Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Castle County Council tables substitute to data-center ordinance after last-minute amendments; public split
Summary
On Nov. 18 the council voted 8–5 to table Substitute No. 2 to Ordinance 25-101 (standards for siting and operating data centers) after objections from members and extensive public comment arguing the last-minute amendments undercut the Planning Board and Land Use Department recommendations. Residents urged stronger guardrails on energy, water use and decommissioning.
New Castle County Council on Nov. 18 voted 8–5 to table Substitute No. 2 to Ordinance 25-101, a proposed update to the county Unified Development Code to set standards for review, siting and operations of hyperscale data centers.
Councilman (speaker 3) moved the substitute and later moved to table it; the roll-call vote on the motion to table returned 8 yes and 5 no. The substitute had been presented on the floor after questions about procedure and whether enough members had reviewed late floor amendments.
The matter drew sustained public comment. RJ Miles, speaking for North Wilmington, said the council should apply the same standard it used repeatedly that night: follow the recommendations of the Land Use Department and the Planning Board. "Why isn't that standard the same standard with regard to the data center ordinance?" Miles asked. Several other speakers echoed that concern and urged council to reject last-minute changes that they described as "hostile" to the guardrails recommended by staff and the Planning Board.
Opponents of the substitute warned about environmental, utility and community impacts if data centers are allowed without strong conditions. Tracy Crook, a Newark resident, urged the council to "protect the community by addressing energy and environment concerns" and to require best-available technology to avoid harms to surrounding neighborhoods. Public commenters raised the potential for high electricity bills, increased water use, noise and long-term abandonment risks if facilities become obsolete.
Supporters of greater flexibility defended the right of councilors to propose and amend ordinances on the floor. During the floor debate, councilors disagreed about parliamentary practice and whether the late amendments had deprived the public of adequate review; the attorney and clerk were consulted repeatedly to confirm the roll-call procedures.
The council’s tabling leaves the data-center ordinance in committee or subject to future reconsideration; no final vote on the ordinance’s substantive provisions occurred Nov. 18. Several residents asked the council to hold the ordinance in the form recommended by Land Use and the Planning Board, while others signaled they would continue to press for either stricter safeguards or different regulatory approaches depending on how the matter is returned to the floor.
What happens next: the substitute was tabled, not permanently defeated. The Land Use Department, Planning Board, sponsors and opponents will likely return to negotiations or bring the matter back to committee for further work before a final ordinance vote.
