Westland council adopts six-month moratorium on new data centers

The Westland City Council voted to adopt a six-month moratorium on new data processing and computer centers after members said they need time to define what counts as a ‘‘data center’’ and to study potential impacts on the city.

The moratorium — introduced as a prepared resolution and moved by Councilwoman Rakowski with support from Councilwoman Sampey — passed by voice vote after several councilmembers and a resident urged a pause to allow the city to craft ordinances and review technical impacts.

Supporters pointed to a range of concerns. An audience member told the council data centers are ‘‘emitting harmful infrasound’’ and said the moratorium would allow the city to study public‑health risks and potential increases in electricity and water use. Councilwoman Baumann said Westland currently has no clear parameters for how to permit or regulate newer, smaller or ‘‘mega’’ data centers and described the moratorium as the opportunity to draft those standards. "Right now, we have no parameters," Baumann said. "This gives us time to put that ordinance forward, have the study sessions ... and public hearings."

Councilwoman Sampey and others emphasized the distinction between existing local facilities and the large ‘‘AI’’ or mega‑center projects drawing attention in other regions. Sampey clarified the city already hosts data centers that partner for storage, but said: "We don't have an AI data center," and that the moratorium targets large‑scale proposals that could produce different impacts.

Council President Mike McDermott framed the action as preventative: "We want this to be a preventative action," he said, citing past situations in which businesses expressed interest before regulatory measures were in place. Council discussion repeatedly noted potential issues to study, including noise pollution, demand on an aging electrical grid and, for some technologies, increased water consumption.

The resolution directs city administration to research definitions, zoning and permitting options and to report back with recommended ordinance language and any proposed timelines. Councilmembers said the six‑month window should be sufficient to prepare an ordinance but indicated they would consider an extension if more time were required.

The motion passed with no recorded roll‑call tally; the clerk announced the motion passed by voice vote.

Next steps: staff will prepare study materials, draft ordinance language and present recommendations to the council during the moratorium period; councilmembers suggested an interim check‑in around the fourth month to assess progress.