OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee Meeting - July 9, 2026: Data Center Regulations (Board Bill 49) Advanced

Board of Aldermen Committees — Thursday, July 9, 2026
BodySt Louis, Missouri
SessionBoard of Aldermen Committees
DateThursday, July 9, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:12:18

Transcript — Verbatim
0:02

Good morning.

0:03

We're gonna call today's housing, urban development and zoning committee meeting to order.

0:08

Madam Clerk, please call the row.

0:09

Alderman Cone.

0:12

Alderman's Weitzer.

0:14

President.

0:17

Vice Chair Sonier.

0:20

Alderman Browning.

0:22

Alderman Aldridge.

0:24

Present.

0:25

Claire.

0:26

Chair Clark Hubbard.

0:27

Here.

0:28

We have four present.

0:29

All right, for present.

0:30

We have a quorum.

0:31

We're gonna move the agenda around and do the approval of minutes at the end.

0:35

So Alderman Ms.

0:36

Weisser, you are recognized on Board of Board Bill 49 as the mandate in committee.

0:56

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee.

0:59

I appreciate again the time everyone is spending on this bill and data center regulations in general.

1:07

Unlike the Alderwoman from the 7th, who always puts together a great presentation.

1:10

It's not generally my style to do a PowerPoint, but I did want to make sure that everyone in the room would be able to see the words that I'm saying as well, so there's less confusion afterwards, if any.

1:20

So next slide, please.

1:25

There have been some information out there about the difference things this bill does and does not do.

1:31

So I wanted to create a slide here that has some of those things really expounded upon.

1:38

There have been some folks who are saying that this bill bans data centers.

1:42

That is not true.

1:43

There is no ban of data centers in this bill.

1:46

Uh data centers from you know any number of megawatts, uh, even from you know, at zero to five in the micro category, uh, five to up to 30 in the standard category, and then 30 and above in the major category, all have different places in the city that they would be conditionally allowed.

2:05

Um what this bill does do is it strives to regulate data centers as a land use.

2:10

So the more impactful that land use is, the more requirements that that data center has.

2:14

So standard and major data centers use more energy uh than the majority of industrial uses in the city uh to date, which is why there are more requirements on those on those than in the micro level, uh, and as well as fewer places that those can go.

2:30

Um it is also true that each data center application would be evaluated on its own merits, which some projects would be approved and some would not.

2:38

Uh the application requirements and the renewable energy requirements are all things that each project would have to demonstrate that it can meet, as well as all the reporting requirements and and different um things that are how the data center would be built, how the noise would be dealt with, all of those things will be specific to each project, and each project would be evaluated separately.

2:58

So, yes, that would likely mean that some projects would be approved and some would not be approved.

3:02

Um that would be um because these are all conditional and they all go through the Board of Public Service.

3:08

Uh that is um just the process that has been outlined.

3:11

Uh just like uh any other conditional process that happens in the city, there are some projects that you know uh are are permitted conditionally and some that are not, and it would be the same type of project.

3:24

Um I know in my experience there have been different times markets have been that are conditionally allowed in certain areas have been approved or not approved, depending on the various conditions of of that specific land use, which is what this bill tries to get at to see whether the project is something that would be a benefit to the city of St.

3:43

Uh it is also true in the bill that current data centers are able to continue operation.

3:48

Uh there are certain requirements that are triggered, uh certain requirements of of these regulations that are triggered by structural alterations and expansions, those are outlined in the bill.

3:58

Uh, we've worked really closely with current data center operators to make sure that everyone understands uh understands the requirements that would be triggered and agrees that they're possible to um implement uh at the uh at the time of this alteration or expansion.

4:13

Uh we do have um an amendment that clarifies a few things even further uh at the request of some of the data center operators.

4:22

Uh there it is true that this bill does cap this the physical size of data center, 500,000 square feet.

4:29

That is currently the only quote unquote cap that exists in the bill.

4:33

In the planning commission, there was an attempted amendment uh that I I proposed with the with the support of Alderman Sonier and Christina Ramendia to prohibit uh of the president's office to prohibit major data centers of 30 megawatts and above.

4:46

But that amendment failed.

4:47

Um, the reason that I I offered that amendment was because of my concern of uh the you know large expansion of the type of land that we currently see with data centers, which in the city of St.

5:00

Louis, with the exception of one that is being built, are all under 10 megawatts.

5:02

And we we know that that is a um, you know, we we know that they're operating.

5:07

Uh we we understand that there are certain requirements that should be put on on new data centers and triggered with certain requirements are met.

5:13

Uh but once it gets to that 30 megawatt and above category, I still believe that it's not something that should be uh permitted in the city at this time because of the impact of the land use.

5:23

Uh but again, that failed at the planning commission, and it doesn't seem to have the votes of the Board of Alderman at this time.

5:29

Um it is also true that there are renewable energy requirements in this bill for standard and major data centers.

5:36

Uh, some have said that the renewable energy requirements are creating a de facto ban or a ban by another, and the micro data centers are not impacted by the renewable energy requirement.

5:47

So that's simply false just from the onset because micro data centers would not have to meet that.

5:53

And then the standard in major data centers could be anything from five megawatts all the way up to a much higher megawatt threshold.

6:01

I understand that there are some difficulties associated with meeting renewable energy requirements, um, but we also know that in order to serve this need, the electric service provider will have to build out um pretty significant capacity within their grid to serve the need, no matter what type of energy that is.

6:21

Every single type of energy that is created uh in the the service region does have to be approved by the public service commission.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Technology and Innovation███████████████████████████████31%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████████████████████████████29%
Environmental Protection█████████████████████21%
Economic Development███████7%
Procedural█████5%
Workforce Development████4%
Community Engagement██2%
Public Engagement█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee Meeting - July 9, 2026

The committee met on July 9, 2026, with six members present, to consider Board Bill 49, which would establish zoning regulations for data centers in St. Louis. After extensive public testimony and deliberation on four amendments, the committee voted 6-0 to advance the bill with a due pass recommendation to the full Board of Aldermen. The meeting included a brief recess due to a tornado drill.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Adolphus Pruitt (President, St. Louis City NAACP, Ward 9) spoke in opposition, arguing the bill does not address workforce development for the city's poorest residents. He cited that African American unemployment in St. Louis is 13% vs. 7% for whites, and the median net worth for African Americans (excluding real estate) is $8,000 vs. over $100,000 for whites. He noted 35,000 open positions requiring AI certification in the city (2025 data from Tech STL) and said the bill blocks potential funding for training.
  • Kathleen Logan (Ward 7) expressed support, thanking the sponsors for an inclusive process and urging inclusion of public consent mechanisms.
  • Elise Schaeffer (Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Ward 6) spoke in support, stating the renewable thresholds are feasible. She gave cost comparisons: utility-scale solar $58/MWh, wind $61/MWh, gas $78-200/MWh, coal $122/MWh, nuclear $180/MWh. She noted new solar takes 6-15 months and wind 18 months to build, while data centers take 3-6 years.
  • Ryan DeBoel (Party for Socialism and Liberation, works in Ward 10) spoke in support of regulations, warning of rising electricity bills (projected 40% increase) and health impacts, and called for stricter regulations and public consent.
  • Abby Gunther (online) urged passage of regulations as soon as possible.
  • Roslin Addison (Ward 8) expressed concerns about development patterns, drawing parallels to past urban renewal (Mill Creek Valley) and suggesting data centers could be a form of eminent domain.
  • Maxine Giel (Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Ward 6) spoke in support, noting 70% of Americans oppose local data center construction and that redlining has placed industrial areas near Black neighborhoods. She asked for a community consent mechanism similar to liquor store regulations.
  • Eddie Schmidt (resident) spoke in support of regulations.
  • Jackie Schmidt (Ward 7) spoke in support, requesting strong guidelines and community input.
  • Dave Sweeney (resident, works in city) spoke in opposition, arguing that despite claiming not to be a ban, the renewable requirements make major data centers impossible. He stated developers have not been included in the process and that stakeholders should have a say.
  • Dr. Casey Fowler Finn (Ward 6, professor of biology, noise expert) testified as an expert on low-frequency noise. He explained that data center noise (low frequency) travels further than other industrial noise, citing that wind turbine literature shows measurable increase at 1,600 feet (triple the 600-foot setback in the bill) and audible up to 2.5 miles. He recommended G-rated or octave band measurements, wider setbacks, city-selected testing, and a nighttime noise ceiling.
  • Carrie McCullin (Ward 2, Eco Socialist Green Party) opposed, alleging the process was rushed and that residents' right to consent was violated. She referenced a hot mic moment and urged bravery against forceful bullies.
  • Sylvia Cuny (Ward 5, mechanical engineer) spoke in support, arguing that regulations should start somewhere even if imperfect.
  • Joe Delay (business owner, Wards 4 and 6, master's in public policy) opposed, saying the bundled renewable energy credit requirements are impossible because Ameren cannot be forced to develop renewables. He requested more consultation.
  • Lewis Hamilton (representing Globe Democrat Building and coalition of existing data centers) stated support for the bill as amended, contingent on a final tweak.
  • Matt O'Leary (representing Wash Ave Side, coalition) echoed support with the final language changes.
  • Nick Hartzler (Sedfast City, lifelong city resident) opposed, arguing the renewable language creates a de facto ban and that Ameren has stated requirements are not achievable.
  • Sean Faust (IBEW Local 1, Ward 1) asked for a combination of bundled and unbundled renewable energy credits, not discrimination against clean energy sources.
  • Nicole Murz (Renew Missouri, former PSC staff) spoke in support, calling it a great compromise with flexibility, noting Ameren has a 1,000 MW solar and battery storage project that could serve such facilities.

Discussion Items

  • Alderman Schweitzer (sponsor) presented Board Bill 49, clarifying it does not ban data centers but regulates them as a land use by size categories (micro, standard, major). She noted renewable energy requirements are thresholds tied to the city's sustainability plan. She introduced four amendments (12, 13, 14, 15, 16) to address feedback from stakeholders and Ameren.
  • Amendment 12 adjusted renewable energy requirements: day one allows full flexibility between bundled and unbundled RECs; year five increases unbundled allowance to 25% of the 50% total; year ten maintains 75% bundled / 25% unbundled. Adopted 6-0.
  • Amendment 13 clarified applicability and triggers for existing data centers regarding structural alterations and expansions, with input from current operators. Adopted 6-0.
  • Amendment 14 added that baseline noise measurements must be conducted by a third-party professional approved by the city. Adopted 6-0.
  • Amendment 15 removed the outdated definition of "local renewable energy credits" since the bill now uses "bundled" and "unbundled" definitions. Adopted 6-0.
  • Amendment 16 specified that annual renewable energy reports must document efforts to meet requirements, providing clarity for potential year-five waivers. Adopted 6-0.
  • Miriam Keller (Planning and Urban Design Agency) confirmed the planning staff supports the amendments and that the Planning Commission will review them at its July 10 meeting.
  • Caitlin Smith (Policy Advisor to the Mayor) stated the mayor's office fully supports the bill as amended.
  • The committee approved the minutes from the June 30 and July 1 meetings.

Key Outcomes

  • Board Bill 49, as amended, received a due pass recommendation from the committee by a vote of 6-0 (Aldermen Cone, Schweitzer, Sonier, Browning, Aldridge, and Chair Clark Hubbard voting aye).
  • The bill will proceed to a second reading at the Board of Aldermen on July 10 (Friday) and then to perfection and final passage. The president has committed to additional summer meetings to finalize the regulations.
  • The Planning Commission will review the amendments at its July 10 meeting at 5:30 PM.
  • No additional resolutions or committee discussions were considered.
  • The meeting adjourned with a motion from Vice Chair Sonier, seconded by Alderman Browning.

Meeting Transcript

Good morning. We're gonna call today's housing, urban development and zoning committee meeting to order. Madam Clerk, please call the row. Alderman Cone. Alderman's Weitzer. President. Vice Chair Sonier. Alderman Browning. Alderman Aldridge. Present. Claire. Chair Clark Hubbard. Here. We have four present. All right, for present. We have a quorum. We're gonna move the agenda around and do the approval of minutes at the end. So Alderman Ms. Weisser, you are recognized on Board of Board Bill 49 as the mandate in committee. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. I appreciate again the time everyone is spending on this bill and data center regulations in general. Unlike the Alderwoman from the 7th, who always puts together a great presentation. It's not generally my style to do a PowerPoint, but I did want to make sure that everyone in the room would be able to see the words that I'm saying as well, so there's less confusion afterwards, if any. So next slide, please. There have been some information out there about the difference things this bill does and does not do. So I wanted to create a slide here that has some of those things really expounded upon. There have been some folks who are saying that this bill bans data centers. That is not true. There is no ban of data centers in this bill. Uh data centers from you know any number of megawatts, uh, even from you know, at zero to five in the micro category, uh, five to up to 30 in the standard category, and then 30 and above in the major category, all have different places in the city that they would be conditionally allowed. Um what this bill does do is it strives to regulate data centers as a land use. So the more impactful that land use is, the more requirements that that data center has. So standard and major data centers use more energy uh than the majority of industrial uses in the city uh to date, which is why there are more requirements on those on those than in the micro level, uh, and as well as fewer places that those can go. Um it is also true that each data center application would be evaluated on its own merits, which some projects would be approved and some would not. Uh the application requirements and the renewable energy requirements are all things that each project would have to demonstrate that it can meet, as well as all the reporting requirements and and different um things that are how the data center would be built, how the noise would be dealt with, all of those things will be specific to each project, and each project would be evaluated separately. So, yes, that would likely mean that some projects would be approved and some would not be approved. Um that would be um because these are all conditional and they all go through the Board of Public Service. Uh that is um just the process that has been outlined. Uh just like uh any other conditional process that happens in the city, there are some projects that you know uh are are permitted conditionally and some that are not, and it would be the same type of project. Um I know in my experience there have been different times markets have been that are conditionally allowed in certain areas have been approved or not approved, depending on the various conditions of of that specific land use, which is what this bill tries to get at to see whether the project is something that would be a benefit to the city of St. Uh it is also true in the bill that current data centers are able to continue operation. Uh there are certain requirements that are triggered, uh certain requirements of of these regulations that are triggered by structural alterations and expansions, those are outlined in the bill. Uh, we've worked really closely with current data center operators to make sure that everyone understands uh understands the requirements that would be triggered and agrees that they're possible to um implement uh at the uh at the time of this alteration or expansion. Uh we do have um an amendment that clarifies a few things even further uh at the request of some of the data center operators. Uh there it is true that this bill does cap this the physical size of data center, 500,000 square feet. That is currently the only quote unquote cap that exists in the bill. In the planning commission, there was an attempted amendment uh that I I proposed with the with the support of Alderman Sonier and Christina Ramendia to prohibit uh of the president's office to prohibit major data centers of 30 megawatts and above. But that amendment failed. Um, the reason that I I offered that amendment was because of my concern of uh the you know large expansion of the type of land that we currently see with data centers, which in the city of St. Louis, with the exception of one that is being built, are all under 10 megawatts.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com