Webster Groves council asks staff to draft standalone electric-vehicle charging rules

Webster Groves council members directed city staff on July 15 to draft a standalone ordinance on electric-vehicle (EV) charging and EV-ready requirements, after a staff presentation that framed technical, equity and fire-safety issues tied to the city’s current 2014 code.

Why it matters: The city’s building and zoning code dates from 2014; staff told the council that new technology and safety standards have changed since then and that local code updates can shape where commercial chargers go, what new homes must provide, and what fire-safety measures will be required.

City staff presenter Gary gave council a broad overview, saying the presentation was “not making any recommendations tonight,” and described national market trends, charging-speed differences and fire-safety concerns with lithium-ion batteries. He told the council that Level 1 chargers typically take eight to 12 hours to charge, while fast Level 3 chargers can take about 30 minutes and present distinct siting and structural challenges for both parking lots and enclosed garages.

The presentation highlighted policy options: enact EV-specific regulations, amend the zoning code, adopt a newer edition of the National Electrical Code, or fold EV rules into a wider comprehensive zoning update. Staff noted other area jurisdictions already require EV-ready parking in new construction or large projects; St. Louis County and some nearby cities were cited as examples that mandate EV-ready spaces for new or substantially remodeled buildings.

Discussion among council members focused on residential versus commercial rules and a near-term approach. Several council members said they favored requiring EV-ready wiring as part of new construction and major renovations while being cautious about imposing new retrofit mandates on existing homeowners without concurrent safety-code updates. One council member favored prioritizing commercial requirements for larger parking areas, citing a threshold used elsewhere of 30 spaces for at least one EV charger requirement.

On utility coordination, staff explained that Ameren is involved when new or upgraded electric service is required to connect a project to the grid but not for in-building electrical inspections; that distinction informed questions about fast (DC) chargers and grid interaction, including emerging vehicle-to-grid technology.

Outcome and next steps: Council members indicated a majority preference to pursue a standalone draft ordinance rather than wait for a full comprehensive zoning overhaul. They asked Elliot (city staff) to prepare a redlined draft bill for council review and to circulate written council preferences to staff to inform that draft. No formal vote was taken; the council’s direction was given as a consensus instruction to staff.

What remains open: Council members asked staff to clarify whether to adopt the 2021 or 2024 National Electrical Code, the appropriate thresholds for commercial requirements, and safety standards for residential garage installations. Staff signaled further fact‑finding would include fire‑safety input (Chief Ellis was referenced) and coordination with utilities.

Council members and staff agreed it would be easier for council to review a written draft than to attempt to craft ordinance language in the meeting.