St. Paul City Council Policy Committee Meeting: Noise Ordinance and Data Centers Discussion - July 8, 2026

The St. Paul City Council Policy Committee met on July 8, 2026, to discuss two major topics: potential changes to the downtown noise ordinance and the implications of data center development in the city. Presentations were given by city staff, police, community organizations, and energy providers. No formal votes were taken; the session was informational.

Discussion Items

Downtown Noise Ordinance

• The Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) presented current noise regulations, including a citywide standard that prohibits noise causing "significant discomfort or annoyance to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities." DSI noted that sound level limits vary by zoning: downtown Class III areas allow up to 80 decibels at all times, while residential Class I areas allow 65 decibels daytime and 55 at night. Amplified sound permits can allow higher levels. Solid waste collection is permitted at any time downtown, but restricted to 6 a.m.–10 p.m. in residential areas. DSI emphasized the need for better enforcement tools, such as administrative citations.
• Commander Eric Hammer of the St. Paul Police Department explained that noise complaints are typically dispatched as priority 4 calls (lowest priority), and response times can be delayed due to higher-priority calls. Officers engage, educate, and encourage compliance; enforcement is a last step. Only one sound meter is available in the district, limiting precise decibel enforcement.
• The Capitol River Council (CRC) presented results of community engagement conducted with over 150 downtown residents. Key findings: 32% said noise was not a concern at all, 16% rated it low priority, 13% high priority, and 37% medium priority. Almost half of respondents expressed concerns about racially biased enforcement. Common complaints included garbage trucks reversing, loud vehicles, altercations, and outdoor concerts. CRC noted that opinions were polarized between long-term residents (who want stricter rules) and newer residents (more mixed). No formal recommendations were made, but CRC suggested targeted approaches such as better coordination of trash pickup and public education on existing regulations.
• Council members discussed the tension between downtown vibrancy and residential livability, the need for equitable enforcement, and the possibility of addressing specific noise sources (e.g., garbage trucks) rather than broad quiet hours. Councilmember Bowie questioned whether police resources are best used for noise enforcement.

Data Centers

• Cure, a rural-based nonprofit, presented on the rise of hyperscale data centers (over 100 megawatts) and their resource impacts. They highlighted concerns about energy consumption (one 100 MW facility can power ~75,000 homes), water use varying by cooling system, and the lack of transparency, including non-disclosure agreements. Cure advocated for 100% new clean energy from the start, community benefit agreements, and local zoning controls. They noted that states and cities are using moratoriums to study data centers.
• Michael DeHern of District Energy St. Paul (Evergreen) described the opportunity to co-locate urban infill data centers (2–50 MW) with the district's hot water system. Captured waste heat can displace natural gas, helping the city meet carbon goals. He noted that most new cooling systems are non-water-consumptive. The existing pipe network covers most of downtown, making connections feasible.
• John Marshall of Xcel Energy explained that the utility has excess capacity and that large data center projects like the Google facility in Pine Island are structured so that costs are not passed to other ratepayers. He highlighted franchise fee benefits for cities. Xcel is engaging with communities to address concerns about reliability and costs.
• Council members asked about community benefit agreements (Cure noted few examples exist), workforce development (District Energy deferred to developers), and the need for data to validate community concerns. Councilmember Kim emphasized that this was the start of a broader conversation involving residents, labor, and industry.

Key Outcomes

• No decisions or votes were taken on either topic.
• The noise ordinance discussion will continue; council members expressed interest in targeted approaches rather than broad quiet hours.
• The data center conversation is considered a starting point; council plans to gather more information from stakeholders including residents, labor, and energy developers. Councilmember Kim noted that time constraints limited the depth of discussion and further meetings are expected.