 opposed (Bergen, Gardner, Hancock, Lawson? – tally from transcript: 4 objections but later 5 supporters counted).
• 3B – Ordinance on installation of new turf and ornamental water features. Marshall Brown, General Manager of Rural Water, explained the ordinance expands the prohibition of cool-season turf (Kentucky bluegrass) to backyards and clarifies that ornamental water features are prohibited for new development (forward-looking). Spray irrigation restrictions were also detailed. The item moved forward without objection.
• 5A – Data center standards discussion. Staff presented options for classifying data centers by scale (25 megawatt threshold), measuring setbacks (from generators/chillers to residential zone district, including public right-of-way and dedicated open space), and setting a minimum distance. Council debated using square footage vs. megawatts; the 25 MW threshold was adopted. Setback measurement: from generators/chillers to residential zone district, with exceptions for right-of-way and open space. Setback distance: 350 feet was proposed and approved (5 in favor: Bergen, Gardner, Lawson, Hancock, Andrews; 3 opposed: Horton, Jackson, Mayor Pro Tem? unclear but outcome is 350 feet). Equipment screening: a requirement for a screen wall around ground-mounted equipment was directed, with alternative compliance options. All moved forward to staff for drafting.
• 5B – Rules discussion and planning/zoning commission vacancies were postponed to the next study session (September 28) to allow time for the data center discussion.

Key Outcomes

• Consent item 2C postponed to the next study session.
• Resolution opposing Proposition 132 advanced to the regular meeting with additional research to be provided by Councilmember Horton.
• Ordinance on turf and water features moved forward to formal adoption.
• Data center regulations: direction to staff to draft an ordinance with a 25 MW classification threshold, setback measurement from generators/chillers to residential zone district (including right-of-way and open space), a 350-foot minimum setback, and screening requirements for ground-mounted equipment. Staff will return with a draft.