The Jefferson County Council passed data center development regulations 5-1 on its first reading, while also reversing many of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s amendments and adding new amendments of their own.
At the April 13 meeting, council members introduced nine amendments to the regulations, passing three of them. The council will vote on the bill two more times before it’s finally passed, likely at the April 27 regular meeting.
The bill, which would be added to the county’s Unified Development Order, provides a regulatory framework for the county on data centers, addressing concerns on noise, water and light pollution, building and design standards, setbacks, zoning and others.
Councilman Tim Brown (District 6, De Soto) voted against the bill, citing his disagreement with the final section of the regulations on community benefit agreements (CBA). Councilman Charles Groeteke (District 4, Barnhart) abstained from the vote.
Brown said the CBA, specifically the project labor agreement (PLA) portion, could potentially increase the county’s risk of lawsuits from developers. A PLA is a collective bargaining agreement between construction unions and contractors that governs terms and conditions for employment, according to the AFL-CIO.
“I heard words like ‘coercion,’ ‘extortion’ and ‘unlawful’ used very specifically to PLAs,” Brown said. “We have many people working for this county who believe that those terms apply to this, and we’re going to approve that, then I believe that’s a problem with this council.”
“I’m not up here to say what’s lawful or unlawful,” added County Counselor Jalesia F. M. Kuenzel. “I’m not going to do that, but I will say this is risky.”
Nevertheless, several of the council members who voted to approve the regulations said the bill was a step in the right direction for the county. Councilman Brian Haskins (District 1, High Ridge) pointed to Virginia as a good example of what could happen in Jefferson County.
“Virginia is home to the largest number of data centers in the country,” he said. “It’s half the size of Missouri and has 700 data centers. What’s amazing about all those data centers, all that development, my gosh, that little bitty state of Virginia – their population has been increasing every year for the last 25 years. It might sound a little spooky, but people are still moving to Virginia. They seem to be doing OK.”
Councilman Billy Crow (District 2, Arnold) compared the county’s situation to Festus’. The Festus City Council on March 30 approved a development agreement with CRG Acquisition, allowing a data center to be built on 361 acres north of Hwy. 67 and west of Hwy. CC. The development has become a source of controversy, with many individuals and groups speaking out against the project.
Data center opposition group Wake Up Jeffco filed a lawsuit against Festus and CRG Acquisition on April 8, seeking to invalidate the council’s actions and stop the project.
“Seeing what Festus has gone through, we are not passing something (because) a data center is coming to our door,” Crow said. “What we are doing is being proactive and making sure there is good legislation on the books so we can do our best for the economic development of the community, while also protecting our citizens.”
“We are leaps ahead of anybody else, I think, in the whole state of Missouri, in taking the proactive approach to these data centers,” added Councilman Bob Tullock (District 7, House Springs).
Amendments
The first amendment to the bill, proposed by Crow, passed 5-2, with Groeteke and Brown voting “no.” The amendment reverses a P and Z decision on setbacks. Crow amended the regulations to allow a data center to be built no more than 500 feet from a residential property line. P and Z had previously expanded the residential setback to 1,000 feet.
“We, along with the County Services Department and (Director Mitch Bair), took a long time looking at what other communities are doing, what they’ve done,” Crow said. “These numbers we came up with weren’t necessarily arbitrary. Hearing the P and Z discussion on why they wanted it to move back to 1,000, I feel like that seemed arbitrary, and we were thoughtful about it and had good reasoning behind it.”
The second amendment, proposed by Groeteke, died for lack of a second. It would have entirely deleted the CBA from the regulations.
Brown then proposed Amendment 3, on setbacks, which failed 2-5. Groeteke and Brown voted for it, with the rest of the council voting “no.” The amendment would have added a stipulation requiring a written agreement between developers and nearby residents if the 1,000-foot setbacks are to be reduced.
Crow proposed Amendment 4 on building heights, which passed 6-1, with Groeteke abstaining from the vote. This amendment reversed P and Z’s decision to limit all data center building heights to 50 feet.
Instead, data center building heights will be determined based on the Jefferson County Master Plan, which divides the county into growth areas. Data centers built in the urban growth area will be allowed a maximum building height of 80 feet, akin to a three-story building. Data centers in the suburban growth area will be allowed a 70-foot height, and developments in the rural growth area will be allowed a 50-foot height.
The fifth amendment, proposed by Groeteke, failed 2-4, with Groeteke and Brown voting in favor and Tullock abstaining from the vote. The amendment would have removed the CBA from the regulations and instead referred builders to the developer agreements already written into the county’s code.
“This amendment is a backup amendment,” Groeteke said. “I assumed my first amendment I proposed would fail. So, this was a compromise amendment so we could fall back on what’s currently in our county code.”
“If we put something like (the CBA) in place, into the land-use area in our regulations, you essentially open the door for every development,” Brown added. “If you’re going to allow it for one type of industry, why not for everybody?”
Brown’s Amendment 6 failed 3-4, with Councilwoman Lori Arons (District 3, Imperial), Groeteke and Brown voting for it. The amendment would have required the developer to provide a publicly available CBA before the planning and zoning meeting to approve the development, among other things.
“(In the CBA), we’re forcing somebody to do things that are unrelated to the development itself,” Brown said. “(Amendment 6) says we’re not going to force you; we will encourage you to do these things, but we’re not going to force you in order to get your permits.”
Groeteke’s Amendment 7 on building heights failed 3-4, with Groeteke, Arons and Brown supporting.
Amendment 8, also from Groeteke, would have protected denser residential developments around data centers, he said. The measure failed 1-6, with Groeteke casting the sole “yes” vote. Brown commented that the amendment “was a bit too complex.”
The last amendment to the bill, proposed by Groeteke, stated that developers must identify archaeological sites on their property. If human remains are found, developers must notify the proper officials, follow state laws and cease construction activities near the graves. The measure narrowly passed 4-3, with Haskins, Crow and Councilman Tim Bennett Jr. (District 5, Festus) voting against.
Brown called the amendment a timely protection, citing rumors that there may be an unmarked grave on the land CRG is planning to develop into a data center in Festus.
“We see a potential problem on the Festus site,” he said. “This could help further guide us if that situation were to occur in any future properties.”