Fresno City Council Meeting - September 3, 2026

The Fresno City Council met in regular session on Thursday, September 3, 2026, at 9:00 AM in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street. Council President Nelson Esparza presided; Vice President Tyler Maxwell and Councilmembers Annalisa Perea, Mike Karbassi, Miguel Angel Arias, Brandon Vang, and Richardson were present. The agenda included a proclamation, a large consent calendar with several contested items, a workshop on growth and infrastructure (referred to in the record as the “SATA workshop”), a proposed data center prohibition ordinance, and a closed session. The record notes that roll call votes would not be required for part or all of the meeting because of remote appearances.

Note on sources: The available transcript is a partial OCR extract with gaps, cut-off sentences, and inconsistent name spellings (e.g., City Manager “Georgeanne A.” / “Georgian White”; City Clerk “Aller”). Where speakers are not identifiable, this summary uses neutral phrasing such as “a speaker” or “one councilmember.”

Proclamation

• Vice President Maxwell sponsored a proclamation designating Thursday, September 3, 2026, as “Dr. [Name] Day” in honor of a doctor who returned to Fresno to help young people from families without a background in higher education. The proclamation was issued by Mayor Dyer and the Fresno City Council; Councilmember Annalisa Perea took part in the presentation. The honoree’s name is partially illegible in the transcript.

Consent Calendar and Contested Items

• City Clerk Aller explained that e-comments submitted through Granicus are compiled into a packet for councilmembers up to 9:00 AM the day before the meeting; later comments are still delivered into the record and are “not in any way removed from the system,” although the public tally freezes at the deadline.
• Several items were pulled for separate consideration: Councilmember Richardson pulled line #1; Councilmember Arias pulled an additional item; and Item 20 (ID 26-1194), adopting the 17th Amendment to Annual Appropriation Resolution No. 2026-159, was also moved to the contested consent calendar.
• Vice President Maxwell moved to reconsider a prior action; the motion was seconded by President Esparza and passed 7-0.
• The consent calendar, including the contested items, was ultimately adopted. Recorded votes were all in the affirmative, with tallies of 5-0, 6-0, and 7-0 appearing in the minutes; no dissenting votes are recorded.

Public Comments and Testimony

• A speaker from Image Church (Fresno Street) voiced support for the data center ban, applauded Councilmember Richardson’s work on the item, and asked the Council to strengthen enforcement under Fresno Municipal Code Section 603, the city’s emergency ordinance.
• A speaker raised concerns about a licensed contractor who had operated in Fresno and about “families across California who paid for homes they received,” referencing a perceived “gap” in oversight before a point of order interrupted the comment.
• A speaker accused the city of “doctoring the numbers” and asked, “How are we going to power any of this?” with reference to data centers and growth.
• A speaker urged the Council to prioritize small businesses over big-box retail and to give small businesses access to ownership of restaurants and commercial storefronts.
• A speaker expressed distrust of the Council’s process, saying the Council was “smarter than just passing stuff … without any information” and that a commission proposal had been pushed through before the public could review it.
• A speaker named Mike Betts was recognized; his remarks were not captured in the available transcript.

Data Center Prohibition Ordinance

• Councilmember Richardson brought forward a proposal to prohibit data centers in the City of Fresno. Council discussion addressed:
  • A 10-year prohibition: “No land in the city of Fresno will support this use, at least for the next 10 years.”
  • An amendment applying the prohibition to territory annexed to the city after the ordinance’s effective date. One councilmember clarified that the intent is to ensure the ban continues to apply when the city annexes county land, so data centers cannot be built just outside the city and later brought in through annexation.
  • Exemptions for hospitals with internal server rooms, City Hall’s ISD data-storage room, and businesses for which a server room is an “auxiliary use” internal to a primary operation (e.g., distribution or manufacturing).
  • A complementary option: including in the resolution a statement that the city would not provide services (such as utilities) to data centers located outside the city in the county.
  • A councilmember asked whether the city’s own server room would fit the definition. City Attorney Janz responded that an applicant could argue it does not, because the proposal targets data centers as a primary use; he also noted that a director’s determination on such questions could be challenged.
• The Council’s final vote on this item is not clearly captured in the transcript, but no opposition to the direction was recorded.

SATA Workshop: Growth, Infrastructure, and Density

• Vice President Maxwell, Councilmember Perea, and Councilmember Karbassi were credited with negotiating a tax-sharing agreement with the county in which the city received/handled 62% of [sentence cut off in transcript].
• Participants discussed Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) on newer developments, which impose additional property taxes used to fund street maintenance, tree trimming, and similar services.
• Planning staff member “Nick” explained that developers may build at any density within the low-to-high range for a zone, but may not go below the minimum or above the maximum.
• One participant estimated that city-run infrastructure work costs “probably 20 to 30 percent higher than what we would do if we were in a bidding scenario,” and that the trunk lines used as a financing mechanism took “more than five, six, seven years to pay back.”
• Street-design details were noted: “they fit in the street, the sewer is generally in the middle, and we offset the water line to one side.”
• One councilmember said, “I am in a position to look at this plan from the perspective of the people who I represent,” observed that residents in some parts of the city are upset that development is planned “in a different part of the city,” and raised concerns about tying the hands of future councilmembers through long-term obligations.
• A public commenter referenced the city’s and county’s next 30 years of growth.

Closed Session

• The City Attorney read the closed session items. The case “Richard Fitzgerald v. City of Fresno” (agenda subdivision D, subsection one) was continued to the September 17, 2026, meeting by the City Attorney’s Office.
• The Council then held a closed session with the Mayor, the City Attorney (serving as City Negotiator, along with Council President Esparza), the City Attorney Investigator, and the City Clerk. No reportable action from the closed session appears in the available minutes.

Key Outcomes

• Consent calendar and contested items adopted; all recorded votes affirmative (5-0, 6-0, and 7-0).
• Data center prohibition ordinance advanced with direction on annexation applicability, a 10-year horizon, and auxiliary-use exemptions (the record does not confirm a final adoption vote).
• Closed session litigation item continued to September 17, 2026.
• Proclamation issued designating September 3, 2026, as “Dr. [Name] Day.”