Skip to main content
Jeremy Has No Plan
Starting From Zero

Missouri's Data Center Gold Rush

Updated June 2026: Missouri's data center rush has moved fast, and the public record around Montgomery County, Independence, Moberly, and Randolph County now needs a sharper look.

22 min read

Update, June 2026: I first wrote this when Project Tiger Zou was still mostly rumor and Missouri’s data center map was already moving fast. It has moved even faster since. Amazon and Google have announced much larger Montgomery County projects. Independence moved forward with Nebius. St. Charles basically shut the door on new data centers. Missouri regulators approved large-load tariff rules for major utilities. And Randolph County records raise new questions about where a Moberly-area project might actually sit. I have updated this piece to separate what we know, what changed, and what still has not been proven.

How I got here

I live in Moberly, Missouri. Randolph County. About 12,000 people, a railroad town, 45 minutes from everywhere and close to nothing in particular.

It is the kind of place that gets excited when investment shows up, because investment does not show up all that often.

So when I started hearing the phrase “data center” in local conversations, and then the code name “Project Tiger Zou” attached to Moberly, I did what I usually do when something shows up that I do not understand. I started reading.

I should be upfront: I knew almost nothing about data centers when this started. I knew they were big buildings full of servers. I knew tech companies were building a lot of them. That was roughly it.

What I did not know was how the economics work, what the infrastructure demands look like, what the incentive structures are, or what happens to the communities that host these things after the ribbon-cutting photos are over.

I have gone through news articles, government reports, state laws, county meeting minutes, utility filings, economic development pages, and local reporting from people who have been following this harder than anyone else. What follows is me trying to make sense of it.

I am not anti-data center. I am anti-mystery deal.

Those are different things.

Missouri’s data center map changed fast

Missouri is in a data center arms race, and it is no longer subtle. The old version of this article had a table that was already going stale by the time I published it. The current picture looks more like this:

LocationProject/companyCurrent statusInvestment / jobsLocal issue
Kansas City NorthlandMetaOperationalAbout $1B / about 100 permanent jobsIncentive benchmark
IndependenceNebiusApproved and moving forwardReporting describes about 1,300 construction jobs and about 130 full-time operations jobs; incentive and bond figures should be distinguished from project investmentPower facility, abatements, referendum fight
Montgomery CityAmazon / AWSAnnounced$10B / 400 direct jobsChapter 100, utilities, water, scale
New Florence / Montgomery CountyGoogleAnnounced$15B / hundreds of long-term operational jobsTax transparency, power, water, local control
St. Charles CountyGoogle-linked / Spark proposalBlockedProposed, then bannedNDA and transparency backlash
Festus / Jefferson CountyCRG / undisclosed userStill contestedReported around $6B in later coveragePrivate talks, election fight, transparency
Randolph County / Moberly areaProject Tiger Zou / unknownUnconfirmed by the City of Moberly; county records show active leadsUnknownJurisdiction, land, infrastructure, disclosure

Do not get hung up on the exact dollar amount in every headline. The point is the size of what is being chased.

Amazon is no longer just an $8.5 billion framework near New Florence. The state announced a $10 billion Amazon investment in Montgomery County with 400 direct jobs. Google is now its own Montgomery County story, separate from the earlier St. Charles fight, with a $15 billion New Florence announcement and hundreds of long-term jobs. Independence is no longer a maybe. Nebius moved forward after the city approved the project and a referendum challenge failed.

Missouri did not get one data center story. It got several at once.

That matters because each community is negotiating under pressure. The company wants speed. The state wants wins. The local government wants investment. The public usually gets the details last.

That is the part I keep coming back to.

The incentive playbook got more complicated

The incentive structure is still generous.

Missouri’s Data Center Sales Tax Exemption can exempt qualifying data centers from state and local sales, use, and utility taxes on eligible purchases. For a new facility, the basic threshold is $25 million of investment within 36 months, at least 10 new full-time operations jobs, and wages at least 150% of the county average. Construction jobs do not count toward that threshold. The benefit can run up to 15 years.

That is a low job bar for a very large tax break.

Then there is Chapter 100, which is where these deals start sounding like they were designed to make normal people’s eyes glaze over. In plain English, a city or county can technically own the project assets during the incentive period and lease them back to the company. That public ownership can reduce property taxes and sales taxes. The company usually repays the bond or lease obligations and makes negotiated payments in lieu of taxes, called PILOTs.

That does not mean the city or county is necessarily cutting a check for the project. In many deals, the bonds are pass-through financing backed by the company. But the public body is still being used as part of the tax structure. So the public deserves to know what revenue is being given up, what revenue is supposedly coming back, and what happens if the project changes.

SB 4 also moved from theory to implementation. When I first wrote about it, I described it as a law that was supposed to keep regular homeowners from paying for grid upgrades driven by data centers. That was true, but incomplete now. The Missouri Public Service Commission says it has approved large-load tariffs for Ameren Missouri and Evergy, with Liberty still pending.

Those tariffs are intended to make very large electric users pay costs attributable to their service. They include long service commitments, collateral, exit fees, minimum demand billing, and cost-stabilization mechanisms. On paper, that is real protection.

But on paper is doing a lot of work.

Whether those protections actually protect residents and small businesses depends on future rate cases, project performance, compliance reports, and how costs get allocated when the first giant project does not go exactly like the press release said it would.

There were also two 2026 House bills, HB 3362 and HB 3364, that would have gone further for large electric and water users. They stalled after March 30 public hearings. They are not law. That matters because a lot of the most important questions, especially water and municipal utility exposure, are still not fully handled at the state level.

The jobs math still does not add up

The capital investment numbers are enormous. The permanent job numbers are not.

That does not make the projects worthless. It just means we should stop pretending they are traditional jobs programs.

Meta’s Kansas City data center is roughly a billion-dollar project with more than 100 jobs when fully operational. Amazon’s new Montgomery County announcement is $10 billion and 400 direct jobs. Google says its New Florence investment is $15 billion with hundreds of long-term operational jobs. Nebius in Independence is expected to create around 1,300 construction jobs and about 130 full-time operations jobs.

The construction jobs are real. They can be well-paying. They matter.

But they are temporary. When construction ends, those workers move to the next site. The community is left with the facility, the utility obligations, the land-use decision, the tax deal, and a much smaller permanent workforce than the headline investment number suggests.

That is the mismatch.

A billion-dollar data center that creates 100 permanent jobs may still be worth doing. But it is not the same kind of economic development as a factory with hundreds or thousands of local workers on payroll. If the pitch is tax base, infrastructure, and construction work, say that. If the pitch is a permanent jobs engine, the numbers need to prove it.

Right now, they usually do not.

What the neighbors are teaching Missouri

If I only listened to the developers and the economic development pitches, this would be simple. Big investment. Some jobs. More tax revenue. Everybody wins.

The communities living through this are telling a messier story.

Independence is the clearest Missouri example. Nebius, a Netherlands-based AI infrastructure company, is moving forward with a hyperscale data center campus near Little Blue Parkway. The project is massive, with power demand discussed around 800 megawatts. Independence says power will come from a privately financed facility at the retired Blue Valley site, and the city says existing residents and businesses should not see rate increases from the data center.

That is the city’s claim, and it matters.

It also does not erase the public concern. Residents organized around water, power, tax abatements, proximity to schools and neighborhoods, and whether the deal was moving too fast. The council approved the project 5-2. Opponents tried to force a referendum. The challenge failed, and construction moved forward.

That is what leverage looks like after the vote: much smaller.

Montgomery County is now the center of Missouri’s confirmed buildout. Amazon and Google both have major announcements there. The state and the companies are promising jobs, local contributions, utility protections, and careful water use. Critics are still asking about taxes and transparency. Both things can be true. A project can bring real money and still need to be picked apart before people sign off on it.

St. Charles went the other direction. After a Google-linked proposal and backlash over secrecy and NDAs, the county moved from a pause to what amounts to a ban on new data centers.

Festus has its own version of the fight: private meetings, an unnamed user, organized opposition, legal challenges or threats, and an election where the data center issue became part of the public choice.

These are not anti-tech towns full of people who hate progress. They are people asking basic questions: How much water? How much power? Who pays for the upgrades? What happens to my rates? How loud will it be? Who signed what? Why are the details hidden until the deal is almost done?

Those are reasonable questions.

If a project cannot survive those questions, that tells you something.

Moberly’s hand

This is where I need to correct the way I framed things before.

The Moberly piece is more complicated than a rumor and less certain than a site announcement.

As of June 2026, the City of Moberly has publicly said it has received no proposals for data center construction inside city limits and has not talked with developers about such a project. I also did not find a city agenda, packet, or available June 1 auto-caption record that directly names a data center, Project Tiger, Project Zou, Project Beta, or a developer.

That matters. The city may be telling the truth exactly as asked.

But that still may not answer the whole question. “Inside city limits” is not the same thing as “in Randolph County.” “The city has not talked to developers” is not the same thing as “no other public body or economic development group has been involved.”

The county record is different.

Randolph County minutes from January reference a resident asking about a rumored potential data center in the Renick area. February minutes reference Project Tiger Beta being discussed with MAEDC, county counsel, and Gilmore & Bell, followed by a closed session. March records reference an AECI NDA and a Project Iris / AECI discussion, again followed by a closed session. A June county agenda included attendance at a local government data center summit in Jefferson City.

That does not prove Project Tiger Beta, Project Iris, AECI, and the Renick-area rumor are all the same thing.

It does show the paper trail is bigger than the city’s denial.

MAEDC’s public records add another piece. I found no MAEDC public page that names a data center, Project Tiger, Project Beta, Project Iris, AECI, or a developer. But MAEDC does publicly market industrial site readiness: the Moberly Area Industrial Park, a 206-acre certified site with fiber and utility capacity, and a separate 281.79-acre industrial property at Business 63 and State Highway A inside city limits, with industrial/manufacturing zoning, utilities to the site, rail access, Ameren electric and gas, and city water and sewer.

Those records do not announce a data center.

They do show why the conversation cannot be reduced to “just a rumor.” Moberly and Randolph County are actively marketing industrial land, utilities, fiber, rail, incentives, and site readiness while county records separately show a Renick-area data center rumor, Project Tiger Beta and AECI/Project Iris leads, and data center summit attendance.

Then there is the land question.

Randolph County assessor and GIS records provide a rural corridor lead between the Moberly prison area and Renick, around Highway AA, County Road 2620, and County Road 2515. Several large parcels in that corridor remain listed under local trust or family-trust ownership, with repeated 2025 ownership/change rows and nearby utility or energy-related records.

That is a strong governance and site-control question.

It is not proof of a sale to a data center developer.

That distinction matters enough to slow down and say clearly.

There are also two separate land threads that should not be mashed together. One is the public MAEDC/LocationOne industrial-property listing inside city limits at Business 63 and State Highway A. The other is the rural RCAO corridor cluster near Highway AA / CR 2620 / CR 2515. Both are relevant to public questions about land, infrastructure, and disclosure. They are not the same site unless parcel records prove they are connected.

So the question for Moberly is no longer, “Is Facebook coming to town?”

That was probably never the right question.

The better questions are:

  • What project names have been discussed, and by which public bodies?
  • Is the potential site inside city limits, outside city limits, or both?
  • Who owns or controls the land?
  • Are there options, easements, purchase agreements, or development agreements that are not yet visible in public summaries?
  • What utility commitments would be needed?
  • Would city water, sewer, roads, emergency services, or annexation ever be involved?
  • If any decision-makers or related entities have financial interests in affected land, what disclosure and recusal rules apply?

That is not an accusation. That is the basic homework government is supposed to do in public.

The city’s statement may be accurate and still incomplete. “No proposal inside city limits” does not answer whether land is being assembled outside city limits, whether county or economic development groups have been briefed, or what disclosure rules apply if decision-makers or related entities have financial interests in land affected by infrastructure, incentives, annexation, or utility decisions.

What Moberly should demand before any deal gets a vote

I do not know what Project Tiger Zou is. I do not know whether it is one project, a renamed project, a dead lead, a county-led conversation, or something being shopped under multiple code names.

But I know enough about the pattern now to know what Moberly and Randolph County should demand before any deal gets too far down the road.

1. Exact site and jurisdiction

Before anybody votes, show the site. Show the parcel boundaries, acreage, and jurisdiction.

Inside city limits and outside city limits are different worlds. City zoning may not apply outside the city. County authority may be different. Emergency services, roads, water, sewer, electric service, school districts, and tax districts may all change depending on the site.

“Moberly area” is not good enough.

2. Land ownership and control

The public should know who owns the land and who controls it.

Those are not always the same thing. A developer can have an option, easement, purchase agreement, lease, or assignment right long before the assessor page shows a new owner.

If any decision-makers or related entities have financial interests in affected land, that does not automatically mean anyone did anything wrong. But it does mean disclosure and recusal need to happen in daylight, not after the fact.

3. Peak power demand and who pays for upgrades

Data centers are electricity projects wearing real estate clothes.

The public should know the projected peak megawatt load, the interconnection plan, the serving utility, and who pays for generation, transmission, substations, and grid upgrades.

Missouri now has large-load tariff protections for Ameren and Evergy, with Liberty still pending. Good. Put the actual project details in writing anyway. If the developer needs the power, the developer should pay for the power.

4. Cooling method and water use

Not every data center uses water the same way.

Some designs can use huge amounts of water, especially evaporative cooling. Others use closed-loop or air-cooled systems with much lower ongoing water demand. Independence, Amazon, and Google announcements now include project-specific claims about closed-loop cooling, limited cooling-water use, or air-cooling designs. Fine. Verify it.

For any Randolph County project, show the cooling method, one-time fill needs, daily peak water demand, annual water demand, drought plan, wastewater impact, and what happens if the facility expands.

Water is not just a line item in somebody’s spreadsheet. It is ours.

5. Tax terms and clawbacks

If the public gives up tax revenue, the public should know exactly what it gets back.

That means the full PILOT schedule, personal property treatment, real property treatment, school district impact, county impact, city impact, emergency-services impact, and community contribution commitments.

It also means clawbacks. If the company misses job numbers, wage commitments, investment promises, construction milestones, or community obligations, there should be a written remedy. Not a handshake. Not a press release. A contract.

6. Noise, setbacks, generators, and backup power

A data center is not quiet just because the product is digital.

Cooling equipment, transformers, substations, and backup generation all have real-world impacts. The zoning rules should handle setbacks, property-line noise limits, generator testing windows, sound barriers, landscaping, lighting, and emergency operations before a specific project tries to squeeze through.

Do the boring zoning work early. It is much harder to do once a developer has already spent money and starts telling everyone the clock is ticking.

7. Public documents before votes

This is the big one.

The basics should be public before any binding vote: site, acreage, water, power, incentives, ownership and control, job commitments, tax impact, utility impact, and public-service impact.

I understand that companies want confidentiality around some competitive details. Fine. But “trust us” is not a public process.

The people who live here should not find out what the deal really was after the leverage is gone.

What I think now

I still have not fully made up my mind on data centers.

That is the honest answer.

The infrastructure investment is real. The construction employment is real. The tax revenue can be real, even at abated rates. Grid improvements can help if they are structured correctly. And Moberly could use economic activity that is not tied to the same few employers we have leaned on for decades.

But I am not going to pretend the numbers say something they do not.

A billion-dollar data center that creates 100 permanent jobs is not a jobs program. It is a major infrastructure and real estate project with a small operating staff. There may be reasons to do it anyway, but the community should negotiate based on what it is, not what the press release makes it sound like.

Moberly has been courted by big projects before. That history should make us careful, not cynical.

There is also a long-term risk that does not get enough attention: obsolescence. Servers turn over quickly. AI demand may keep exploding, or it may change shape. Facilities can be repurposed, but not always easily. If a project is built around one company’s needs and those needs change, what is left here?

That is why every deal should include a funded decommissioning or reuse plan. If the campus is abandoned, downsized, or repurposed, the public should not be stuck with the shell and the bill.

The question is not whether this investment is good or bad in the abstract.

The question is whether Moberly and Randolph County can negotiate from clarity instead of just being excited somebody noticed us.

I do not know the answer yet. I do not know what Project Tiger Zou specifically is. I do not know whether the county records, land records, AECI items, and summit attendance are all pointing at one thing or several things happening at once.

What I do know is this: communities lose leverage when they accept mystery as the price of being considered.

Moberly should not do that.

Ask early. Ask in public. Get the documents. Follow the land. Follow the power. Follow the water.

Then decide.

Full bibliography

These are the public sources, records, and local documents I relied on for the June 2026 update. Some local records were reviewed from downloaded copies because the source pages publish Word, PDF, packet, or GIS records rather than stable article-style pages.

Missouri statewide policy, incentives, and utility regulation

Montgomery County, Amazon, and Google

Independence and Nebius

Moberly, Randolph County, and local public records

Other Missouri communities and background context