IN THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI
Title
A RESOLUTION establishing guiding principles and objectives for the regulation of small to mid-sized data centers, and high-capacity computing facilities (hyper-scale data centers), and battery energy storage systems within Jackson County, Missouri, as a statement of legislative intent to inform forthcoming amendments to the Code of Ordinances and Unified Development Code before the expiration of the existing 180-day moratorium.
Intro
RESOLUTION 22450, November 9, 2026
INTRODUCED BY Sean E. Smith, County Legislator
Body
WHEREAS, Jackson County recognizes the growing importance of artificial intelligence, cloud computing, advanced technology infrastructure, data center development, and energy storage as drivers of economic growth, innovation, and job creation; and,
WHEREAS, large-scale data centers, high-capacity computing facilities, and battery energy storage systems (“BESS”) demand substantial electrical power, water, land, telecommunications capacity, and public services, and may affect utility systems, transportation networks, environmental resources, emergency response, neighboring residential and commercial areas, and the local tax base; and,
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 6074, adopted June 22, 2026, the County imposed a 180-day moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of rezoning applications, conditional use permits, special use permits, site plans, and building permits related to the construction, establishment, or expansion of data centers or BESS facilities within Jackson County, which moratorium is now in effect and is expected to expire in December 2026; and,
WHEREAS, the stated purpose of that moratorium is to develop a long-term policy and accompanying County Code provisions, including regulatory standards and enhanced public notification requirements, and the Legislature’s goal is to amend the Unified Development Code before the moratorium expires; and,
WHEREAS, the County’s existing Code of Ordinances and Unified Development Code were not written with these modern developments in mind, and future projects should be reviewed against clear, publicly understood standards; and,
WHEREAS, tax abatements, industrial-development plans, payments in lieu of taxes, and similar incentives for these facilities should benefit all relevant constituencies, including by apportioning a share of the incremental revenue associated with new construction so that levy rates may be reduced; and,
WHEREAS, Jackson County seeks responsible technological and energy development that is transparent, accountable, compatible with neighboring communities, and protective of residents, ratepayers, public infrastructure, and the environment; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution is a statement of legislative intent, it does not itself grant or deny any permit, it does not extend or repeal Ordinance No. 6074, and it does not prescribe the final form of any ordinance, but sets principles and objectives that forthcoming code amendments should reflect with examples listed under each principle that are illustrative only and are not exhaustive; and,
WHEREAS, the Legislature finds that informed public debate and a clear understanding of project impacts should precede any authorization of such facilities; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the County Legislature of Jackson County, Missouri, as follows:
Section 1. Purpose and Scope
This Resolution states the principles and objectives that shall guide the drafting of one or more ordinances amending the Jackson County Code of Ordinances and Unified Development Code, to be considered before the moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 6074 expires, with respect to the siting, construction, expansion, operation, decommissioning of:
• Hyper-scale data center facilities;
• Small and mid-sized data center facilities
• related support uses customarily associated with such facilities; and
• battery energy storage systems and comparable modern energy-storage installations.
Nothing in this Resolution is a final land-use standard, a permit condition, or a directive that any department approve or deny a particular application. Those standards shall be adopted by ordinance.
The moratorium in Ordinance No. 6074 remains in effect according to its own terms.
Section 2. How Principles and Examples Are to Be Read
Each principle below is a general statement of legislative intent. The “objective” that follows states what the Legislature wants the forthcoming ordinances to accomplish. The “examples” that follow each objective are ways that intent might be carried out. They are not an exclusive list, they do not require any particular study, agreement, or numeric threshold, and they do not prevent the Legislature from adopting other or different measures that serve the same principle.
Section 3. Guiding Principles
Principle A. Transparency and Meaningful Public Participation
Principle. Decisions about these facilities should be made in public, on a complete record, with timely notice to those who may be affected.
Objective. Residents, neighboring property owners, local governments, utility customers, and other interested persons should be able to learn that a project is proposed, understand its scale and likely effects, and be heard before the County grants a land-use or development authorization.
Examples (not exhaustive).
• Prohibiting, or declining to honor, nondisclosure agreements that prevent the public or the County from reviewing information material to siting, utility demand, environmental effects, public safety, or fiscal impact.
• Expanding mailed or published notice beyond the minimum radius now used for ordinary zoning matters, so that a larger number of nearby residents and property owners are informed.
• Requiring that applications, impact analyses, incentive applications, and later monitoring reports be posted in a form the public can readily obtain.
• Providing notice to affected utility customers when a project would materially change load, infrastructure, or rates.
• Holding hearings or neighborhood meetings at a stage when public comment can still affect the decision.
Principle B. Clear Understanding of Environmental and Resource Impacts Before Authorization
Principle. The County is concerned about the environmental and resource effects of these facilities and should not authorize a project until it has a clear, publicly reviewable understanding of those effects.
Objective. Before a permit or comparable authorization is granted, decision-makers should understand how a proposed facility would use land, water, and energy; how it would affect air, noise, stormwater, habitat, and nearby sensitive places; and what measures would avoid, minimize, or mitigate harm. The form of that review should fit the scale of the project. This Resolution does not prescribe any particular named study.
Examples (not exhaustive).
• Requiring the applicant to disclose projected water use, energy use, stormwater, air emissions, noise, lighting, and construction effects at a level sufficient for informed review.
• Allowing the County to require independent review, at the applicant’s expense, when staff finds the applicant’s materials incomplete or the impacts substantial.
• Evaluating compatibility with nearby residences, parks, schools, farmland, and environmentally sensitive areas.
• Making the results of any impact review available to the public before final action.
Principle C. Protection of Utility Systems and Existing Customers
Principle. New load from these facilities should not degrade reliability or shift unreasonable costs onto existing residential, commercial, agricultural, or governmental customers.
Objective. The County should know, before authorization, whether electric, gas, water, wastewater, and telecommunications systems can serve the project; what upgrades would be required; who would pay for them; and how existing customers would be protected.
Examples (not exhaustive).
• Requiring disclosure of anticipated demand, peak load, water consumption, and planned expansion.
• Coordinating review with the utilities that would actually serve the site.
• Allocating the cost of necessary upgrades so that they are not borne disproportionately by existing customers.
• Providing for monitoring of actual consumption after operations begin, so that conditions can be revisited if demand grows beyond what was disclosed.
Principle D. Fiscal Responsibility, Abatements, and Sharing of Incremental Revenue
Principle. A project should pay its own way for the public infrastructure and services it requires. Tax abatements and similar incentives should benefit both the developer and existing residents. A share of the incremental revenue associated with new construction should be available to reduce levy rates, not captured solely as developer relief.
Objective. Residents should not subsidize private infrastructure needs. Where the County grants, supports, or is asked to comment on an abatement, industrial-development plan, payment in lieu of taxes, or comparable incentive, the arrangement should leave enough of the new-construction increment on the tax rolls-or in a dedicated PILOT-that levy rates for existing taxpayers can be reduced, or held below the level they would otherwise reach, while still offering the developer a defined and time-limited benefit the County can verify.
Examples (not exhaustive).
• Infrastructure or utility cost-sharing arrangements so that upgrade costs are not shifted to existing customers or to the general levy.
• Abatement or Chapter 100 structures that apportion the increment: a defined developer benefit paired with a defined share of new value (or an escalating PILOT) that taxing jurisdictions can use to lower levy rates.
• Cost-benefit analyses, published before approval, that show the effect on levy rates for existing taxpayers and not only the savings to the applicant.
• County comments on municipal industrial-development plans that seek this same apportionment when the County is a notified taxing jurisdiction.
• Community-benefit terms negotiated with participation from affected neighborhoods and local governments, which may address workforce development, local hiring, training, public improvements, or neighborhood mitigation.
• Clear conditions on any incentive, including reporting and clawback if promised public benefits, including levy-rate effects, are not delivered.
Principle E. Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Principle. These facilities should not be authorized unless fire, emergency-management, and public safety agencies can reasonably protect the site, its workers, and the surrounding community.
Objective. Decision-makers should understand on-site hazards, suppression and evacuation needs, utility-failure contingencies, and whether first responders have the training, equipment, and funding the project would require-including hazards particular to high-voltage equipment and battery energy storage.
Examples (not exhaustive).
• Identification of hazardous, combustible, toxic, or specialized materials stored or used on site.
• Fire-suppression design appropriate to the occupancy, including battery-fire considerations for BESS.
• Coordination, training, and equipment arrangements with local emergency responders.
• Public-notification procedures in the event of an emergency.
Principle F. Compatibility with Neighboring Communities
Principle. Scale, operations, and appearance should be compatible with nearby homes, farms, businesses, and public places, or should be mitigated to that end.
Objective. Forthcoming standards should address how these facilities sit on the land and how they operate over time, so that noise, light, traffic, visual bulk, and hours of construction or operation do not unreasonably diminish neighboring quality of life.
Examples (not exhaustive).
• Locational or buffering standards that reflect the difference between an industrial campus and a residential or agricultural edge.
• Limits or mitigation for noise, lighting, and heavy-vehicle traffic.
• Neighborhood quality-of-life protections and a means for neighbors to raise operating problems after a facility opens.
Principle G. Accountability for the Life of the Facility
Principle. Approval should not be a one-time event. Conditions should remain enforceable as a facility operates, expands, or closes.
Objective. The County should be able to verify that a project performs as disclosed, to review material expansions, and to require safe decommissioning and site restoration when operations end.
Examples (not exhaustive).
• Periodic reporting of energy use, water use, and compliance with permit conditions.
• Treating a substantial increase in load, footprint, or hazard as a new decision, not an automatic entitlement.
• Decommissioning, bonding, or restoration requirements, particularly for battery systems and related equipment.
Principle H. Standards in the Unified Development Code Before the Moratorium Expires
Principle. The County should put intelligible standards in the Unified Development Code before the moratorium expires and before it treats these modern developments as ordinary, as-of-right uses.
Objective. Land-use classification, review process, operating conditions, and related incentive policy for data centers and BESS should be adopted in ordinance form so that applicants, neighbors, and staff know the rules when Ordinance No. 6074 lapses.
Examples (not exhaustive).
• Defining these uses in the Unified Development Code and assigning them to appropriate districts and review procedures.
• Using a conditional or special-use process where impacts warrant case-by-case review.
• Presenting draft UDC amendments to the Legislature in time for adoption before the November 2026 expiration of the moratorium.
Section 4. Use of This Resolution
The County Legislature shall use these principles as the statement of intent from which one or more ordinances amending the Unified Development Code and related provisions of the Code of Ordinances will be drafted, with the aim of adoption before the moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 6074 expires. Such Code shall treat differing facility types (BESS, Small DC, Medium DC, Hyerscaler DC) distinctly and not cause excess burden on lower impact facilities. Staff, the Plan Commission, and other County bodies may be asked to assist in that drafting. Recommendations that implement these principles-or that explain why a different approach better serves the same objectives-are welcome. This Resolution does not amend the Unified Development Code by its own force, and it does not alter the duration of the existing moratorium.
Enacted and Approved
Effective Date: This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage by a majority of the Legislature.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
County Counselor
Certificate of Passage
I hereby certify that the attached resolution, Resolution 22450 of November 9, 2026, was duly passed on __________________________________, 2026 by the Jackson County Legislature. The votes thereon were as follows:
Yeas _________________ Nays _____________
Abstaining _____________ Absent ____________
______________________ _________________________________
Date Mary Jo Spino, Clerk of Legislature