Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center Annexation Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press city over Highway AA annexation, possible data‑center impacts and board appointments
Summary
Public commenters pressed the Warrenton Board of Aldermen to clarify annexation legality, potential tax incentives and water use tied to prospective data‑center development and to restore a vetting process after three appointments were made to advisory boards.
Warrenton — Several residents urged the Board of Aldermen on Oct. 7 to provide clearer legal and procedural information about the 1.98‑acre annexation on Highway AA and to increase transparency around recent board appointments amid potential data‑center development.
At the meeting’s public‑comment section, Raymond Bergeron, who said he lives near the parcel, asked the city attorney to confirm whether the property was properly annexed under state law and raised concerns about tax incentives and water consumption tied to a possible data center. “I am understanding that Warren County will not Warrenton, City Of Warrenton and Warren County will not receive significant tax, return or tax input from this company for the next 15 years,” Bergeron said, and he urged the city to consider the effect on nearby residents.
City legal staff responded during the meeting that the annexation did not include the state highway right‑of‑way but that state law’s definition of contiguous and compact treats property abutting the city ‘‘but for an intervening state highway’’ as contiguous. The city attorney told the board that the tract therefore met the statutory test for annexation.
Multiple other residents asked the board to move cautiously. Cheryl Roberts Long Hibbler cited past minutes and public‑notice requirements and asked whether certified notices required by statute had been sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of rezoning actions. Anna Farrar urged the board to reinstate a vetting committee for appointments and to require disclosures and public recusal where conflicts of interest might arise, citing Missouri Revised Statute 105.454. “If Miss Tibbets is later called upon to vote or make recommendations concerning zoning, utilities or land use that relate to the same type of project she toured or discussed, recusal would not just be prudent, it would be essential,” Farrar said.
Dr. Pamela Mayle offered to lead a volunteer research group to study multiple data‑center sites and recommend ordinance language and incentive structures to maximize local benefit and limit harms. Bev Aylin urged the city to set standards now on power pricing, water access, light and sound and on equitable tax treatment.
The mayor and board members said they had not received a formal development submittal for a data center but acknowledged that proposals were likely. The mayor said the city would consider convening a workshop or forming a technical advisory group and invited residents with expertise to volunteer.
Separately, the board voted on three mayoral appointments at the meeting. Damian Frederick was appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission (motion carried 6–0). The board appointed Stephanie Tibbetts to Planning and Zoning by a 5–0 vote with Alderman Lang recorded as abstaining. Richard Heath was appointed to the Park Board for a three‑year term (6–0).
The board’s roll‑call votes and the city attorney’s on‑the‑record explanation of the annexation statute were the primary formal actions taken on the subject during the meeting; no formal development application was submitted or approved that night.
Looking ahead, board members said they are open to reinstating a vetting process, and staff indicated they will continue to brief the board when development proposals are filed.
