Metropolitan Development Commission - Regular Meeting

development that happened just yesterday afternoon as well which requires some refinements to the site plan and some additional commitments we've talked to staff about that yesterday afternoon Kathleen has already worked very quickly to update the blurb it would not require any new notice because It's a decrease in our requests related to the variance and results in a number of positive things for the neighborhood, including less megawatts, less generators, more green space, less square footage, and then phase two would no longer be speculative. So we'd love just a little bit of extra time to work on those updates and would request your favorable consideration for July 15th.

Thank you. We have a request for 2026 CVR 815, 2026 CBL 815. Councilor Nielsen is here. I think you indicated you were fine with this request. Could you come up and go on the record for me, Councilor? I'd appreciate it. I know you've been working very hard on this.

Thank you, President Dillon, Commissioners. Andy Nielsen, City County Councilor, District 14. The petitioner and the representatives have been in contact about a continuance for two more weeks. I've been working with the neighborhood and leaders to that, and they're aware, so supportive of this continuance.

Great. So we're looking at Council July 15th. Yes. We have before us, is there anyone else who wants to comment on this continuance? Seeing none. We have before us requests for continuance on 2026, excuse me, 2026 CVR 815 and 2026 CPL 815 to move to July 15, 2026. I will make the motion to do so. Commissioner Robinson, can we get a second?

Second.

We have a second. Let me call the roll. Herget. Herget, yes. Lyle. Lyle, yes. Moriarty. Moriarty, yes. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West. West, yes. Dillon is a yes. Counselor, you have an 8-0 vote, moving it to July 15th.

Thank you.

Any other special requests? Continuances. Kathleen, you're looking at me.

yes i am president dylan members of the commission staff would draw your attention to item number eight 2025 zon114 second amended located at 4005 east southport road staff received an email on the 24th of june withdrawing this request and this would just require your acknowledgement so acknowledge kathleen 2025 zon114 has been withdrawn thank you president dylan

members of the commission staff would draw your attention to item 13 that is 2026 reg 015 of 412 west mccarty street and 1717 and 1721 chadwick street staff would request a continuance of this regional center case to the august 19th mbc and that would be without notice

thank you is there anyone else who'd like to comment on 2026 reg015 seeing uh commissioner murphy can i get a motion to move 2026 reg015 to august 19 2026 so moved thank you commissioner lyle can i get a second Second. Let me call the roll. Herget.

Herget, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Moriarty. Moriarty, yes. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West. West, yes. Dillon is a yes. That moves by a vote of eight to zero, and it goes to August 19th, 2026. Additional. Withdrawals, special requests. Yes. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Pat Andrews, 7631 Reynolds Road in Canby. I would request a waiver of your rules of procedure, given all the people who have shown up and wish to speak, so that folks can get two minutes apiece to address the ordinance, 2026-AO-001.

Pat, I'm going to make a proposed change to the rules. And since you've brought it up, I'll explain to you what I'm going to do. We decided to take this as a petition versus a resolution. So it's going to be a petition. But I'm going to ask the commission to approve, instead of our usual, which you're familiar with, 15 and 5 for rebuttal, we're going to go a block of 20 minutes for DMD staff, since they essentially are the petitioner, and 20 minutes for remonstrators, and then have any counselors that want to speak. And then we'll come back either after those sessions or at the end to ask additional questions. That's where we're going to go. But I think that block of 20, if you get your people organized, will work to get their comments on. That's where we're going to go. Thank you, Pat. Any other special requests? Withdrawals? Seeing none, Nancy, would you read the resolutions into the minutes?

Thank you, President Dillon and Commissioners. 2026R018 authorizes the Department of Metropolitan Development to cooperate with the Indianapolis Fire Department to acquire and facilitate redevelopment of the property at 834 East Westfield Boulevard, aka 6330 Guilford Avenue. 2026A028 and 2029 were continued. 2026a030 for public hearing final economic revitalization area resolution for araldine engineering llc and araldine real estate llc located at 1919 south girls school road council district 17 wayne township recommend approval of four years real property tax abatement 2026a031 for public hearing Final economic revitalization area resolution for Aerodyne Engineering LLC and Aerodyne Real Estate LLC located at 1919 South Grove School Road, Council District 17, Wayne Township. Recommend approval of four years personal property tax abatement. 2026A-032, for public hearing. Final economic revitalization area resolution for Olson Custom Designs, LLC, located at 6803 Kaufman Road, Council District 6, Pike Township. Recommend approval of five years personal property tax abatement. 2026A036, far public hearing. Authorizes amendment to the 2024 personal property tax abatement approved by resolution number 2024A040 at 4825 West 79th Street, Council District 6, Carlos Perkins. This ends the reading of the resolutions.

thank you madam secretary members of the commission 2026 r 016 does not stand for public hearing that is the old firehouse that was in broad ripple It's now been moved to a brand new beautiful firehouse on College, which is Station 32. This will go out in RFP, and DMD will decide what's the best use working with the Broad River community on what to do with that facility. Oh, I'm sorry. It's 2026 R018. I stand corrected. We have that before us. Commissioner Schumacher, can I get a motion to approve 2026R018? So moved. Commissioner Robinson, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll. Hurgett?

Hurgett, yes.

Lyle? Lyle, yes. Morarity? Morarity, yes. Murphy? Murphy, yes. Robinson?

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher? Schumacher, yes. West? West, yes. Dillon is a yes. The old fire station passes 8 to 0 to go out with DMD on NRFP. Moving forward. Our first public hearing is 2026A030, Final Economic Revitalization Area Resolution for Aridon Engineering LLC and Aridon Real Estate LLC, located at 1919 South Girls School Road, Council District Number 17, Wayne Township. A recommended approval of four years for real property tax abatement staff.

Good afternoon, Tanya Ellison for Economic Incentives. Here on resolution 2026A030 and 2026A031 for Aerodyne Engineering and Aerodyne Real Estate. These resolutions are requests for expansions of the existing Indianapolis location. The request is for a four year real and personal property abatement with a total investment of $13.4 million. The project will retain 65 jobs and create 25 new positions all above the wage of $40 an hour. The company will realize a tax saving of approximately 570,000. We're recommending approval of both of these resolutions for the four years.

Thank you. Do you want to put their letter into the record? Yes, I would like to add- Please do, because I thought that was a step forward.

Yes, we would like to add the letter of proposed steps to increase the number of Marion County jobs, so we will add that to the record as well.

Questions? Does anybody else here have comments on this resolution? Seeing none, we have before us 26A, 030. Commissioner West, can I get a motion to approve? So moved. Thank you. Commissioner Robinson, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll. Herget. Herget, yes. Lyle. Lyle, yes. Morarity. Morarity, yes. Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson. Robinson, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West. West, yes. Dillon is a yes. It passes eight to zero. We now have before us 2026A031, which was just discussed. Final Economic Revitalization Area Resolution for Aridon Engineering LLC, Aridon Real Estate LLC, located at 1919 South Girl School Road, Council District Number 7, Wayne Township. This one is for the recommended approval of four years personal property tax abatement. And you're putting the letter into both these files? Yes, that is correct. That would be great. Is there anyone else here who would like to comment on this matter? Questions from the commissioners? Seeing none, we have before us 2026A031. Commissioner Morarity, can I get a motion to approve? So moved. Thank you. Commissioner Lyle, can I get a second? Second. Call the roll. Hurgett? Hurgett, yes. Lyle? Lyle, also yes. Morarity? Morarity, yes. Murphy? Murphy, yes. Robinson?

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher? Schumacher, yes. West? West, yes. Dillon is a yes. It also passes 8-0. Thank you. Thank you. We have now 2026A-032 for public hearing. Welcome.

Thank you, President Dillon and members of the Commission. I am Kathy Battle with the Economic Incentives Team here to speak on behalf of Olsen Customs Design LLC. They are expanding their CNC manufacturing over into 6803 Coffman Road. This is a phase two. Back in 2024, they showed us that they honor their commitments, they've exceeded all of their commitments for the 2024 project, and so they've come back before us because they are expanding, asking for a five-year personal property tax abatement. This is going to come with a $15 million to the property over the five years, the tax savings would be 467K. They'll pay 298K in taxes and then their 5% savings will go towards the Indy Achieves grant in the amount of $23,000. So staff is recommending approval and seeking and asking approval for resolution 2026A032. for a five-year personal property tax abatement. Questions from commissioners?

Is there anyone else here today like to comment on this matter? Seeing none. We have before us 2026A032, Final Economic Revitalization Area Resolution for Olsen Custom Designs, LLC, located at 6803 Kauffman Road, Council District Number 6 in Pike Township. Recommends approval of five years personal property tax abatement. Commissioner Lyle, can I get a motion to approve? Yes, sir. So moved. Thank you. Commissioner Herget, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll. Herget.

Herget, yes.

Lyle. Lyle, yes. Morarity. Morarity, yes. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West. West, yes. Dillon is a yes. It passes 8-0, which takes us to 2026A-036, a dovetail resolution as well. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, President Dillon, commissioners. My name is Sherry Orr. I'm with DMD Economic Incentives Compliance Team. As my colleague just referred, Olsen Custom Design received a five-year personal property tax abatement in 2024. This is located at 4825 West 79th Street. The company has exceeded their goals for workforce development and investments and now wants to add an additional $3 million for personal property investment, as well as nine additional new jobs to their workforce development goals. All of this will be due within the same original timeframe they committed to, which is by December 31st, 2029. Staff recommends approval of this amendment, Resolution 2026A-036.

Questions for staff or members of the Commission? Is there anyone else here today that would like to comment on this resolution? Seeing none, 2026A-036 authorizes an amendment to the 2024 personal property tax abatement approved by resolution 2024 a040 at 7825 west 79th council district number six carlos perkins is the counselor and is part of the olsen dovetail resolutions uh commissioner murray can i get a motion to approve so moved thank you commissioner murvey can i get a second second and call the roll herget herget yes Lyle. Lyle. Yes. Moriarty. Moriarty, yes. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West. West, yes. Dillon is a yes. It also passes 8-0. Nancy, that takes us to our petitions of no appeal. Would you read those into the record?

Yes, sir. Thank you, President Dillon and commissioners. Petitions recommended for approval by the hearing examiner with no appeal. 2026ZON035, 7323 South Mooresville Road, Decatur Township, Council District 21. 2026ZON040, at 2422 and 2430 Prospect Street, Center Township, Council District 18. 2026, CZN 823 at 4240 Bluff Road, Perry Township, Council District 22. Petition 2025, REG 036 at 2222, that is, East Market Street, Center Township, Council District 12. And we So continued ROG 015, that leaves us with 2026 REG 035 at 17 West 22nd Street, Center Township, Council District 12. This ends the reading of the no appeals docket recommended for approval by the hearing examiners.

Nancy, check my math. I'm counting two, three, four, five, six petitions of no appeal that you've read into the record.

Mr. York, continue to REG.

I've got it. I've got 2026 REG 035 in here twice, so that makes sense. All right. Thank you. We have five zoning petitions of no appeal that have been read into the record. 2026 ZON 035, 2026 ZON 040, 2026 czn 823 2025 reg 036 2026 reg 035 i would like to take those all at once commissioner schumacher can i get a motion to approve all five so moved thank you commissioner robinson can i get a second second Let me call the roll. Herget.

Herget, yes.

Lyle. Lyle, yes. Morarity. Morarity, yes. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson. Robinson, yes. Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West. West, yes. Dillon is a yes. They pass 8-0. Nancy, that takes us to the only public hearing for today. that we're going to hear. And as I stated at the beginning, members of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, I want to make a motion, given the unique nature of the proposed ordinance, Amendment 2026-A0001. I'm going to make a motion to modify the commission rules of procedures to provide for the following format for today's public hearing only. First, the Department of Metropolitan Development and any supporters will have a total of 20 minutes as a group for the presentation of evidence, statements, and arguments in favor of the proposed ordinance amendment. This will be followed by an opportunity for members of the commission to ask questions of the DMD and supporters of the amendment. Next. Any remonstrators wishing to speak in opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment will also have a total of 20 minutes as a group for the presentation of evidence, statements, and arguments in opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment. This will be followed by an opportunity for members of the commission to ask questions of the remonstrators. Following the presentations by supporters and remonstrators, any city county council members who wishing to provide testimony regarding the proposed ordinance amendment will be given an opportunity to do so. And then finally, members of the commission will have the opportunity to ask additional questions and offer any additional amendments At that point in time, ballots will then be cast by the commission regarding the proposed ordinance amendments. Would the petitioner, DMD staff, please come forward?

Yes, thank you. Thank you, President Dillon and members of the Metropolitan Development Commission.

I am so sorry. I've got to vote that resolution or that amendment in. I apologize. I jumped the gun. I've read the proposed ordinance amendment for 2026-8001 into the record. Commissioner Murphy, can I get a motion to approve?

President Dunn, please, can you restate exactly what your motion is? Is this the motion regarding the time frame?

This is the motion I just read into the record on how we're going to conduct this hearing. I second. Thank you. Commissioner Moriarty, can I? Well, I made the motion. You're seconding. Thank you. Let me call the roll. Herget.

Herget, yes.

Lyle. Lyle, yes. Moriarty. Moriarty, yes. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West. West, yes. Dillon is a yes. It passes 8 to 0. Hopefully, I was clear. Petitioner or staff gets 20 minutes. Remonstrators get 20 minutes. I'll then ask for any counselors to come forward. We can ask questions during this time. We can ask questions at the end from members of the commission and offer any amendments. Madam Executive Director, now we're ready to go. You're on the clock.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, President Dillon and members of the Metropolitan Development Commission. My name is Megan Vukicic, and I'm the director for the Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development. Today, we are here before you to present on 2026-AO-001. This is a proposal to amend the Consolidated Zoning and Subdivision Control Ordinance of Indianapolis Marion County. Specifically, we are looking to amend Chapter 740202, which is the definition section, and Chapter 742109, which is the special use districts chapter pertaining to data center development. As we begin, we wanted to start with what is a data center? A data center is a specialized building or facility that stores the physical components of IT infrastructure. Typically, this would include servers or machines that store data, networking equipment, power and backup power infrastructure to avoid power outages, cooling systems to keep systems from overheating, and security and fire suppression systems. Give me one second. The proposed definition to be included in the zoning ordinance is as follows. A facility used primarily for the storage, management, processing, and transmission of digital data, and that houses computer or network equipment, systems, servers, appliances, and other associated components related to digital data storage, processing, and related operations. Data center uses include data storage facilities, server farms, artificial intelligence training or processing, image processing, cloud computing, email servicing, and similar uses. This definition does not include information technology services and equipment which are incidental and subordinate to a primary permitted use. So just to be clear, this definition would not include a use such as a hospital, which may have a campus with a data center associated with it. It would also not include a telecommunications facility, which has its own separate definition in the zoning ordinance for that, or ISP, internet service provider, head end facilities. We've received questions on that, so we wanted to make that clear. These uses that I listed would fall under their own definitions of the zoning ordinance. To give you some background on the current state of zoning related to data centers, staff began research on this topic in March 2025 when a Google data center was proposed. This was the first data center of a large scale that we had encountered. Since then, and over the past year, a total of four new data centers have been requested. This includes Google, Metro Blocks, SABY, and DC Blocks, which is currently going through the approval process. Our current zoning ordinance does not include a definition or regulations for data centers. However, this does not mean that staff can turn away application requests. We are still required to process applications. What we have done during this time is we've identified uses within the zoning ordinance that are of a similar use size and that require similar resource consumption and have recommended development conditions that should be considered for approval. We also wanna provide some background on the current economic landscape. The state of Indiana has passed tax incentives that are making Indiana an attractive place to build data centers. Tax incentives typically include a reduction of taxes for a certain amount of years. This reduces the cost of data centers to be built, therefore making Indiana an attractive place to build. We also see that private investment dollars are going towards data center developments because these developments have a high return on investment. Indianapolis must carefully weigh between attracting private investment, which can be good for our growth, and ensuring resources are protected. And then we also know that companies use data centers to support the infrastructure load of modern technology. One additional background item we wanted to call out is the delineation between zoning and tax incentives. While both are tools used by the city of Indianapolis to influence development, they have distinct differences. For zoning, DMD must process applications when they are submitted. A property owner has a legal right to request a zoning change on their property. Staff then reviews that request for compliance with land use policies and state law requirements. We, Indianapolis, get the ability to have our zoning through state law, and therefore there are limitations on what zoning can regulate. We have to live within the confines that state law allows us. DMD's mission is to ensure Indianapolis' growth is done responsibly and respectfully towards citizens. For local tax incentives, these are negotiated by an organization called the Indianapolis Economic Development Incorporated. And they determine whether tax incentives should be offered based on a data center scorecard. With tax incentives, there is more flexibility to require higher standards. Different from zoning, where we are limited in what we can regulate and require, through tax incentives, the city can require things like requiring a company pays for all electrical infrastructure. This allows the city to attract the best in class companies who are building high quality facilities. IDI, the Indianapolis Economic Development Incorporated mission is to create a strong business environment ensuring Indianapolis remains competitive to attract high quality companies. Both zoning and local tax incentives through these tools we want to ensure the city is getting the best facilities we can. So the proposed zoning regulations. We are recommending the creation of a new special use district called SU 47. With all special use districts, we must identify a base district for applicable development standards. We are recommending the medium industrial district, I3, as the base zoning district. With a special use district, a rezone to the SU 47 district would be required for all new data center developments. This means any new data center would go through the MDC and city county approval process for approval. This would also mean that administrative approval from DMD would be required before any building permits are issued. In addition to the I3 development standards, the SU 47 district would include these additional regulations. We are recommending that noise be limited to 55 decibels at or beyond the property line. To ensure that this can be met, a noise study would be required to be submitted with the rezone request to verify existing noise levels on the property and confirmation that the 55 decibels will be met. We are recommending a 400-foot setback from any protected district. A protected district would be all residential districts, schools, churches. To give you an idea of what 400 feet looks like, this would be greater than the length of the standard American football field. A new data center would be required to also meet all landscaping and screening that applies to the I-3 district. In addition, if it is next to a protected district, they would be required to install an eight-foot berm and evergreen trees. We are also recommending a robust operations plan be submitted so that way we can ensure quality operations prior to the approval of any rezone. This operations plan would be required to include a detailed site plan, a security plan, visual screening report, water management plan, electricity capacity plan, noise study and mitigation plan, and decommissioning plan. This would also include providing will service letters from all of the utility companies. Zoning standards cannot regulate the amount of electricity, source of electricity, or amount of water used by a development, but we can ask for information on what operations will look like so decision makers have all of the information they need to make informed decisions about allowing a new development. We are also recommending an annual report be submitted to the MDC verifying the development is in compliance with zoning standards and their operations plan. This would be an annual report that is submitted, so yearly. Additionally, we are recommending a public-facing dashboard be created by the property owner and operator that includes information on electricity consumption, water consumption, generator testing, dates and times, and other important announcements for the neighborhood. DMD's ultimate goal is to propose responsible regulations for your consideration. DMD is putting forward the best recommendations in alignment with policy objectives that have been established by elected officials. This includes policies at both the state and local level. At the state level, we know that tax incentives are being offered to make Indiana a more attractive place for data centers. At the local level, Indianapolis Economic Development Incorporated has supported these developments, and two data centers have been approved and supported. From some of the public comments, we've heard that establishing these regulations will make it easier to build data centers in Indianapolis, and this is not the case. Having no regulations does not make it harder for data centers to be built. It just means that we don't have defined guardrails in place. These regulations are a way we can require these companies meet minimum standards and ensure the proper public processes play out. So before you today is the anticipated timeline for adoption of these standards. Today is July 1st, where we will have the MDC public hearing. It's anticipated that MDC will provide a recommendation to city council. On July 6th would be the full city council meeting, where they would introduce the proposal. No public hearing for this date, but it would be a public meeting. July 13th would be the City Council Metropolitan Economic Development Committee meeting. This is anticipated where we would hold another public hearing. That committee would then provide their recommendation to the full City Council, which would be anticipated on August 10th for that final vote. Again, that last meeting would be no public hearing. Before we wrap up, I want to make note that DMD has collected over 1500 public comments related to data center developments and data center zoning regulations over the past year. Many of the concerns we've heard about are outside of the scope of what zoning can regulate, such as utility rates, electricity and water consumption, fire and building code standards. We have put together an FAQ document that is available online. While we may not be the correct agency to regulate all of these concerns, our staff is happy to help and point people in the right direction. There are other avenues to provide public feedback if there are concerns outside of the scope of zoning, either by contacting the appropriate agency that does regulate the concern or contacting elected officials at the state or local level. Outlined in the staff report are recommended amendments to the proposed to the proposal based on public feedback. We request a favorable recommendation of the proposed ordinance with these amendments, which we will read into the record now.

Thank you, Madam Director, President Dillon, members of the commission. Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning ordinance Amendment 2026 A.O. 001 subject to the following proposed amendments based off of stakeholder engagement and feedback. Section three, protected district separation. Minimum separation of 400 feet between any portion of the primary building of a data center facility and the proposed line of a protected district pertaining to industrial development. Item four, sound levels. Maximum sound levels associated with any component of a data center may not exceed 55 decibels measured at or beyond a data center facility property line. Under item five, mechanical equipment, Sub bullet any and all testing of equipment of generators is prohibited between 5 p.m. And 7 a.m. And on no zone action days SAP proposes a new item 9 emergency contact information All data centers shall provide a signage with 24-hour emergency contact information that is visible at the access entrance access entrance areas A sign shall include the company name, if applicable, the name and telephone number of a representative of the operator, and a website or other available identifiers, i.e., quick response QR code, to require publicly available online dashboard identified in the proposed section 742-109, item L, item 11. Item 10, under required site and operational plans, item 1, All data centers shall be subject to the approved site plan and plan of operation with utility, consumption, and capacity reports which identify. Under item F, a water management plan detailing water use associated with the facility. The plan shall provide at a minimum for both initial and full site build out. Item one, average of a peak water use associated with the facility operations. average peak water use associated with energy generation, discharge location of used water including frequency, velocity, quality, and amount, and a discharge location that's other than a sanitary sewer requires written approval from the administrator and or designee as assigned by the Department of Public Works Deputy Director of the Engineering Division. Item four, measures taken to minimize water use in the initial facility design and planned efforts to monitor and minimize water consumption at the facility during operations. Under item H, for noise study, prior to the issuance of an ILP, a report that describes the methodology on how the property owner and operator shall measure and monitor decibel levels at and beyond the property line shall be submitted to ensure compliance with all the rules and regulation related to the permitted level of noise. The noise study and mitigation plan shall provide at minimum the existence of ambient sound levels measured prior to construction at the property line in adjacent protected districts. Projected sound levels during the normal operation of a facility. projected sound levels during peak operation conditions including generator testing simultaneous equipment operation emergency backup operation and other regionally anticipated high noise events the proposed locations times duration weather conditions equipment and methodology for all sound measurements identification of the applicable maximum sound level standards, and analysis demonstrating whether the facility is expected to comply with that standard at and beyond the property line, and the proposed mitigation measures, including but not limited to the sound walls, enclosures, baffles, ventilation silencers, acoustic louvers, equipment orientation, building placement, operational limitations, landscaping, berming, and other noise attenuation measures necessary to ensure compliance. Underneath the same section, under the decommissioning plan, we amended item six, which reads, the facility restoration plan includes the removal of all equipment, restoration of building, ensuring that is a building code compliant structure, and remediation of any environmental impacts of hazardous materials associated with the operation of a data center up to contemporary standards defined by an environmental regulatory authority. Under item two, section D, adequate water supply is available to meet the current customer demand and the expected demand of a data center facility and whether serving the data center is in alignment with utilities' most recent integrated water resource plan. Staff also proposes new item, section 11, minimum commitments. At a minimum, the following commitments shall be included with the approval of each SU special use district 47 and or data center facility. The property owner and or designee operator shall, one, submit an annual report to the Metropolitan Development Commission no later than January 31st of each calendar year for the duration of the facility's operation from the previous year. The annual report must be signed and notarized by the property owner and designated operator. Two, to provide a publicly available online dashboard within six months of operation. And three, resubmit water management plans and electricity capacity plan for review if facility operations change in such that the original submitted values will be exceeded. Revised operations are not to be initiated until the revised plans are approved. One, the annual report shall include the following. Subsection one, annual energy consumption reports including the total annual electrical demand, peak energy demand data, summary of any onsite renewable energy generation systems serving the facility, documentation of any renewable energy offsets, renewable energy credits, power purchase agreements, or other renewable energy sourcing mechanisms utilized to offset facilities consumption, general summary of the measures implemented to reduce operational energy impacts or improve energy efficiency during the reporting year, and confirm the compliance of any approved local utility state and or federal requirements and commitments. Annual water consumption reports, including annual water consumption for the facility specific water consumption for cooling systems, including cooling system storage units, water consumption associated with the energy generation, water conservation or reuse measurements implemented in the last year of the corresponding impact on water use, and the confirmation of compliance with any local utility, state, and or federal requirements and commitments. annual noise compliance report prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer documenting the compliance of the max decimal limit at and beyond the property line, including the methodology of measurement. The report shall be prepared in accordance with the approved noise study mitigation plan and shall include sound measurements conducted under the operating conditions identified in the approved plan and include normal operation and peak operations such as generator testing. Annual emergency generator testing report which documents the frequency of generator testing, the duration of the testing for each generator unit, testing schedule and confirmation of compliance with all IDEM regulations. A statement confirming that the facility continued to operate in substantial compliance with the approved development plan, commitments, and all applicable special use district standards. Item two, the publicly available online dashboard shall include at a minimum the following information. Dates of upcoming plan generator testing. Notice of all temporary changes that may impact the public. The following information updated monthly with the data posted by the 15th day of the following month. A minimum of three years of data shall be maintained, allowing trends to be identified. For electrical, monthly total electrical use and peak use. Breakdown of electricity sourcing, i.e. purchase from grade renewable, et cetera. For item two, water, monthly total facility water consumption at peak facility consumption, and monthly total water demand at peak energy. at peak energy water demand. Those are the following proposed amendments to the ordinance based off of stakeholder feedback and public comment.

TODD BANDUCCI- Does that conclude your presentation? Thank you. Questions from members of the commission?

I have some questions, President Dillon. TODD BANDUCCI- Commissioner Murphy. So some general questions and then more specific. as proposed this amendment does not in any way limit what type of current zoning is eligible to apply for this new special use district is that correct in other words whether a property is currently zoned agricultural or c7 whatever it could still apply for su-47 rezoning

That is correct, and that would be true for any zoning district.

Yeah, and so the reference to I-3 isn't limiting it to properties that are I-3 currently to apply for this. It's just using I-3 standards as the applicable review template, in effect, for the SU-47. That is correct. And unless something is specifically amended in I-3 through this amendment, then the I-3 applies. Correct. And I assume that from a practical standpoint, you have to reference one district as the template. You couldn't reference multiple because then you would have varying standards that it would be impossible to figure out whether a petition complies with one or the other. Is that correct?

That is correct, yes. Each special use district must identify one base district in which we follow the development standards for.

Yeah. And heretofore, the data centers that have been approved generally have been, I believe, industrial zoning, and then they obtain variances.

Is that correct in Marion County? that is correct uh say for the google site which was metro blocks was also a cs district as well as google that was their proposed we had the sabi case which was an i2 original zoning okay so if a site currently is owned say i2 or i3 and they wanted to develop a data center would it still be if we pass this would it still be possible for the petitioner to

go the variance route and keep the existing zoning?

In terms of what we're proposing today, if it is a data center facility use, they would have to rezone. If there's development standards that they can seek variances from by state code, they can seek that. But for variance of use into another zoning, for that, we would require that all data center uses, if it's a primary use of a data center, must be rezoned to SU.

So I'm a little confused by your answer. So you said that under state statute, if they could achieve the development with variances from existing zoning, say it was an I-2 or I-3, They could do that or they could not do that.

So what I'm trying to say is that we cannot say, no, you cannot file a variance. Any property owner has the legal right to file a variance. What we're saying with this ordinance is that for you to develop a data center, you must rezone to SU district. Now, there might be some development standards within I3 that they seek variance. Again, we cannot stop them from seeking that variance. But what we're saying is if you want to develop as a data center under this proposed ordinance, they would have to rezone to Special Use District 47 for that development to occur.

Okay, thank you. And then some specific questions on minimum separation 400 feet rather than 200 feet so does that mean that 200 feet is what's currently required in i-3

So within I-3 development standards, there are transitional zones as well as separations. So what we're doing with the special use district is we're asking above what I-3 development standard states. And so that separation, what we're proposing is 400 versus 200.

But I-3 requires 200 feet of separation from a protected district.

It would depend on the type of use within I-3. So we do have, within our zoning ordinance, particular uses required different separations. So it would depend on that use not to try to muddy the waters.

Yeah, but is there a use that would be permissible under I-3 that would require, under the current ordinance, more than 200 feet of separation?

Yes. There are some uses within I-3 that would require 600-foot separation or further.

Okay. And then... sound levels again i'm just trying to understand the difference so is i3 65 decibels at the property line so this is again with the special use district we're asking above and beyond what the i3 development standards are i understand that but the answer to my question is yes or no i3 requires 65 decibels at the property line

Currently, in I-3 development standards, there's not a minimum requirement for decibels thresholds, which is why we're proposing it in the special use district.

Or a maximum requirement, right? Correct. Maximum decibels.

Now, within city code, there's nuisance ordinances where there's particular types of uses or circumstances where there are decibel thresholds, which is where 65 decibels was originally pulled from. So we use that because that's already in nuisance ordinance regulations as already placed for the city county of Indianapolis And so that's where we leaned on the reason why we're proposing 55 today is based off of community feedback and Stakeholder feedback where there was a request to lower that threshold.

Okay, and then on Decommissioning plan so you highlighted number six does that mean that one two three four five are already part of a decommissioning plan that is part of i3 so what what we did with the uh additional amendment to item six uh was just add clarification again from stakeholder feedback

The rest of the items 1 through 5 were from the original posting of our amended. So we just want to make clear that this would be above and beyond what I-3 development standards has.

And does I-3 have a decommissioning plan requirement? Not this time for any other use.

Thank you.

Additional questions? Yes, sir. President Dillon.

Commissioner Lyle.

So staff, can you clarify simply that SU 47 then becomes a development type or no?

So what special use districts do is that there's a type of use that's a little bit unique that doesn't quite fit into other districts. So another good example would be like a government facility. We have a special use districts for like indoor recreational centers, things of that nature. So with this amendment, what we are proposing is a new special use district on its own for this particular use. So we're creating a brand new one for specifically data center use.

So should it pass if there is a project that comes before the city that intends its primary use to be data center, it will divert to SU 47 as a hearing going forward versus any other structure that the city allows an i2 i3 cs anything correct so if a land use petition is filed asking for the development of a data center we would issue them to a rezone petition to a special use district okay and in these new proposed guidelines one of the things that i read in many of the remonstrance documentation pieces was about low frequency testing Has that been considered in the sound profile that you all are proposing to analyze?

Yes, we did. So we looked into that. We also looked at what our peer communities are doing as well. As you know, across the country, this is a new use that every community is trying to regulate or trying to understand. We could not find anywhere where that type of low frequency was regulated. And so what we did was we wanted to ensure that we have ways to regulate and to enforce and so we go back to what is already on the books and we have a nuisance ordinance that depicts often what are those thresholds and that's where we originally proposed 65 and we went to 55. So we wanted to ensure that we had measurable enforcement rates while we still try to determine what other communities are doing for low level frequency.

And where are we in that process?

So far, it's been very difficult. We've been reaching out to other peer communities. We've also been watching any amendments, particularly with communities in the state of Indiana. And currently right now, there's no regulation enforcing low frequency. So we're still watching. We're still making sure that if there is a way to regulate that, if we know how to do that, we definitely want to be proposing that.

Okay. There was a few mentions throughout the remonstrance about increasing the distance from protected districts from the current 200 to 500 to 1,000 feet. Seeing as how we landed at 400, what would be the rationale to get us to 500 from the city's perspective?

From staff's perspective, we landed at 400 based off of the research that we've been pulling from not only other peer communities, but just what data centers and the reports that are out there from other communities. And so we landed at 400 because we want to ensure that people understand what these centers are. If there is more separation that's required, we're open to that. We also want to ensure that we're not in a place where we're regulating so much to where there can't be any development that occurs. Also, we also want to understand where the reasoning behind a lot of the annual reporting is that that provides us as decision makers real data. So if we need to come back to amend, we can do so with real data backed up. So we landed at 400 based off of really what our peer communities are doing and regulating, and that's been all over across the board from one community only had 100 feet separation to we had another community that was looking at 1,000. So we did, again, based off of what I3 development standards are, We looked at the current use in the data that we've done our research on for data centers. And with that conclusion, that's where we felt that 400 foot separation was reasonable, responsible regulation.

Being that we do have something on the books already that allows us to get to 600, I think it would be a reasonable request to accommodate a little bit more of that distance, seeing that this is such a fiery topic. I think we can go a little bit above and beyond and become a leader in the space. and push for a little bit more separation because we've seen across the country how much vitriol there is in response to this type of development. And since it is fairly unproven scientifically, I think more is a better case. So I would just push back on staff to encourage a conversation about increasing that distance because we have people who have been in neighborhoods for decades or hundreds of years and if their perspective is I need more, then let's listen. The other thing would be a lot of conversation has happened around community benefits. So in the conversation about what the public dashboard would display, that is a great idea to produce a public dashboard, but I didn't see any mention of how the status of the community benefits would be in that public dashboard.

I totally understand where we're talking about economic incentives and those benefits. What we try to do is to ensure that what's in our zoning ordinance is what zoning can regulate. And so that's where we land with those reportings on if we can ask for those annual updates on those metrics that zoning can regulate, that's what's the safest bet. So we're open to feedback on the dashboard. In terms of our zoning ordinance, we want to ensure what's in there is what zoning can regulate.

not looking to litigate the benefits themselves but if they're proposed and codified they should just be displayed and if there are things that happen over time like dollar amounts that have been allocated towards certain community initiatives the status of that dollar amount should be displayed so that public dashboard should actually be public thanks other questions yes please

See that, Commissioner West? Yes. Go. Thanks. In your document on page 53, paragraph 10, 1, F4, about halfway down, you refer twice to permitted level of noise. And in that subparagraph 5, identification of the applicable maximum sound level and then a lot of this puts the onus on a sound expert that's brought in with the project is his or her permitted level of noise your permitted level of noise or this this uses permitted level of noise being the 55 that would be correct So that's really the permitted level of, there would be no other permitted level of noise other than that? That would be correct. And is that 55 DBA or DBC, please?

We have currently in our zoning regulation a DBA.

Why did we choose not to? In previous weeks and months, we talked about DBA in writing. We dropped that here today.

Yeah, that could be something if we need to make that motion to amend, we'd be happy to do that.

Did you have any sound expert testimony backing up the change from 65 to 55 and what that would mean?

So we have received some public communication and from stakeholder engagement that 55 would be a challenge for development of data centers. What we've landed on is, again, what can we enforce? We have to have those measurements. We also wanted to lean into community engagement. They've asked for lower, and that's what we're proposing to honor what we've been hearing with our stakeholders. And so that's where we landed at 55. for that decibel. We also, through our other land use petitions, we've been asking for measurements for sound because our commitments previously have been requiring 65. And so those reports through those land use petitions have shown us how they can do those measurements. So we were actually taking in live data throughout the year to how do we regulate the noise level. So that's kind of the background and the context for that sound measurement.

Have we approached any industrial users or data center builders to get feedback on what their response is to that goal of 55 DBA or DB?

So we have received, as DMD, through the stakeholder engagements, we have heard from those types of users. They have expressed some difficulty in meeting that level threshold. And so that's where, again, we take in all the stakeholder feedback and comments And we try to land on something that, again, we can enforce. So we understand that it can be difficult. From our responses, we need to see evidence that's not possible. And we have not seen that, which is why we still have as proposed as 55.

I went out to one of the data center sites to measure DBA. And ambience were between 60 and 65. When a car drove by, it was typical to see 72 to 75. So if you've got an ambient level of, let's say, 55 in a rural quiet location, and you add a 55, then you would double it. And doubling is represented by a 3 dBA increase. So you would be measuring 58 at that location. Would that be seen to be in compliance or not?

And I can step in here, Bryce. So with the noise requirement, we're also requiring the noise study and mitigation plan be submitted on the front end. And so as a part of that plan, we've asked that they identify and measure existing noise levels out on the site. So then we can delineate that between the new noise generated by any new facility.

I saw that, and that's very good to have that in there. change from 65 to 75 to the layman might seem like a 13% increase or a change from 75 to 65 might seem like a Well, I guess I got my numbers wrong but in any case it's about a 15% change one way or the other but sound pressure level doubles with every a doubling of the sound pressure level is represented by a 3 dBA increase and So if 65 is a norm that's been used here and there in ordinances and within industry, then to go from 65 to 62 would be the sound level cut in half, and then half again at 59, and then half again at 56. Just to be clear of what kind of ask that is. And I've heard the argument about the low frequency sounds, and I heard you say you want to be responsive to that. DBA is what the human ear hears, and so that's commonly used for that reason, because sometimes we don't care about other sound, we just care about what we hear. DBC is a wider spectrum. It doesn't discount... the high frequencies and the low frequencies that we cannot hear. So the DBC reading will hear those low frequencies. And since that's a particular item of concern, and I even saw some thumbs go up when we were talking about low frequency, and I know you want to be responsive to the low frequency because you said that you did, perhaps we should consider some expert sound testimony that would point to a DBC rather than a DBA. And perhaps, I don't know for certain, but perhaps that would be better approach toward addressing the low frequency than just simply dropping the number, especially down below ambient levels, where it would become possibly said to be unrealistic.

Yeah, thank you for the feedback. And we'll take whatever direction this board would like to provide.

Okay, thank you.

Additional questions? I have a couple. Bryce, we have several existing data centers that are in Marion County. If they want expansion, and some of these are in very metropolitan areas, do these requirements apply to their expansion?

uh once passed and um in full enactment yes if they were to expand their they'd be essentially created as legal non-conforming use so if they would expand that use they would be required for that parcel to be rezoned is it smart to put a grandfather clause in there because several of these data centers that have been operating and nobody's complaining about them don't even know they're there

you shut them down from any expansion of trying to increase their capacity. Yeah, if that's a directive from the MDC, we'd be happy to provide that provision. Can you think that through as a provision that we can add in today? Absolutely. Going forward, I would appreciate it. Secondly, this may be for the executive director or you. I don't really care. Why I-3, not I-2?

I'm happy to jump in there. Sure, love to hear it. Yeah, so what we did was with all of our industrial districts, all the uses are typically put into what's more compatible with one another. And so what we were reviewing is what can the scale be the types of developments that can occur, where our existing zoning, our industrial zoned parcels within the city. What we landed on was I-3 development standards really do help regulate the scale of the development. And so if there's a larger parcel, there's still some protections in place to ensure that the scale is still in check and in line with what we're trying to achieve with the zoning ordinance. So I-3 is where we landed. particularly with the transitional yard requirements and the scaling of the structure at the height limit for the structures.

Is there any way for the new SU-47, if the restrictions or comments are not in SU-47, then they fall to I-3? there any way that they could fall to i3 or i2 or have your developer or data center individuals who come forward to file for the i4 su 47 because it's a data center and we need the new regulation say we want to fall in under criteria I-2, not I-3. So have like a I-3 or I-2, if I make sense.

Yeah, absolutely. My reaction to that is with our special use districts, the way that they are structured within our zoning ordinance, there is one base zoning district. So having an either or option would be a brand new regulation. For our zoning ordinance, so I would want to make sure that from a legal standpoint. That's something that's permissible Right, and I don't know the answer to that. I think it might be but I don't know the answer Yeah, I would say for for the sake of the regulation and how the ordinance is structured today. There's one zoning based district but we can definitely look into more research about the legalities if we haven't either or and

Let's go back to our setback number. That number's been all over the board. But in our previous approvals, they were at 200 feet, as I remember. And that, at the end of the day, did not seem to be contested by anybody at that point in time. Now I've seen 1,000 feet, I've seen Two miles. I mean, it's been all over the board. So talk to me again on the 200 feet versus 400 feet.

So the original proposal of 200 foot separation is what DMD staff has been requiring as commitments for land use petitions for data centers prior to this ordinance. So our intent was to be consistent of what we've been asking. Since then, and working on developing this ordinance amendment, again, we've been taking in feedback from not only just through the stakeholder engagement and public comment period for the ordinance itself, but the feedback that we received from all land use petitions. And separation, to your point, has been all over the place. We've had community members ask for over 1,000, 1,500, 1,800. We've also had public feedback saying 200's too much. So again, what we did was we looked at the scale of the development, the type of the development with how this occurs in I3 development standards, and we tried to propose listening to stakeholders what is a reasonable and responsible separation increase? And that's where we landed at 400. And again, that's also based off of other peer communities and their separations as well. So we wanted to make sure that we're in line with other communities and their regulations too.

Final question, Bryce. I also noticed the DBA designation was taken out to the DB designation, which I was a little surprised about, but your testimony was there is no decimal levels around the state that you've been able to find anywhere. Is that correct?

Specifically for low frequency. So we haven't found, but with feedback that we've heard, I think there's ways that we can capture that kind of measurement as well. But we are just focusing on, again, what does our nuisance ordinance say, and try to match that, I think, from what we... And that's 65, is it not? And that was the most frequent use for industrial-type uses, and that's what we originally proposed, 65 DBA.

In your professional opinion, is 55 even possible for a data center?

Again, based off of stakeholder feedback, we have heard that there would be difficulty meeting that. So why do we want to go to that level when 65 has been the standard? Again, what we're trying to balance, DMD staff is just trying to balance what is reasonable responsible regulation based off of what the community is asking for and then what we're learning with this development. And so again, we're trying to build a logic and consistency. But when we're hearing from community members that the frequency is just too high, they want to lower that decibel level, we're trying to strike that balance. The other piece, the way that we view the decrease is that would be another way to regulate the scale. If it's a smaller development, it would be easier to meet those sound metrics. So that's the kind of framework that we were reviewing on the policy side. is how can we find this balance of what the community is asking for, what is possible through development, and what we're trying to achieve, which is regulating the scale of these types of developments. Again, we're open to feedback if we need to adjust that. For the amendment, we are open to that, but that's the logic behind why we landed at 55.

Thank you, Bryce. Are there any other questions?

May I follow up, please, on my earlier question? Commissioner West. Thank you. If we're voting today and proposing an amendment to the amendment, I'd be more inclined to go with 65 DBA as a suggestion. However, I think we should be really careful about the DBA to DBC. Just a little quick look into how things work here. I have experience as a sound engineer with equipment and we always worked with DBA because that's what we heard. But there's so much concern about the low frequencies. And I just noticed that often there are different requirements in DBA and DBC and that typically the DBC limit is higher. The Rose Bowl, for example, has a limit of 95 DBA and at the same time, 108 dBc. So they want to protect people from low frequencies, but apparently a max of 95 dBc would result in a lower sound level overall. So I want to be real careful about suggesting a limit in dBc in numerical format. I don't know how I could do that here today.

But you're comfortable with DBA?

I would be comfortable with 65 DBA.

OK, thank you. I got it. Anything else, Commissioner West? Commissioner Megan V, Bryce, I know that you all have put in a tremendous amount of time. I know you have taken significant sacrifices with family and with controversy. We're very appreciative. Whether we agree with all of it or not agree with it, we are very appreciative of everything you've been doing and don't think that we're not. So thank you for your hard work for the city. Nancy, I'm gonna ask the remonstrators to come forward. I want them to introduce themselves and their addresses. Nancy, reset the clock. Remonstrators, you have 20 minutes, as we said in our resolution before the meeting. And then after you're done, we'll go to city councils. You're on the clock. Go.

Do I not swear them in?

20 minutes.

Swear them in?

Swear them in, each one.

I've prepared remarks with several others.

In order to help us on time, could all of you come forward? We're going to swear you in all at once, Pat. Okay. And I'm not sure all of you are going to get in in your 20 minutes, but we'll do the best we can do. And in your testimony, when you introduce yourself, please say, I've been sworn in. So you're on the record. Go, Nancy.

Yes, please raise your right hands. Ashley Hooley, seven. So just please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do. I do. Thank you.

Now we'll start the clock. Please introduce yourself and your address.

Yep, Ashley Hooley, 7115 Mendenhall Road, Cambie, Indiana, 46113. I prepared remarks today with several others in attendance and will leave time for others after I'm done. Dear esteemed commissioners of the Metropolitan Development Commission, thank you for your time and attention today. I represent thousands of people living across Indianapolis. that are disappointed in calling on the nine or eight of you to do the right thing today. While I appreciate all the effort the DMD has put into crafting this ordinance, the regulations outlined in the amended draft fall short of ensuring responsible development while protecting citizens. This ordinance fails to address the nuance of data centers, making it seem like all projects are created equal. This ordinance is vague and leaves your neighbors here in Indy vulnerable to companies looking to exploit all the items that are missing. Hyperscale data centers have not been operational for very long. These giant data center projects are new and unprecedented due to the massive push for AI. It is imperative that you use your position to power to take the appropriate time to research, listen to all the experts surrounding data centers, and quite possibly most importantly, to meaningfully engage with the communities that will be most affected. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time today to explain every instance where this ordinance falls short, but I will attempt to hit on the most glaring issues being voiced by our collaborations with dozens of organizations throughout Indy. If you turn to page 165 of your data center analysis questionnaire survey results, you'll see an overwhelming response calling for a ban on data centers. Citizens need to feel confident in this ordinance, that it will protect our quality of life, our resources, and our investments. Passing the ordinance in its current form would be injurious and reckless. There has been immense pushback and disdain for the decisions being made in this room by the MDC over the last couple months. I know everyone here wishes to move forward with peaceful, transparent, fact-based dialogue and collaboration. So I am respectfully reminding this commission that the only way to build adequate community buy-in and trust at this point in time is to bring us along. I pray that each of the commissioners will work with the community so that together we can protect Indianapolis. Indianapolis residents have identified six key ways in which the ordinance falls short. The first relates to size. The ordinance fails to distinguish between different sized data centers, leaving communities vulnerable to massive projects of millions of square feet being treated the same as a data center the size of the room we're in right now. Tiny data centers of one or two megawatts, like the ones that were built 10 or 20 years ago, should not be grouped in with hyperscale data centers of 50 megawatts or more. Instead, we call on this commission to add clear classifications to address today's trend towards massive hyperscale data center projects. Nashville, Tennessee's proposed ordinance, and many others we researched, categorized data centers into four designations, small, medium, large, and data center campuses. These designations are based on square footage and energy capacity. By having clearly defined and adequate sizings, Nashville's ordinance is able to determine the appropriate setbacks from protected districts based on size. Which leads me to the next point. This ordinance is negligent and insufficient because it does not include appropriate setbacks for data centers from protected districts. Hyperscale data centers should have the highest setbacks from homes. We are requesting an increase from 400 feet to 1,500 feet or more for this classification, which is in line with the public comments you received, detailed on page 176 of the DMD's questionnaire results. As it stands now, the ordinance only says that the building of a data center should be 400 feet from homes. It does not state what can or can't be within that setback. And this leaves open the possibility of having diesel generators right next to our families. The setback needs to be clearly outlined as a full buffer zone and not allow objects such as generators, since the intention is to keep sound out of protected districts. Valparaiso, a growing and thriving community in Northwest Indiana, is currently considering ordinance that would require 1,000 foot setbacks. So why would we settle here in Indianapolis for such weak requirements for our residents? Will folks in the crowd help me demonstrate by standing if you do not want a data center 400 feet from your backyard? What about you commissioners? Is 400 feet enough from your front door? I urge you to listen to your fellow neighbors that voice the need for a bigger buffer. Thank you, everyone. You can have a seat. Moving to another topic of concern, we are encouraged by the MDC's move to amend the sound requirement from 65 to 55 DBA. I personally talked to hundreds of community members, and sound even at 55 DBA remains one of our gravest concerns. We are alarmed that low frequency noise, which is measured as DBC, is not mentioned at all, nor is cumulative noise. Dr. Jamie Banks, the chair of the Noise and Health Committee for the American Public Health Association, states sound energy is typically measured in dba but that a weighted decibel excludes sounds like frequency if dba is the only method method of measurement taken into consideration then a cello and a leaf blower both producing sounds at 65 decibels would make you feel the same but they won't Therefore, there is more to sound than DBA measurement. Commissioner West understands this. DBC measures low frequency noise that is difficult to hear, but that constant hum and vibration is doing damage. The around the clock exposure to lower frequency airborne pressure waves can cause cellular and tissue damage, and they are also found to interfere with daily activities, thoughts and emotions, sleep, and might lead to negative responses such as anger, exhaustion, and other stress related symptoms. Passing the ordinance with its current considerations for noise will risk and harm Hoosiers' quality of life and health. Do the right thing. We must spend time researching DBA and DBC to address and alleviate these public concerns. On a separate note, the ordinance will allow new data centers to be powered by polluting fossil fuels, which is known to negatively impact our health, environment, utility costs, and this move is in direct conflict with Indianapolis' Thrive Plan. The Office of Sustainability and the City of Indy have adopted a plan to become carbon neutral by 2050. And this will not be possible if you allow AES to power data centers using coal and gas plants. Furthermore, we must consider how diesel generators will hinder us from carbon neutral plan. The EPA classifies generators based on emission standards. Tier 4 generators are more than 90% more efficient than Tier 2 generators, so I urge this Commission to make Tier 4 the standard. If you hear anything I say today, please educate yourself on the differences in Tier 2 and Tier 4 generators, since this pollution will arguably impact each and every Hoosier now and well into the future. Our concern around the health and environmental impacts of Tier 2 diesel generators is something that has not been adequately addressed by developers or this ordinance. It does not appear that this commission has considered or researched the difference despite repeated public comments requesting this be looked into. We also feel this ordinance fails to address rising utility costs. We are currently facing a heat wave across the US this week. Temperatures are expected to reach well into the 90s, but with humidity we will have a heat index of 100 to 110. While these unprecedented heat waves continue to threaten our most vulnerable, we Hoosiers need to work together to reduce future risk instead of adding to it. A US-based study published in the Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Buildings in Cities provided evidence of the effects data centers have on air temperature. Dr. David Saylor, a top urban climate expert, collaborated on a study focused on air temperature effects on neighborhoods adjacent to data centers. And overall, research found warming down wind from the data centers ranged from 1.5 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit. I'm sorry, no thank you. Yet data center developers continue to say this will have no impact on our utilities. Commissioners, how is that possible when multiple studies are showing impacts to surface and air temperature? Next, Indianapolis residents reject this draft ordinance because it lacks emergency resources and response training criteria for firefighters, which perfectly highlights the lack of considerations and thoroughness. The potential for a fire at a data center campus poses a real safety risk to families, schools, and community spaces adjacent to the site at the savey data center in round rock texas they had a two alarm fire in 2024 costing over 2 million in damages and the fire report lists a civilian injury as well as the release of chemicals in the area due to the fire this is one example of many showing that hyperscale data centers are an eminent fire hazard particularly with the egregious amounts of diesel fuel stored on site and the instability of lithium ion batteries Specific resources are needed to put out fires of this type. Many of our local fire departments are not equipped with the critical training and resources to keep their communities safe from data center fires. The ordinance must outline exactly what a data center must do to minimize the risk of a fire and to show that the surrounding community will be appropriately equipped and protected. And finally, as you read in the DMD's questionnaire feedback, there have been little to no meaningful opportunities for public engagement or collaboration. The city of Aurora, Illinois requires public hearings and city council approval of all proposals. We want the same opportunity. to be heard and listened to. Page 174 and 175 of the data center questionnaire analysis demonstrates there is an overwhelming desire for transparent communication and the inclusion of resident voices in decision making. Pitting lawyers for developers against working class communities who have to take crash courses in land use, data centers, legal policy, and politics to provide a 20 minute remonstrance in the middle of the work week doesn't allow for very many people to participate and influence projects that will impact them for decades to come. Instead of inviting meaningful collaboration with communities and other city agencies, the DMD rolled out their proposal, held a couple virtual meetings that failed to address all questions from the community, and accepted written comments but not public feedback. It's disappointing and enraging. I stand here begging you to allow us to work together to protect our community. In closing, it is important we press pause on data centers until we can develop a comprehensive ordinance that will work for all of us now and in the future. Please prove that you value public engagement and collaboration by listening to the city county council that unanimously voted in May to pass special resolution 122026 to request that the MDC pause all data center activity. Each of you have an opportunity today to regain public trust as a governing body by implementing serious and practical zoning regulations that actually address this industry for what it is, as your peers are doing across the nation. It is in a time of significant division here in Indy and across the country, communities are uniting over data center concerns. You've heard our cries over the last several weeks, and a new Gallup poll shows seven in ten Americans oppose the construction of a data center in their community. Per page 55 of the planning staff survey analysis, if the MDC deems that further zoning research and community outreach is required before bringing forward a revised draft of zoning standards for data centers, the DMD would highly recommend a temporary moratorium on data centers to carry out this additional directive. The community is here today to tell you emphatically that the DMD has not done sufficient community outreach and has not proposed responsible regulations. We agree with the DMD's recommendation in the staff report for a temporary moratorium to support the additional directives I've described and more. I agree with Commissioner Lyle. As the capital city, Indianapolis should be a leader in our state. So let's join the growing list of communities across Indiana that have passed moratoriums. That includes Shelby County, our neighbors, Boone County, Madison County, and that list is longer. There are a total of 22 communities in Indiana with active moratoriums. Blackford County, Cass County, Dearborn, DeKalb, Fayette, Fountain, Franklin, Fullett, Grant, Huntington, Marshall, Miami, Pulaski, Putnam, Rush, Stark, and White Counties, as well as the towns of Ingalls and Merrillville. I want to thank you for your compassion and diligence with this sensitive matter. Please let us know what questions you have.

Thank you, Ashley. Please introduce yourself, address, and confirm you were sworn in.

I'm Julie Goldsberry, 2804 Davis Road, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46239. I have been sworn in.

Thank you, Julie, go.

The current SU 47 language is weak, even as amended. It does not adequately protect us as residents. We're tired of watching in horror as city officials roll out welcome mat for data centers like beggar children crying for coins from rich tourists. While local residents are ignored or told that we need to be educated. The level of involvement that the public has been allowed, I mean denied, in the development of this ordinance has been concerning. Please look at McKenna's letter on page 148 of today's agenda packet. It expresses our concerns. In both the recent comp plan process and now this data center ordinance, DMD seems to be using the Delphi technique, which replaces strong, vigorous open communication with structured and controlled feedback. We don't appreciate this erosion of the robust public engagement opportunities that Indianapolis used to have. Please involve us in the next steps for SU 47. First, include some of us who have been dragged through the hellish process of remonstrating against the data center in developing the next version of SU 47. We've eaten, breathed, and slept data centers, some of us, for years. We have come to know a lot about them. Please involve us. Second, hire impartial technical experts, not DMD staff, not data center insiders, for technical matters like noise. The quality of life issues with data centers are too important to have the language drafted by well-meaning but non-technical staffers or industry insiders who have an agenda. We live here too and deserve to be heard, not maligned or pushed aside like idiot children or a nuisance. Putting a data center in anyone's backyard is a big deal. Please involve us as this moves forward.

Thank you. Thank you, Julie. Please introduce yourself, address, and confirm you are sworn.

My name is Robin Heldman. I've been sworn in 8824 Combs Road. I am president of the Gateway Community Alliance, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on docket 2026A0-001. Go, Robin, go. I want to thank the Department of Metropolitan Development and the Commission for their improvements that they made on the ordinance. The revised addresses many concerns raised by residents with stronger setbacks, lower noise limits, enhanced site planning, water management requirements, annual reporting. These are meaningful and appreciated improvements. But as you move forward the ordinance, I respectfully ask that you consider five additional recommendations. First, while applicants must identify wetlands, the ordinance does not require avoidance or preservation when practical. Existing natural resources should be protected whenever feasible. not mitigated after disturbance. Second, although a decommissioning plan is required, there is no financial assurance to ensure completion. A performance bond, escrow account, or similar security to protect the taxpayers if a facility is abandoned. Third, I encourage requiring e-waste management plan so obsolete electronic equipment that's replaced on average of two years is responsibly recycled, reused, and disposed of, reducing environmental impacts and supporting sustainable data center operations. Fourth, while resident setbacks have been strengthened, the ordinance does not include building height transition standards near neighborhoods. Reasonable transitions provide an added buffer and reduce visual impact. Finally, I encourage requiring a host community agreement as a condition of every SU 47 rezone approval. This would ensure enforceable commitments for infrastructure, traffic management, environmental compliance, emergency coordination and community benefits in short the zoning ordinance establishes the standards for where a data center may locate while host community agreement should ensure that each individual project remains a responsible neighbor and accountable for the community throughout its entire operating life thank you for your time your continued work to ensure responsible and compatible data center development in our communities thanks rob and pat

Pat Andrews, 7631 Reynolds Road in Canby. I have been sworn in. Thank you. I'm here representing the Decatur Township Civic Council and the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations. I chair the Land Use Committee for both organizations and know a little bit about the zoning ordinance. Both organizations have taken a position in favor of a moratorium so that we can have a vigorous public process. We have not had that. Given time, Diesel exhaust health issues are not addressed and are quite important. And insufficient separation from protected districts. On the noise, Commissioner West, I will have to correct you. The 10 decibel, movement in 10 decibels is a power of 10, yes. But to the human perception is a doubling of the sound. also the grants that the gravel sand and borrow district in Indianapolis already requires DBA and DBC and from those two readings you can get the low frequency sound I will leave it at that happy to answer any questions later

Thank you, Pat. Yes, sir. Name, address, and have you been sworn?

William Smith, 1120 North Berwick Avenue. I have been sworn in. I would like to remind people that I'm autistic and that 55 decibel noise level, if that was near my property, might be enough to force me out of the city. There's no provision to make special needs people at all. And furthermore, I walked here today in this heat. If you dump all the extra heat from the data center into this atmosphere and raise it by 5 to 10 degrees in some cases, I wouldn't have even been able to come here or not. And there's no regulations for diesel emissions, aside from telling you when you can and cannot use the generators. I'd be concerned knowing what I want to breathe in in our atmosphere. So we need that moratorium. We need better public participation and better special needs protection for people near data centers. Thank you, William.

Sir, introduce yourself, address, have you been sworn?

My name is Alex McFarland. I live in 71 Southwest Street in Buggersville, Indiana, and I've been sworn in. Even though I live in Buggersville, I actually call Irvington my home away from home. I graduated from Irvington in 2016, and I volunteered there every year since. whether it be in October with the ghost toys or volunteering my time as a referee for a non-profit organization there called Wrestle Arts. That is why this issue is important to me.

With these- I'm sorry, you've reached your time on your presentations. Thank you very much. We announce the rules going forward. Are there any city council people here today who'd like to speak?

Good afternoon, President Dillon and commissioners from the MDC. My name is Jesse Brown. I am the city county councilor representing District 13 on the near north, near east side. I live at 2022 North Riley Avenue, and technically I have not been sworn in.

Yes. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Go ahead. I want to take a moment after, I think, what was some very compelling testimony presented under tight timeline just to address the context that we're standing in. Right now, our elective government in this country is failing constituents at every single level. Life is increasingly simply unaffordable for ordinary families such that people are having to walk to this meeting in this dangerous heat. At the federal level, we have a deeply unpopular government that does not seem to care about us. Here's an example. The Iran War was the least popular military engagement that the United States has ever engaged in in the history of this country, and yet the proposed budget for our military this coming year will be higher than at any point during World War II. How's that for not caring what constituents think? At the state level, We're, again, deeply unpopular. We're left to believe our government doesn't care. The property tax reform that was promised has bankrupted our public safety, our libraries, and local government in general, and yet it still leaves us unable to afford to pay our property taxes. So it's a lose-lose unless you're a billionaire. Again, government doesn't seem to care. At the local level, we can all see what's going on here. we've got horrible public services in this city we've got pools that don't open for years on end we've got roads that are destroyed and look like we were in a war zone itself and we have a deeply corrupt mayor who's been in the news time after time after time in my one term as a city county council so why do i bring all this up i know this isn't any of your jobs true i know that what you are is a group of talented qualified land use professionals i know that A lot of people don't. I get questions nearly every day from my constituents, questions that go like this. Why would the MDC just ignore this extremely clear request from constituents to ban data centers until we're satisfied with regulations? And they come to me with an answer already in their mind. What they believe is that this body is deeply corrupt. They believe that you are in bed with developers and personally benefiting yourselves as individuals. They don't see any other reasonable explanation for what is going on. And I'll have to tell you, I have a very hard time trying to explain the errors in their logic. After all, we've just seen a meeting today where we had hundreds of constituents, including an overflow room set up for them, who had to wait until the back of the line while we had developers and lawyers who couldn't possibly be troubled that way. We have seen hundreds of constituents in person somehow be expected to, with no notice, prepare a 20-minute organized response where sometimes we have to jockey for position and figure out who gets that time in front of the mic. We've seen that when DMD staff failed to follow the rules of this body by giving six days' notice, the rules are just ignored because the rules only apply to some people and not others. We've seen that when staff members disagree with leadership, they're fired or disappeared from the Department of Metropolitan Development. we've seen that a unanimous resolution from the city county council has simply been ignored you're debating what you want to debate and not what the legislative body of this government of this city and this county has asked you to do unanimously and we've seen the campaign finance forms with your names on them so please help me help me defend you do not let the people of indianapolis think that you are nothing but a bunch of crooks You have to show people you are an independent and responsive board despite being appointed rather than elected. You have to show people that you care. Please adopt a data center moratorium now and tell Mayor Hogsett's staff they have to engage in actual public conversations in every township before they bring a new ordinance as a second try. All power to the people. Thank you. Thank you.

That's enough. Thank you. Thank you. Members of the commission. Members of the commission, do you have any questions?

Yes, sir, President Dillon. Thank you, sir. It seems that some of the remonstrators have had some pretty articulately crafted remonstrance. that they delivered today would it be possible to get those submitted in writing aside from the transcript that will be publicly available i'd like to actually see those bullet points laid out as requested commissioner there will be a formal transcript with all those comments in it so i was just asking for their statements that they presented today in paper form to be submitted as they were spoken

You're going to get it in the form of the transcript. So you'll get it twice. Is that what you want? Yes, sir. Okay. I'll leave that to the remonstrators. Ashley, you look like you are in charge, so we'll let you submit the paper. Yes. Anything else, Commissioner?

That's all. Thank you. Any questions for the city councilman? I have a, not for the city councilman, but I have a couple more. Questions, and I don't know I just don't want to lose my chance to ask them You will not I think you're good counselor.

Thank you for being here Really your questions for Commissioner West they for staff Okay Ask your question from a procedural point of view I

Would it be better to recommend things I'd like to see and have those possibly added here today before a vote or to recommend that we or to make a motion that we slow down or see, just as a point of parliamentary procedure, if we vote against, that doesn't table this Does SU 47, it would come again in possibly a different way?

Let me go back to the executive director. Can you walk back through the schedule of process that has been agreed with from DMD and the city council, if you may? I think this is very important for everybody to hear.

Yes, we've got the legislative schedule pulled back up here on the screen. So today, July 1st, would be the MDC public hearing, which we've had. We have gotten This would be filed with the City Council office for their July 6th meeting for an introduction. If it went to introduction on July 6th, then it would go to the City Council Metropolitan Economic Development Committee on July 13th for a public hearing at that body. That body then provides a recommendation to the full City Council for a final vote, which would then be scheduled on August 10th.

Thank you. Now, members of the Commission, that's on... page five of the presentation. And this meeting has been pushed back with agreement with the city council who are waiting for some format of SU 47 to come to them that then they will consider and they will move forward on or amend or stop. So if you want to make amendments to what we're doing today on SU 47, We will now accept your amendments, and we will vote on your amendments to go into this ordinance, if that makes sense.

That makes sense. Thank you. Great. So if you have an amendment, we will accept it. Should I make the amendment?

And Bryce, you're working on my grandfather amendment, correct? Thank you. Yes, go ahead and make it, Commissioner West.

Should I state for, and then we'd vote individually?

I want you to put the amendment on the table, and then I will call the roll.

All right. First, the setbacks. I think it's reasonable to have setbacks be proportional to the size of the project. A big, bigger, biggest type of approach with setbacks big, bigger, and biggest to go along with it, as was described by Ashley Dunn in other areas. Two, sound limits. I propose we change from 55 to 65 DBA. But I'd really like us to look into DBC separately. And I don't know what the limit would be. I'd take a hip shot at 80. But I don't know what the proper number would be.

Let's don't take a hip shot.

80 DBC.

Let's go DBA 65.

65 DBA, 80 DBC.

I would just do one or the other. Excuse us, please. We're having a discussion. I would do one or the other. DBA 65, to be clear.

DBA 65 is clear and, I think, appropriate. OK. But it doesn't address some concerns about low frequency.

OK. What else?

Generator. If somebody could pitch in and talk about generator, I'd be inclined to go. tier four instead of tier two, but I'm not a generator expert. So I'm slow to make that recommendation. And a decommissioning plan, some discussion on that, or a bond or escrow might not be a bad idea.

OK. Any other comments? I'm going to try to format those for you, Commissioner West. Any other comments on amendments from members of the commission? OK. Let me give it a shot for the record. Nancy, let me give it a shot for the record. Bryce. Amend. Page 2, section 742-109L4, sound levels, to change the maximum permitted sound level from 55 dB to 65 dBA. Specifically, amend the proposed ordinance by revising the maximum permitted Operational sound level for specific classifications, SU 47 data centers from 55 decibels to DBA to 65. Measured at or beyond the property line in accordance with the ordinance applicable sound measurement provisions. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you. Let me call the roll. Hurgett. Hergie, yes. Lyle. Lyle, no. Moriarty. Moriarty, yes. Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, no. West.

West, no.

Dillon is a yes. It passes five to three. Excuse me. Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, not going for it. We're going to try to work our way through this. We're not going for it, ladies and gentlemen. Bryce, that amendment passed five to three to go to the ordinance. now you have ladies let me go forward with your second question which was decommissioning plan i think was it not yes yes great let me try to do this amend page four section 42-109L-10-1I, a decommissioning plan by deleting the subsection in its entirety. Specifically, amend the proposed ordinance by deleting Section 742.109.L.10.1.I entitled to decommissioning plan in its entirety. Any reference requiring a decommissioning plan, decommissioning process, inventory removal plan, facility restoration plan, or other decommissioning obligations contained within that section shall be removed from this ordinance. Do I have a second? Second thank you. We have a second. I will now call the roll. Thank you. I've already got it. Thank you I'm gonna cook He did not that's not in my recommendation on the on the Thank you, we've got a motion in a second I will call the roll Her good

Herget, no.

Lyle.

Lyle, no. Moriarty.

Moriarty, no. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, no.

Schumacher. Schumacher, no. West. West, no. Dillon is a yes. It is defeated. The amendment is defeated. And then the final required, or your final ask, Commissioner, I don't know that I have, you asked about separation, protected district separation on size of projects. I don't have that information to make a good recommendation. I just don't have it. I don't have what you have in Nashville. I've not seen it. So we're going to leave it. We're going to leave it at 400 feet. We're going to leave it at 400 feet, which was asked to. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. We now have, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the Commission, we now have to go to your ballots. Bryce, do you have a grandfather amendment?

President Dillon, the language I have provided is existing. This would be an additional language for existing data center uses. Existing constructed or previously approved uses that fall underneath the definition of a data center facility from the adoption ordinance effective date shall remain in compliance with their existing zone-based zoning district.

I will make that motion. Do we have a second for grandfathered situations?

Second.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the call the roll. This is on grandfathered situation on existing data centers. Motion's been made by myself, seconded by Commissioner Murphy. Hurgett?

Hurgett, yes.

Lyle? Lyle, no. Moriarity? Moriarity, yes. Murphy? Murphy, yes. Robinson?

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West. West, yes. Dillon is a yes. That amendment also passes 7 to 1. So we have three amendments that go into the ordinance as recorded. I now ask members of the commission to go to your ballots to vote on SU 47.

President Dillon, point of order. The symbolic gesture from the City Council on the moratorium I think speaks to this exact moment that we're in right now. There is a lot of fervor about this and we just went over dozens of different suggestions today in this room that we have not yet even seen written so that we can review them in tandem with the other things that you already presented as an amendment. So in lieu of the mere ludicrousy of the idea of presenting an amendment to an amendment that we haven't even seen written yet, I move that we pause this conversation and table it so that we can let the staff absorb the suggestions that were made not only by the commissioners but also the remonstrators and the petitioners today so that we can have a more compelling narrative so that we can review on the next occasion we get to discuss this.

Thank you, Commissioner Lyle. We have an agreement with the city council. They can vote this up or down. They can make amendments to it. They're waiting on it. Point of order, I've asked everybody to go to your ballots and vote. You can vote no. You can vote yes. Go to your ballots.

Ordinance Amendment 2026A-001, City of Indianapolis Marion County. There were eight ballots cast. There were five yes votes, three no votes. The amendment has been approved.

SU 47, now we'll move to the City Council for their amendments, their review. What they want to do with it is in their court at this point in time. Ladies and gentlemen, our meeting is adjourned. Thank you for being here.