Housing, Urban Development and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Good morning. We're going to call today's Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee meeting to order. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Cohn. Alderwoman Switzer. Present. Vice Chair Sonnier. Alderman Browning.

Present.

Alderman Aldridge. Present. Chair Clark Hubbard.

Here.

We have four present.

All right. For present, we have a quorum. We're going to move the agenda around and do the approval of minutes at the end. So I don't want Ms. Schweitzer, you are recognized on Board Bill 49 as amended in committee.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. I appreciate, again, the time everyone is spending on this bill and data center regulation in general. Unlike the older woman from the seventh, who always puts together a great presentation, it's not generally my style to do a PowerPoint, but I did want to make sure that everyone in the room would be able to see the words that I'm saying as well so there's less confusion afterwards, if any. So next slide, please. There have been some information out there about the different things this bill does and does not do. So I wanted to create a slide here that has some of those things really expounded upon. There have been some folks who are saying that this bill bans data center. That is not true. There is no ban of data centers in this bill. Data centers from any number of megawatts, even from zero to five in the micro category, five to up to 30 in the standard category, and then 30 and above in the major category all have different places in the city that they would be conditionally allowed. What this bill does do is it strives to regulate data centers as a land use. The more impactful that land use is, the more requirements that that data center has. So standard and major data centers use more energy uh then the majority of industrial uses in the city uh to date which is why there are more requirements on those on those than in the micro level and as well as fewer places that those can go it is also true that each data center application would be evaluated on its own merits which some projects would be approved and some would not The application requirements and the renewable energy requirements are all things that each project would have to demonstrate that it can meet, as well as all the reporting requirements and different things that, how the data center would be built, how the noise would be dealt with, all of those things will be specific to each project, and each project would be evaluated separately. So yes, that would likely mean that some projects would be approved and some would not be approved. That would be because these are all conditional and they all go through the Board of Public Service, that is just the process that has been outlined. Just like any other conditional process that happens in the city, there are some projects that are permitted conditionally and some that are not, and it's the same type of project. I know in my experience, there have been different times markets that are conditionally allowed in certain areas have been approved or not approved, depending on the various conditions of that specific land use. which is what this bill tries to get at to see whether the project is something that would be a benefit to the city of safety. It is also true in the bill that current data centers are able to continue operation. There are certain requirements that are triggered, certain requirements of these regulations that are triggered by structural alterations and expansions. Those are outlined in the bill. We've worked really closely with current data center operators to make sure that everyone understands the requirements that would be triggered and agrees that they're possible to implement at the time of this alteration. We do have an amendment that clarifies a few things even further. at the request of some of the data center operators. It is true that this bill does cap the physical size of data center 500,000 square feet. That is currently the only quote unquote cap that exists in the bill. In the planning commission, there was an attempted amendment that I proposed with the support of Alderman Saunier and Christina Argumendia of the president's office to prohibit major data centers of 30 megawatts and above. But that amendment failed. The reason that I offered that amendment was because of my concern of the large expansion of the type of land that we currently see with data centers, which in the city of St. Louis, with the exception of one that is being built, are all under 10 megawatts. And we know that that is a We know that they're operating. We understand that there are certain requirements that should be put on on new day centers and triggered with certain requirements are met. But once it gets to that 30 megawatt and above category, I still believe that it's not something that should be permitted in the city at this time because of the impact of the land use. But again, that failed at the planning commission, and it doesn't seem to have the votes of the board of Alderman at this time. It is also true that there are renewable energy requirements in this bill for standard and major data centers. Some have said that the renewable energy requirements are creating a de facto ban or a ban by another. And the micro data centers are not impacted by the renewable energy requirement. So that's simply false just from the onset because micro data centers would not have to meet that. And then the standard and major data centers could be anything from five megawatts all the way up to a much higher megawatt threshold. I understand that there are some difficulties associated with meeting renewable energy requirements. But we also know that in order to serve this need, the electric service provider will have to build out pretty significant capacity within their grid to serve the need, no matter what type of energy that is. Every single type of energy that is created in the service region does have to be approved by the public service region. So to say that the renewable type of energy is not possible but other kinds are, even though it goes through the same process, just feels like not a logical conclusion to reach. Next, please. So after the last meeting, there was concern and desire among supporters and people who don't support the bill to have further conversation with Ameren with the electric service provider. I want to say again that the city cannot regulate Ameren. The city cannot regulate Ameren. It cannot tell Ameren what to do. That is the role of the Public Service Commission. But what the city can do is try to provide zoning regulations that meet the comprehensive plan, which includes a sustainability plan as well as the land use plan. Those are things that are adopted by the City of St. Louis and meant to be followed. If they aren't followed, they're just words on a piece of paper and they don't actually result in impacts and results really for our constituents. Because this land use is so different in that standard and major category again, beginning at 5 megawatts and continuing on to the major category over 30. That's why they're renewable energy requirements in this bill. The renewable energy requirements were first put in place in these regulations by in the staff recommendations, which had a 10 year. Goal or sorry threshold, not goal. Then in in subsequent conversations, trying to show that. There is progress towards that threshold at year five and also at day one that the data centers are meeting some amount of renewable. This is because we have those plans, because we have those goals. The presentation that was given by our sustainability director regarding the city's progress towards those goals, and it shows that yes, the city is progressing towards using less energy, but this would really change that that curve for the city if data centers are permitted at these standard and major sizes without having really intentional and clear renewable energy goals or thresholds rather. So in speaking with Ameren, they gave a lot of additional feedback. One is that at entry, at day one, that the combination of unbundled and bundled RECs is more feasible for the day one requirement. The difference between bundled and unbundled RECs is important. Bundled RECs is the renewable energy that is both generated and a credit that is purchased by the customer, whereas unbundled is saying that there is renewable energy that exists and the credit for it is being purchased by the customer. So again, with that curve and the goal of us actually reducing our reliance in the city of St. Louis on this unsustainable energy sources, that's why that bundled REC is so important, because it does come with both the actual production of renewable energy and the credit for it. But because day one operation won't have been planned for as much as year five and year 10, it would be possible to, I have an amendment today to make the day one requirement, that combination of bundled and unbundled as flexible as possible for that day one requirement. They also gave feedback that consistency throughout the requirement helps make it easier to administer. So for the year five, instead of having a 50% requirement that can be at most 12 at most of the full requirement can be 12 and a half percent. We're upping that number to 25% of unbundled if the amendment passes today. to allow for that 25% unbundled possibility to carry through from day one all the way through to year 10 to allow for that flexibility within the requirement while also keeping the consistency in the requirement that it's 25% at most unbundled from day one all the way through to year 10. Ameren gave feedback that they would prefer that the city use the state's definition of renewable energy, but that definition includes a lot of types of energy production, which the city does not consider sustainable or renewable, which does not consider sustainable and to meet its sustainability goals. For example, burning trash, methane produced, and some other ones that we didn't want to mess with. So that is why we're keeping the renewable energy definition as we have it. They also would prefer that the city just as does not discriminate between bundled and unbundled recs, even at year 10. But as I explained, for the city to meet its sustainability goals, the city needs to be thoughtful about the land use of data centers and make sure that The energy that's actually used to power the data center is bundled with that actual production of renewable energy and not unbundled with the actual production of renewable energy. So that is why it is still as it is in year 10 with 75% bundled, 25% unbundled. And the other piece that I'm not recommending that we change is leaving the possibility for a waiver at year five, which allows an extension to meet the threshold at year five. to make sure that if there's any unforeseen issue that there is time before the penalties kick in if they're not meeting their renewable energy goals. This does create a penalty system, not a closure system, if the thresholds aren't met. This is really the point, the part of the regulation where the city has the ability to have some teeth and know that these renewables, the renewable energy generation for this use will be met. So I'm not really interested in further weakening that language besides what we'll talk about in a little bit. Next, please. So one of the things about this bill is there's a lot of public interest in it. So stakeholder engagement keeps happening. So as I said, there are some amendments that I hope to offer today. One of them is addressing Ameren's concerns regarding consistency. Again, keeping that 25% unbundled consistent throughout the regulations. Amending the day one requirement for that full flexibility between bundled and unbundled recs. and then the specific language about how bundled RECs can be obtained, which is AMRIN, the language that AMRIN provided. So to address some of the concerns that current data center operators have brought up about just clarity of language, and then to address concerns about who is providing the baseline noise level measurement. Right now it just says the base level noise at application needs to be provided, but adding some language to make that a third party professional providing that information at application. My goal is to vote this out of committee today with these additional recommendations or amendments. And then next in the bill, the Planning Commission meets tomorrow. It is on their agenda to discuss this topic. And as of the staff report that came out on Friday after our amendments last week, the staff has recommended the Planning Commission approve the amendments that have been made. And I think that's really important. We want to make sure that this is you know, in alignment with those comprehensive plans or sustainability plan or land use plan. And at this time, staff has recommended that the amendments that have been made be approved by the Planning Commission, Allows the board of alderman to pass this bill with a simple majority and not have to make any further changes based on what the planning commission said. You know, if there are amendments made today that may require a separate meeting from the planning commission. Um, but I also imagine that they'll meet and discuss it after perfection as well, or at least, um, you know, before we after the bill leaves committee either way. On Friday, if this bill passes from committee today, the bill would be second read and no further discussion would be had. The president of the board has already committed to additional Board of Aldermen meetings during the summer recess to pass these regulations within a few weeks. So I understand that if the bill leaves committee today, which again, my hope is that it does, that members of the board who are not on this committee may want some additional time to learn more and not have to make any votes this coming Friday, since additional meetings are already being scheduled. So that's my presentation. And I would love to hear from the public. I do have in this presentation all of the amendments that we'll be discussing today as possible to bring up on the screen. So when we're going through them, that anyone in the room would also be able to read the text of the amendment in case they don't have printed copies, which I believe were passed out last week. So I'm happy to take any questions now. And I know we have a lot of members of the public to speak. I'll leave it to you, Madam Chairman, for next steps here.

Is Alderman Cohn online yet, Madam Clerk? Yes, he is. Okay. Alderman Cohn, making sure you're here and to ask for questions before we go into public comment. Does anyone have any questions at the dais before we go into public comment? Just want to make sure that if you're in the room and you wanted to speak, you signed up on the sheet here so I can swear everybody in at the same time. And if you're online and signed up to speak, if you can turn your cameras on, we can go ahead and swear you in as well. So right now, we only have one online, Madam Clerk.

Yes, there's one.

OK. If everyone can raise your right hand, that's going to speak and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. All right, Madam Clerk is going to call your name up. When you come up, you can speak your name, your word, or your affiliation, and then proceed with your testimony. Thank you.

Adolphus Pruitt in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Adolphus Pruitt, president of St. Louis City NAACP. I live in Ward 9, and our offices are in 10. Everything that I'm going to reference, you can fact check as relates to the document I'm passing out. I want to paint a picture. as to why we are in opposition of this bill as it is written. The largest cohort of the city that has also happened to be the largest cohort that makes up the prime labor force for the city is between the ages of 25 and 34. And they are the largest population segment of the city. And 19% of them are African-American. Let's be clear. African American unemployment in the city of St. Louis is at 13%. For whites in the city of St. Louis is at 7%. In addition, the second largest cohort, other than the seniors, is going to be between the ages of 18 and 34. These are the individuals that are going to be moving into the workforce. It has happened to be the poorest segment of the population in the city of St. Louis right now. The second poorest, of course, is the seniors that are 65 and older. Let's also be clear that when we talk about net worth, the net worth of the white population in the city of St. Louis is a little bit more than 100,000. For African Americans outside of equity and real estate, it's 8,000. 8,000. When we talk about what the jobs in the future are going to look like, Those that are going to require a minimum of some sort of certification is going to be somewhere positions. We're not talking about the actual people in the positions themselves are going to be somewhere between two to six thousand as of twenty twenty five. There was a little bit more than thirty five. According to Tech STL, thirty five thousand positions that were open in the city of St. Louis that require some sort of certification. The ironic thing is that. We have a long-term revenue advisory council for the city. And as far as we've been able to tell, one of their jobs is to look at how revenue streams in the city are going to sustain themselves and help sustain the city in the long run. We haven't found any data that shows that they've counted any money coming from data centers in their planning. And I don't know if they've even been a part of this discussion. So you have a long-term advisory council to look at the revenue stream for the city of St. Louis to sustain it. And the subject we're talking about today has not been a party of that conversation. It's not even in the plan. And we start talking about the type of money that will be coming in from data centers. Those that, and when we said data centers, let's be clear, NACP nationally, we're against dirty data centers. We're suing in Georgia, we're suing in Tennessee. We will sue as it relates to dirty data centers. but all data centers are not dirty. The other thing that we found that even more interesting is that we haven't seen any projections as relates to how many potential data centers and their revenue projection over the long run, the potential to come to the city. See, the bottom line is this, is that the population that I represent the most are the ones who are the poorest, the least employed, And they make up a vast majority of the workforce that the city is going to need in the future. And there is no revenue source dedicated to making sure that they get the training necessary so they can participate in the economy that we're going to have in the future. And that economy is going to be driven by AI, whether we like it or not. This bill doesn't do anything to address those individuals. Those individuals are young. 18 to 24, 24 to 35, they are here and their opportunities are nil. And this bill isn't doing anything but blocking the potential funding sources that they can use to provide them the training they need so they can participate in the workforce. And we're not talking, we're talking about even in some cases, the existing workforce. Those 35,000 jobs that require AI certification that exists today, they don't have opportunity to even go after those. So this bill is not ready. It was not meant to be ready. I hear this language about it's not a ban on data centers, but it doesn't have to say ban in order to have the same effect. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate your time. And if you have any questions, we'd love to answer them, especially as it relates to the folks who are the most vulnerable, who are not included in this discussion at all.

Our next speaker is- I don't want Ms. Weiser has a question for Mr. Adolphus-Bruitt.

Thank you so much for being here. The zoning, we've discussed a few different times about whether there is any place in this bill for workforce development issues that you bring up. And there is a desire to have an additional bill about the workforce development requirements for the use. It's just not something to put in a zoning regulation bill. So I appreciate those comments and how important that is to you being here today.

What I've learned about the legislative process, is that if it's something we need to deal with and there's legislation on the table now that they can address it, it can be inserted in there, let's put it in there. The same thing, you know, it kills me. You're saying that somebody is poisoning me or killing the planet by using excess energy and water. There are many industries in the city of St. Louis that are far exceeding that. Yet we're not doing anything to regulate them. Let's put them in this bill. If we're going to deal with the issue of saving the planet, let's save it. We don't have to skip over them and come back to them later. We got legislation now.

and the right to get done. It's been extremely thorough and it's been inclusive and I'm appreciative of that. I look forward to working with Mr. Pruitt on some workforce development issues because that is critical in a city. We need a livable city. We need a livable economy and we need an economy that's based on life and health in the future and not something different than that. So that's all I have today. I will get any particular concerns in writing. I really appreciate the commitment to the sustainability plan and to the city's definition of renewables because it makes more sense than just throwing anything in there that's like the state does. And I think it's important for us to decide what kind of city we want to be and then to start living into that. And I appreciate the leadership's commitment to that. So thank you.

Our next speaker is Elise Schaefer in support.

Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman, again, for the opportunity to speak. My name is Elise Schaefer. I'm with the environment and resident of the sixth ward. Speaking again this morning in support of the regulations, there have been a lot of changes to the renewable requirements, specifically to make them easier for companies to meet. I was glad to I heard the Alderwoman speak more directly about that this morning, and I just want to reassure you that the thresholds laid out in this bill are more than generous for companies to meet. They're absolutely feasible. I'll share some statistics with you. On average, it takes about 18 months for new wind generation to be built and 6 to 15 months for new solar to be built, and that's utility-scale solar. Elsewhere, we're seeing data centers taking three to six years to come online. So the requirements as they're laid out in the bill are absolutely achievable. And that's not to mention the fact that new generation is going to have to be built no matter what type of energy it is. New gas plants, on average, take 24 months to build. And that's if your gas turbine is not on back order, which most of them are right now. I also want to reassure you that strict renewable requirements are the best possible outcome for St. Louis City residents. And that's not even getting into the environmental sustainability side of things, the pollution that would be saved by these requirements. Economically, we're looking at utility-scale solar costing about $58 per megawatt hour, wind about $61 per megawatt hour. Gas, depending on the type of plant that you're building, is between $78 and $200 per megawatt hour. Coal is $122 per megawatt hour, and nuclear is $180 per megawatt hour. nuclear didn't even talk about the time frame there that's like an 84 month new bill timeline for nuclear and our governor has made it very clear that's his intention to build out nuclear at the state level The renewable regulations as they are in front of you today represent months and months and months of good faith negotiation on the part of the Alders who serve the Planning Commission, who have been trying to make this bill work for the residents and for the city as a whole. MCE, me personally, would love to see even a higher renewable threshold, but we are very pleased to see the work that has gone into getting these where they are today. We need regulations in place right now. All you have to do is look at the Armory site to see the huge public backlash against a development that doesn't have guardrails in place to move it forward in a way that benefits the entire city. So thank you so much to this committee for their time. I hope you will support these regulations moving forward. Thank you so much.

Ryan DeBowle.

uh hi my name is ryan uh ryan diebel i live in the county but i work in ward 10. um i'm also an organizer with the party for socialism and liberation it has been said in this room that nobody gets exactly what they want we have to make compromises but what are you compromising and who are you compromising to it is not the developers that sacrifice It is not the wealthy few that profit off of our labor until our bodies are bruised and broken. It is not Ameren. It is not Amazon. It is not Google. It is not these utility corporations and mega corporations and utility monopolies that push for these data centers that sacrifice. It's the working class that is shafted and made to pay the cost for it every time. If these regulations are not passed today, you will be compromising the health and safety of the working class for the gain of greedy capitalists who would be more than happy to ruin the livability of this city if it meant they made a couple bucks. Our electricity bills are projected to rise upwards of 40%. Gas prices are up due to the war in Iran. The genocide in Palestine is ongoing. Our tax dollars pay for that as well. The cost of living crisis is skyrocketing and is currently unsustainable. These regulations must be passed today before more of these data centers are approved with no oversight. I should make it clear, we do not want data centers in St. Louis, period. We want stricter regulations. We want clean water, clean air. Remember, this is the asthma capital of the country. And we want the public to be included in deciding whether or not we want these data centers here. pass the regulations.

That's... Abby Gunther online.

Hello. Thank you so much to the committee. Thank you to Alderwoman Schweitzer and Alderwoman Saunier. I just want to, you know, echo the past few comments. I think it's really, really important we have regulations in place as soon as possible. It's been a very long process and If data center projects like the armory can get approved in the meantime, then we need regulations. It's just like, you can't have it both ways. So yeah, please, I urge you to pass these out of committee. Thank you.

Ms. Roslyn Addison.

Good morning. I'm sure for everybody that I feel like I'm in church or somewhere to do a speech. So to the to the pulpit, how about that? My name is Ronson Addison and my older person is Jamie Cox and I'm in the 8th Ward, Soulard area. I'm just going to read mine and bear with me. Truth about the past, present and future. The past, one of the greatest, one of the largest destructions of St. Louis, Missouri, was the Mill Creek Valley District that's supposed to be in the slums. Urban renewal development. The past. There is much needed new development in North and West St. Louis, Missouri, after the heavy crack cocaine era. The past. No new housing and businesses were developed for the urban constituents in the Mill Creek Valley. The president, excuse me. The land has universities, law enforcement center, sports entertainment, top golf and soccer, Target store, apartments and restaurants. The president, north and west St. Louis, Missouri, look like the so-called slums of the 50s and 60s, but no plans for urban renewal development. The president, some people, are talking about developing the data center. While so many people need help after the severe tornado devastation in northwest St. Louis, Missouri, so many people are suffering in more ways than one and searching for stability. Many people in that region will be forced out because they have no control of their dwelling. Many homes, businesses, churches, schools, and small food marks have been destroyed. The future Building the data center is just what it says. Data, your data to regulate and center the place to store your data. This could be a form of intimate domain. It could be. Just about everyone in this room gets spam calls daily. Some have the pouch as an app to avoid the calls. Others just don't answer the number that they don't recognize. I wonder, If this is coming from various data centers from the nation, this small action is very, very, very annoying. Just think how much more such actions can interrupt your peace of mind with a data center. As my sister said, rest her soul, don't make your move too soon. Help the people and the people will help the land. I say, Righteousness leads, peace, love and joy follows. Ross and Addison, July 7, 2026. Thank you for listening. God bless us all. And I yield the floor. Peace to you.

Maxine Gill.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Maxine Gill, and I work for Missouri Coalition for the Environment, and I'm a resident of the Sixth Ward. Thank you to the committee for considering these updated regulations and for all the work that's gone into these. We hope today is the day we pass regulations in order to have something on the books to mitigate a subset of the harms imposed by AI-driven hyperscale data centers. 70% of Americans, the vast majority across all demographics, are opposed to the local construction of data centers. The St. Louisans who have shown up again and again at every possible public comment opportunity to register or dissent are no different. It is true that St. Louis needs employment opportunities and tax revenue, but residents know that the costs of the proliferation of AI data centers outweigh these benefits and know that other avenues to achieve employment and city revenue are more valuable than data centers. Data center construction comes at the cost of air pollution, noise pollution, PFAS and other contamination in water, extreme heat, and rising utility rates. Like many cities, St. Louis's legacy of redlining has pushed industrial areas next to predominantly black neighborhoods, meaning that black community members will experience the brunt of harm from future data center development in industrial areas, exacerbating existing health disparities. If we are to be truly accountable to the St. Louis community and take seriously the existential threat that AI poses, not only to the environment, but to human labor, art, expression, privacy, and due process, the city would add a community consent mechanism to AI data centers. I will hone in on the renewable energy requirements in this testimony, but we at MCE want to first echo other community members in asking for that mechanism to be added to the regulations, similar to that for liquor stores in the city. We hope you will vote today to pass these regulations as a starting point to build on. In prior hearings, those opposing these regulations have stated that these renewable energy requirements are akin to a ban on but this is far from the case. These regulations ask for 25% of a facility's total energy capacity to come from renewable energy sources on its first day of operation. This requirement can either be met with on-site, other behind the meter generation, or power from the utility service territory. But today's amendment adds a new compliance pathway, allowing this requirement to be met through unbundled RECs from elsewhere in the MISO region. As my colleague mentioned, new solar projects take an average of six to 15 months to come online. And though approval processes may delay that timeline, ultimately solar and wind are the fastest and cheapest form of energy generation to develop. New data centers take three to six years to come online, so if new solar is built concurrently with the data center, absent the new unbundled REC compliance options, this requirement is entirely feasible to meet. Adding an unbundled REC compliance pathway to meet the 25% upfront clean energy generation requirement is additionally generous to the data center developers as it allows them to meet this requirement using existing clean energy resources elsewhere in the MISA region. Adding this cushion also eases compliance for the five- and ten-year renewable energy benchmarks as all involved parties will be able to take the time needed for data center construction to ramp up renewable generation. I guess I can pause there. Okay. Ameren is able and indeed does track where RECs come from in the case of solar RECs and the renewable solutions program auction. And no matter what, Ameren will have to build new power to support an influx of data centers in the service territory. In fact, they're already building several new gas peaking plants in the area, including the Castle Bluff Energy Center, Big Hollow Energy Center, and Pinot Creek Energy Center. Those are 800 megawatts, 800 megawatts, and then 250 megawatts, respectively. That natural gas is more costly and takes longer to develop than solar projects. So if energy is going to have to be added to meet a significant ramp up in energy grid, specifying that that comes from renewable generation is not unreasonable. So we urge you to please pass these regulations. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Eddie Schmidt.

Hello, my name is Eddie Schmidt, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to address the City Board of Alderman. And I want it to be go on record that I support this bill. I know you're working hard and we appreciate that. It shouldn't just be rammed through. So I also want to go on record that I'm completely and totally opposed to any data center that is not regulated by guidelines that protect the public from negative aspects of AI, which include manipulation of the public. And I agree, I'm glad you're putting in regulations for renewable energy. That's pretty important. Our utilities are bad enough. And cost of living for the average people is pretty bad. And you could use the AI Center in Tennessee that, who is it? The mega rich man put up down there and that's polluting the area. And anyway, there's a lot of negativities too. So I just appreciate you giving us the opportunity to speak. So I'm not as eloquent as the other speakers, but we, but we know that there's not gonna be much good come of this as it's regulated. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jackie Schmidt.

Good day, committee members. My name is Jackie Schmidt and I live in Ward 7. I appreciate this opportunity to voice my opinion as a St. Louis resident. I support and urge you to support this bill, and I'm going to share reasons why, where I'm coming from for that support. Info is readily available on the pros and mostly cons to the AI data centers. It is regularly in the news how these centers are being pushed on communities, mostly poor and communities of color, across the country. In the future, data centers might be helpful and be ran responsibly for the good of all, but we are not there yet. And these centers are largely built in spite of the majority of people opposing them, like here. I'm requesting two things. Strong guidelines be put in place to protect residents from pollution and high tax and energy bills. And two, that communities have a say on the building of these centers near their homes. I would also like to add, the mayor has made it obvious that she is not acting in the best interest for the people of St. Louis. I thank those alderpersons who are sincerely trying to help the residents of St. Louis. I urge the rest of the alderpersons to truly put the people of St. Louis first. We need you to do this. Please pass BB49AA. Thank you.

Mr. Dave Sweeney.

My name is Dave Sweeney. I live and work in the City of St. Louis. I'm going to start real quick about just how heightened this has become. And when there's insults being yelled at me from people that I think I'm respectful to, it's really disappointing. And being called a climate change denier, you don't know me, or I thought you did. I don't mind being yelled at by trolls on the internet. I'll probably get more today, and that's fine. But that process has been really unfortunate. There's 100% that this is not a ban for the micro. However, it clearly is very, quote, difficult for a major data center to operate. These are not goals which were referred to, these are requirements. And as everyone that I stand before knows, that's a huge difference. And to call them goals or expectations is clearly not true. And I appreciate the sponsor pointing out that she and two others tried to ban major data centers and it failed, three to the entire commission. However, this continues to make it impossible. I know people don't believe Ameren, don't believe other people that are experts on this, but when folks they're the ones and everyone is clear, they're the ones that can do it or not do it. And unless they say we can 100% do this, no business is going to invest the type of money. And that's clearly the goal. It's just not going to happen. And if that's the goal, kudos because it will clearly not happen um i appreciate the work you've done with other stakeholders the current data centers you know as rightly so they worked and then the bill's been amended and and they're in support now and that's fantastic but one of the speakers said that the developers have been at the table, that's 100% false, 100%. No one has asked what a potential developer with the business community is here. We're not the right, we're not the good guys here. We're not at the table. So that is not true. And this no requirements, no one in all of these meetings has said there should be no requirements on data, ever, period, done. Everyone has said the opposite. There should be requirements, but requirements that work and that work for all parties and make it possible. I simply want to say that this is a very, very, very complicated bill. There's more amendments coming in today that some people have seen because they've talked on them. The public hasn't. I haven't. but we're going to vote on that today. And I'm not here to, I know there's going to be extra meetings and that's fantastic. And I appreciate regulations, but all stakeholders should have a say or, and if you disagree, then so be it. But to act like this has been a wide open process is simply not true. So thank you for your time.

Casey Fowler, Finn.

Hi, I'm Dr. Casey Fellerfin, Ward 6 resident, professor of biology at San Diego University since 2014. I've studied the science of sound for 25 years with 22 years of nearly continuous funding from the National Science Foundation. I don't speak on behalf of my institution or funding agency, but I'm testifying in my capacity as an expert on how noise, including anthropogenetic or human-generated noise, affects animal communication and signaling. And my work requires me to have a deep understanding of the physics of sound, as well as its impacts on the behavior and physiology of animals. Noise is a major human health concern and consistently one of the top three concerns cited in data center opposition. In Virginia, the largest data center market in the country, residents near existing facilities cite noise as leaving their homes. More generally, a US Census Bureau survey found that millions of households consider environmental noise and severe enough that they want to relocate. Noise produced by data centers is not like noise from ordinary industrial installations. It therefore requires careful legislation designed to address the low frequency noise that they produce. Noise attenuates or dampens through two mechanisms, geometric spreading, the further away it is acquired, and that applies to all frequencies. The second mechanism is absorption, by which sound dampens as it is absorbed by air particles, the ground, and solid objects like The second mechanism is the one that sound mitigation features target. And absorption works great for high frequency noise, but it is ineffective for low frequency noise because low frequency sound travels through and bends around solid objects. Enclosures built for ordinary industrial noise perform very poorly at low frequency. To give an example, to meaningfully absorb a 20 hertz sound wave, which is characteristic of data centers you need roughly 14 feet of acoustic material this is clearly not realistic for building enclosure so the low frequency noise that is the hallmark of data centers remains louder and travels further than other types of industrial The wind turbine literature shows measurable low frequency increase of 1,600 feet from the source. That's triple the 600 foot setback in Board Bill 49. Data center noise has been documented to be audible up to two miles, and in one study, two and a half miles. with the greatest impacts concentrated within 3,000 feet. That's five times the current setback in Board Bill 49. In short, the setback specifications in this bill do not work for the physics of the noise that data centers actually produce. The World Health Organization thresholds for negative population level impacts from environmental noise are already being exceeded nightly at typical data center property lines. at which noise is commonly measured between 55 and 65 dBA versus the World Health Organization's 50 dB nighttime threshold. Exceeding these thresholds leads to negative effects for cardiovascular risk, sleep disruption, and cognitive effects in children, regardless of what frequency range of noise humans are exposed to. There are several ways that this bill can be changed to properly protect residents. Right now it measures noise only using DBA and DBC, two metrics not designed to capture the low frequency range of noise produced by data centers. DBC does capture some of the lower frequencies. It performs best from 63 to 8,000 hertz, but it falls short in two ways. First, it fails to appropriately capture the loudness of noise below 63 hertz, which is where a lot of that troublesome noise from data centers sits. Second, a DBC measurement is taken over the entire range of frequencies Um, and that means that the DBC measurement can look completely unremarkable and hide a particularly loud and disruptive load, low tone noise that is louder than all the frequencies around it. The literature points to some, can I finish my last paragraph please? Literature points to some key improvements to this bill. If we were to properly protect residents, I've submitted a written fact sheet full of citations. I've printed out some here if people want them. specific section-by-section amendments and proposed bill language for each, which I'll summarize here. Noise measurements need to either be G rated or octave band measurements, which are totally feasible and unremarkable in terms of cost. These are designed to detect those loud bands of noise and low frequencies that the DBA and DBC metrics miss. The setbacks need to be wider to match the actual propagation data for the type of noise data centers use, and the measurement should be conducted by a city-selected, applicant-funded engineer, both before and after construction, and not self-reported by the developer. Additionally, the bill needs a specific complaint-triggered retesting mechanism with clear follow-up for failing to meet specifications. Finally, Board Bill 49 needs a nighttime specific ceiling. This bill can protect residents, but only if it measures the noise that it's actually going to reach them.

Our next speaker is Carrie McCullen.

Good morning. Carrie McCullen, Ward 2 with the Eco-Socialist Green Party. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, HUD's committee, and members of the public. Data centers are being forced onto residents of St. Louis who have already said no. The city of St. Louis has taken our right to consent from us. This is violence. While I appreciate the many months of work and collaboration that has gone into these regulations, Alderwoman Sania is correct in saying the city is not to be trusted when it comes to data centers as the Armory Data Center approval was rammed through before regulations were in place. We, the residents and community builders, are worried the developers could put in another hyperscale proposal before regulations. As we know from a May Planning Commission testimony, they are already eyeing and targeting the north side next, in the 13th Ward specifically. Multiple active appeals have been filed to contest the approval of the Armory Data Center because instead of listening to residents, the city decided to side with large load customers or stakeholders and entities that will extract from us. Entities like Ameren, whose CEO made $14 million last year and will hugely profit from even one 100 megawatt data center. putting the burden of tens of millions of dollars onto residents due to upgrades to the grid. Entities like these wannabe billionaires on an unelected dev bro row who do not have residents' best interests in mind who have their heads in the sand and don't even believe or care that climate change is real and people will die from these data centers. These gross, to put it nicely, Sam Altman, Peter Thiel, and Trump wannabes who don't believe in consent, who demand monopolies, who worship money as their god and their religion is advocating for the common bad. And not only do I think Dev, Bro, Roe are bullying St. Louis aldermen and the city of St. Louis, but I think there's some bullies on the board of aldermen as caught on a hot mic moment last week with a certain alder, my alder, telling another alder before the Rams money vote, you got the votes for this, so don't F this up. We need bravery and dissent against these forceful bullies now more than ever, because no matter what the headlines will say during and after these hearings about how the BOA votes, those of us who have been paying attention to this will remember who advocating who advocated for the consent of residents against these forceful bullies and who obstructed the process and sided with Dev, Bro, Roe and outside entities. ESGP has an active mass following as do other organizations. We have 14,000 petition signature contacts to mobilize and take further action with. And I find it fascinating that while the Armory Data Center was rushed through before regulations, the reverse is happening with these regulations. There's urgency to approve hyperscales, but there's a delay on passing the regulations. This is not helping the public trusting, especially coming from two alders with active campaigns sinking reelection or a new seat in office. As I said last week, don't take your voters for granted. Thank you.

Sylvia King. Ms. Sylvia.

My name is Sylvia Kearney. I live in Ward 5. 20 years ago, I graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and moved to St. Louis for work. I fell in love with the gingerbread houses and have been on the same block ever since. Over 20 years, I've gotten to know all of my neighbors pretty well. We talk about the hyperscale data center boom and the destruction we've seen in other communities, and we worry about what that could mean for our community. Over the years as an engineer, I've held lots of technical titles and roles. Oftentimes I've been brought into situations where something was built with corners cut and we need to engineer a solution. The cost of fixing a system after the fact is always higher than if it had been built correctly in the first place. In the case of a data center, those costs are not just monetary. Those costs could also include health effects to the people of the community and the community decline. That is why it is important to pass these regulations today. We are going to have hyperscale data centers in our community. Let's ensure they are at least built responsibly. As others have said, there are many ways that these regulations could be better, and I agree with all of them. but no regulations is just not a safe option. I am urging you on behalf of all my neighbors who could not be here today, who could not get out of work to be here today, to please pass these regulations for the sake of all of our communities. Could they be better? Yes. But we have to start somewhere, and I hope it starts today. Thank you.

Joe D'Elia.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee. My name is Joe DeLay. I've owned businesses both in wards four and six. And I do have a master's in public policy. So I've been to all these meetings. I've been following them. And I think everybody here realizes that there needs to be some type of regulation. But the current way the bill is written on these bundled sources of renewable energy credits is not possible. Ameren has said that. At five years, you're supposed to have 25% from bundled sources, and at 75% at 10 years, Ameren has said that they don't have the capacity to do that, okay? And you can't force Ameren to develop more renewable energy. I think everybody sees the benefit of renewable energy. But in the real scope of things, you can't force Ameren to, if they don't see that it's financially feasible, they're not gonna do it. And with the current administration in office now, there is not a financial incentive for renewable energy. So I think it's a terrible public policy to make a requirement that's not possible to satisfy. I think anybody would agree with that. And none of us can regulate Ameren because they're regulated by the Public Service Commission. And I think we all want to do what's right for the community. And when I heard Mr. Pruitt here speak earlier, who knows the disadvantaged community better than him? And he understands that AI is the future. So we need to have responsible, responsible regulations in the current bill does not have that. And I would ask that that bill be held up, not passed out today for more consultation so we can find a workable form as Mr. Pruitt indicated. Thank you.

Lewis Hamilton.

good afternoon madam chairman and chairwoman excuse me uh i'm lewis hamilton resident of the eighth ward and i'm here uh to speak uh on behalf of or in favor of the bill As it might be amended today, I had to think about the sequence, particularly section two, six, seven, seven, oh, five. Oh, there's a slight tweak in the language that we received from the sponsor this morning. And I think I understand correctly. They're cleaning that up one more time. And with that said, if there are no further changes beyond that tweak, I can say that my client, the Globe Democrat Building and the coalition of the existing data centers are okay with this. That's it.

Have you seen them? So you're saying that, just so I'm clear, because you said it on the record, you're saying that you are okay with the amendment that she has put forth now?

Right. The older woman sent me a copy of the final text this morning about 9 o'clock. I believe there's another one or two-word tweak that's coming from planning. over your way if you haven't gotten it already. And if that is the only change in the document I saw this morning, then we're fine with this.

Okay. But we just need to find out if the tweak is...

It's easy to be confused. There's been a lot of...

Right. It's a lot of back and forth. And here you just gave us some more. So, okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Matt O'Leary.

Uh, good morning. Uh, thanks for letting me testify. I'm just echoing what Hamilton just said, representing the washout said, um, the parties have been hard at work just doing a couple cleaned up changes since the meeting on Thursday, Wednesday or Thursday of last week. Um, and as Lou said, as long as the last couple of words get changed, um, the coalition's in good shape related to the change to Amendment 11. And we appreciate your support on this. Thank you.

Nick Hartzler.

Good afternoon. My name is Nick Hartzler. I'm a lifelong city resident and a senior project manager with Steadfast City. I just wanted to address a couple of things real quick, real briefly, specifically around the notion that the renewable language and requirements for the standard and major data centers isn't just a ban by another name. Last week, testimony was given that if these requirements can't be met, then the project shouldn't be built. Additionally, Ameren has stated they can't meet these requirements as addressed. There's a lot of thoughts that there's going to be these major 400-acre hyperscale campuses being built in the city. But as Miriam Keller has also stated, that with all the other language in this bill, that also is not possible. So just trying to find some form of middle ground there, because those things won't be built. And it's assured through the other language in here, through candidly, we have kind of come to concede on. There are some pieces in here that I wish could be changed. But in interest of just trying to change this language, I've conceded on those points. So just the question before you is not whether data centers should be responsible. The answer is absolutely should be. There's no doubt about that. Question is, does this bill, as it's currently drafted, create a real path for compliance? And the answer is no. So I just, I hope and ask that you consider adopting Amarin's recommended language for renewable. Thank you.

Sean Fowles.

Sean Faust, First Ward. I wanted to speak to you guys a bit today about the Delta Bobcat Solar Project going on right here in Missouri. We have about 200 electrical workers that IBW Local 1 represents in that project. It's going to be 100% clean solar energy. But with the way this is being written, we're disincentivizing that plant from having renewable energy credits that could go towards these projects because of the bundled. I'd like to ask that we do a combination of bundled and bundled and not just get all these renewable energy credits through Ameren. I don't think we should discriminate about where this clean energy is coming from. The clean energy all goes into a pool. The dirty energy, it all goes onto the grid. So imagine like a bucket of water. You got your coal, it's dirty, it dumps on the grid, it goes in the pool. The clean goes in the same pool, and then it's distributed out. So I don't think we should prohibit one clean energy source over another so i'm asking that this legislation be amended to allow for a combination of all renewables not just from amaran and i know there's a percentage in there but allow for a combination so we can get energy from places like just less than two hours from st louis the next era energy, delta bobcat solar, and allowing those facilities to produce clean power on our grid that we can get renewable energy credits for. So please consider the combination of bundled and unbundled. Thank you.

The final speaker, Namal Mears.

Good afternoon, all. My name is Nicole Merz, and I am a proud born and raised person in St. Louis. But for the past 10 years, I've actually been in Jefferson City as somebody who's worked with both the Public Service Commission, the regulator of Ameren, and now with New Missouri, a renewable advocate. And so I am very familiar with the process and procedure pathways to do this. direct experience in regulating this. And rather than go through and combat all of the misinformation I've heard today, I'll just go through and say that this is a great compromise that we support. It is going to allow for data centers to come in, but it does still allow the city to meet its goals. It has enough flexibility to allow those pathways to be done. Airman Missouri and developers have not said that this cannot be met with 100% renewable. They have just asked for flexibility to allow for that to be done and some different possibilities in case there are regulatory delays um not have prepared for but there are pathways in this that allow for that they can request a variance from you all there is um you know there's been a compromise to allow for them to have more unbundled recs at the beginning to allow for them to have the time to build and get that in-service generation so i really do believe that this is going to be a pathway that is both effective for your goals and something that everybody can Complete it is going to be successful. I also note right now, too, if we're really concerned about it right now in front of the Missouri public service and Cameron has a 1000 megawatt solar facility and battery storage facility that could be utilized for this these kind of projects and actually in that testimony in front of the state regulators. One of the reasons they put forward for that is to provide more clean energy for such projects. So in sum, this is a great resolution that's both going to help accomplish clean energy goals, it's going to help isolate some of the cities from excessive energy costs, it's going to reduce pollution, and it is a viable compromise. Thank you all.

That was your final speaker.

All right. I don't want to mis-slicer it.

Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. We're working to get the presentation back up on the screen so the amendments that we have today as discussed can be seen by everyone in the room and anyone watching online. I did try to outline what the renewable energy thresholds are in order to meet our sustainability goals. And if I mixed up those words, I apologize, thresholds in the bill, goals in the sustainability plan. So again, this is how we put our plans into policy is by actually creating these thresholds. So hopefully now I've been as clear as I possibly can be about what's in the bill. So everyone knows what we're talking about. Looking at amendment number 12, which will soon be up on the screen, this is the amendment that adds more flexibility to the day one operation to allow for both bundled and unbundled RECs. The reason that the bundled specification gets higher and throughout the rest of the bill, the year five and year 10 mark in the amendment, is because bundled RECs are actually tied, bundled, to the actual renewable energy that is feeding the energy that is coming to the facility. And that's really important. That energy coming to the facility includes that bundled renewable. That is why that is called out as a priority. The year five operation continues with that 25% of the 50% requirement, so 25% of the total rather, of the 50% total requirement to be unbundled as to allow that more flexibility at year five, and then maintains that 25% threshold of unbundled as it moves into the end of the 10th year at 100% renewable. Everyone on the committee should have this amendment before them, even though it's not up on the screen yet, which I know we're working on. So with that, I would move to adopt amendment number 12 to board bill 49. Second. I'm happy to take any questions.

It was moved by Alderman Swicer and seconded by Alderman Browning. That's amendment number 12. Open for discussion. Alderman Cone. Alderman Cone. Alderman Browning.

uh thank you i think you've explained this and i don't necessarily have any questions but i just want to clarify this um all these amendments that we're doing today just so that we don't get things confused here these are all part of the work in progress that we're doing with this bill that there's been a lot of meetings happening to make sure that we're making this work for um just reality and how these regulations will actually be applied and trying to make sure that we're really listening to everybody, but also doing what's possible. But I don't know if there's anything else you want to say about that.

I appreciate the point. I think that detractors from the renewable energy thresholds would say that they're really a high threshold to meet and that it will be very difficult to meet that. I wouldn't argue that it's a difficult threshold. I would argue that that doesn't make it any less important in order to meet the sustainability goals set by the city or to frankly not go the opposite direction. which is what we are at risk of if we do not have these strong thresholds in place. The electric service provider has not unequivocally said that it's not possible. That is not true. It is difficult. probably wouldn't be possible for dozens of major data centers, especially when you get into the really high megawatt scale. But right now, we're not talking about that. We're talking about each application as it comes through to the city of St. Louis one at a time. So if there is an application for a data center that comes in once these regulations in place, they would need to work with their electric service provider to create a pathway into how they would meet these requirements. So I believe that is possible and something that the city should be doing. As I think many people have said, the bill isn't, if each individual person in this room was writing this bill by themselves, I'm sure it would look as different as the number of people in this room. Um, but this is an effort to both meet those sustainability goals, uh, and set real thresholds for the renewable energy requirement that will create, um, you know, results and, uh, for the city of Saint Louis residents who we represent.

thank you yeah i think it should be difficult to build any use that has negative impacts on a surrounding environment in a dense urban environment so that makes sense to me it's not like we allow a refinery to go in the middle of our city or some other large use that has um effects such as increasing asthma rates or increasing the heat island or an island effect or anything else and so

And all of those things will still happen if there are these data centers built. The number of generators needed for major data centers versus standard versus micro is very different. So the renewable energy requirement is consistent for both standard and major data centers. Of course, the major data centers would have a harder time meeting the requirement, but they also have a substantially higher negative impact in terms of the emissions on site with the generators that would be needed to have as backup, as well as the heat produced and the noise produced, which we've discussed as well. So that's why it's this consistent standard for either standard or major. I think it'll be significantly easier for a standard data center, especially the ones on the smaller side, to meet these requirements. And again, we don't have data centers in the city of St. Louis that are over 10 megawatts at this time. So the data centers that currently operate, if others like them or are trying to come in at that over five megawatt threshold, this would be a much easier threshold to meet than a data center over 100 megawatts. And I don't deny that.

Thank you. That's my questions on this amendment.

Thank you. Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you all for bringing these amendments forward. I like the, even though it's small on the screen, kind of the bold. I'm assuming that the bold language is what has changed

Yeah, so in the day one, having complete flexibility between bundled and unbundled RECs for that sort of initial entry into the market, which again, as we've talked about, data centers can take years to come online. So day one could be three years from when the application first comes in. And then the 25% unbundled at five years, we had it originally had that only 12.5% of the total energy come from unbundled to meet the 50% requirement of total that had been previous. So this increases the amount of unbundled as well in year five, again, have more flexibility. And it keeps that one time up to one year waiver for any unforeseen issues with achieving.

those bundled um and and i think a previous speaker uh mentioned some level of like combined of bundled and unbundled it looks like that's what you're achieving in that paragraph number one where it's a combination of bundled and unbundled under um coming in is that correct

So yes, it's 50% of the total energy produced would be renewable energy and 50% of that so could be bundled or unbundled. So 25 of total 25% could be unbundled and 25% would need to be at least would need to be bundled to meet that full 50%.

Yeah, and maybe, let me not speak on what Mr. Sean Faust was saying, because maybe you're saying 100%, but there is some level of bundled, regardless of what this new amendment is doing, correct?

yes and that again is really important because it's tied to the actual energy production feeding the electric service that is provided to the data center not just in the grid in general we're trying to you know the the the more that it's within the actual electric service the more benefit that you'd see if you were you know are a resident of the city of st louis for renewable energy production

And is this the, I guess the language of, like you say, there's been a lot of conversation and meetings going on, like maybe the language that has been an agreement with you and like the Amron stakeholder?

I wouldn't say an agreement. Ameren, and I posted it in an earlier slide, you know, Ameren would like to see, you know, originally they wanted to see no differentiation between bundled and unbundled. They wanted it all to be possible to meet every requirement. But we've pushed, you know, the city pushes back against that because of the actual tie to renewable energy generation that the bundled REC represents and the compromise that is suggested in this amendment. is larger amounts unbundled for that day one in year five timeline.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, they subsequently said that they would just like to continue to see more and more of the requirement to be met by unbundles, but again, you know, I think there's already been significant compromise in this requirement in previous amendments that we've made to lower the day one requirement from 50% to 25%, which I think has been a huge compromise, and the additional compromises that are made here.

And just for folks watching, this is saga number four of data center. Bundled, if I'm hearing it right, is RECs that are bought by data centers maybe directly from like Amron.

So the bundled RECs we have here laid out where they can come from. So let me... read that bundled rec shall be obtained through the electric utilities renewable energy programs comma psc approved large load renewable energy programs clean energy riders the electric utilities generation portfolio including participation in virtual power plant programs a bundled we're also saying that to meet the 25 bundled rec they also have on-site, which, of course, will be harder and a less smaller percentage for some of the major data centers to have a high percentage on-site. But for the standard data center sizes, they could have more renewable energy generation to meet their requirement, their threshold on-site as well.

And then the unbundled is not necessarily could be from I'm hearing like Iowa or like other states that would we would be or they would be purchasing it to still produce clean energy, but not maybe going like into our grid. Is that am I am I right?

Or the the unbundled difference is really The credit that is being purchased is really just like the solar was created or solar wind, whatever type of credit it is, was created at some point. And this amount of energy is being credited to this customer. It is not tied to energy that is being created to come to that customer within what a bundle does is that marries those two things. And if I say anything wrong, I hope some of our experts will pop up. I have been trying to make sure I can explain that well, because I know on the floor I'd have to do it without someone here to speak on it. But I'm trying to just hope that I'm explaining it well enough, and they'll shake their heads if I got it wrong. Great.

Yeah. And I want to give a shout out to MCE who I think what I asked like at the last meeting is just the education on this because there's a whole lot of nuance and we shouldn't expect that everyone either on this committee or on the floor is going to understand all these terms, especially as like these conversation data centers are popping up and glad that they are. But there is a lot of, as I say, ignorance and a good way of uneducated around. Everyone's not an expert in what's happening in data centers. So I do want to thank MCE for at least taking the time to educate me on the bundled and unbundled process. And that's all that I have. Thank you, Alderman.

Vice Chair Saague.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Honor Woman Schweitzer. You know, I think as is on record, I've been a part of many discussions and I've been here since planning commission.

You know, I would just say at this time, I think that um you know it's very disheartening to me to hear that there are feelings that there hasn't been an honest attempt to have everyone at the table um i have genuinely tried it's from the planning commission to this point to try to sit down and to respond to as many requests as possible myself and auto woman schweitzer have sometimes divided the task up because there are so many folks to speak to and and to talk to um but i know like my goal is that i i feel strongly that as an elected official We don't get to create the room and decide who gets to sit at the table. I think that I do have a right to get up and agree to disagree, but I feel that I owe it to the thousands of people who I represent to sit down and hold space with individuals. And I've tried my best to have conversations across the board to thread the needle. I think that the data center, the existing data center folks who came out and said, yes, we sat down, we talked, and as long as these amendments are made, we're in support. I think that serves as evidence that we have attempted to have those conversations and get that right because that was racist. I know the renewable energy piece has come up. I'll say I am a transparent person, so I'm not a person who lies. Yes, as a planning commissioner, I did attempt to support a ban on major data centers. That's my opinion. That's how I feel about it. That is how a super majority of the constituents that I serve and represent feel about it and I've been very transparent that the way that that original data center was the way that the original major data center was approved in such a non-transparent and I would say sneaky way that undermines democracy and undermines public trust only emboldened my desire to see that sort of ban you know take place and so but I just want to push back against the idea that anything is being done in the dark. I've not done anything dark or non-transparently. I've actually put everything on social media. I've sent emails with it in writing on things that are sunshinable. There is nothing that I'm doing that is in secret. My residents who are emailing me, and I have gotten tons who are like, what's going on with the regulation? They get detailed updates with me. Here's the next hearing for this. Here's the conversation for that. It's going back to planning commission. So, you know, I just want to be really clear. Like, yes, I am a person who is not supportive of major data centers. That is true. That's a fact. That's the way I feel about that. The good news is, for folks who are supported, I didn't get a say-so in that. The city of St. Louis already did that and already approved it. So I did the next responsible pivot and said, okay, you know what? Let's get in the weeds on these regulations and let's make sure they're fair. Now, if you ask me, are you trying to ban data centers with these regulations? No, I'm not. If I was going to do that, I would bring an amendment forward to do a ban, like I did on planning commission. I don't have to do anything in secret. I'm not afraid of taking a position or taking a... stand and I don't think that it is of integrity to be in this type of position and to sneak things through. If I had a desire to do a ban, you would see an amendment proposed to this committee or proposed on the Florida Board of Aldermen that would be proposing a ban. What is being attempted now is I think it's just like again, this is a nuanced thing. There are lots of conversations to have. There's a lot of threading of the needle to be done. I think we had a very productive meeting with NCE, some folks from Ameren, some folks from the building trades. I think we just did that yesterday. The amendment you see in front of us from the Alderwoman, I think is another attempt to try to thread a needle, not an attempt to ban it. Because if we were trying to ban it, we would have kept it at 50% renewal. and left it at fully a bundled requirement, even though everyone was saying it's not reachable. When they said, no, we still don't think this is reachable, we did the work to set up a meeting to get everybody in the room. So I just really want to push back. I know there are things within the bill that many of us don't like, myself included. I would rather, you know, my position on these is clear. But I think that it's important to not say that anyone is being left out of the process or anyone is not being included. If that is happening, again, I have a phone number. I have an email. I am always happy to make myself available as much as I can to have the conversations, especially as I understand that I have the privilege of having served on a planning commission. Thanks to the chairwoman. Thanks to my colleagues. I'm always happy to sit down and explain my thinking behind things. my rationale my understanding again it doesn't mean we will agree but i'm absolutely happy to sit down and have those conversations and to be transparent and when it comes to my attention that someone believes there's something within the legislation that would keep us from it i'm happy to have conversations about amending that i just want to put that you know really true on the record i would not say that I would not say that anyone that I've sat at the table with is not interested in regulations. I would not say that, that there's a desire from anybody at the table, even folks who are pro data centers, to not have regulations. I've not heard that, and obviously from our conversations, the legislation doesn't progress if people lock in. We've been able to get here because of conversations, so I wouldn't say that, but I would just say that, again, if you're hearing public comment, and what I'm hearing from my constituents regulations are one thing but even now there's some of them are very public I'm not happy where the regulations are because I feel like if you're gonna put a data center in I want to say so on whether or not that happens and I really don't actually even want you as my other person or any other other person or even the mayor to be the

because I don't trust the way the process happened the first time.

But that is not, you know, that's just me being transparent on where things are. I don't necessarily have a lot of questions about the amendment before us. I just want to make it clear, you know, for folks who may be watching and for folks who I am talking to via email, I know that Alderman Aldridge's question is about bundles and unbundles and nuances. Data centers, I've gotten plenty of emails from residents. Please don't hesitate to send me an email about anything you have a question about. I know things are moving fast. If you want to have a phone call, I've got office hours coming up. If there's anything I can do for any stakeholders that's interested and you're interested in having a conversation or you have a question for me, I fully believe in an open door policy. I'm very transparent. I want to make sure I'm open to that, but the amendments that are in front of us, I would say are a result of all the women Schweitzer's work to try to thread this needle and find something that can work and to address the concerns that have been brought up, while not negating the point that I do believe there should be a renewable energy requirement. I do feel strongly about that, that there should be a renewable energy requirement. I think there can be flexibility in how you meet that threshold and that goal. Obviously, you have to consider what's going to happen. But I do feel that there can be a renewable energy requirement. And I think to anyone who would say, well, you can't force Ameren to do renewable, Understood. You cannot force Emory to do renewable, and then you also cannot force data centers on residents who do not want them. So I think that we have to balance that line. Thank you.

Is Alderman Cohn back on?

I've been here. I don't have any questions or comments at this time. Thank you.

Alderman Slicer.

Thank you for all of the feedback and the questions on the amendment. And with that, I renew my motion to adopt amendment number 12 to board bill 49 as amended.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right. Any opposed? All right.

Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Amendment number 13 amends the applicability section after a further conversation with the current data center operators, and it's on the screen what the amendment is. Some of these things are about the specific requirements that are triggered regarding if there are structures that need to be built to deal with noise abatement or issues that that would not be considered an expansion. Things that make sure that it's clear as well as what happens when a fuel tank is replaced. to that nature so a lot of really specific wording here which is up on the screen and hopefully no one's shaking their head back there saying that we missed it so um i i appreciate uh any questions that come up um but and with that all said i would like to make it i would make a motion to adopt amendment number 13 to board bill 49 as amended second

It was moved by Alderman Sweitzer and seconded by Vice Chair Sanye that we adopt amendment number 13. Anybody have any discussion? Alderman Cohn? Alderman Aldridge?

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Mainly, I'm not supportive of these, but this is a committee process. I just want for us to dig a little deeper into these amendments for people that's not watching. So it looks like for section 26.77.05D, I guess you talk about, would this change be for existing data centers or would this be a change for all data centers?

good question this is this is for the current non-conforming you know the non-conforming uses and when you say non-conforming that means exactly right so if a data center that is currently operating has been permitted and is operating legally there are a lot of discussions that we've had about what triggers what requirement so this goes over the triggers for you know clarifying some of the triggers for the school roof requirement the how the fuel tanks would need to be, what requirements fuel tanks would need to adhere to, or what happens if there are new fuel tanks put on, and regarding structures that might need to be built to deal with some of the other requirements regarding you know, noise and screening. So this is for the existing data centers and what they would have to adhere to and when.

Okay. And this was a compromise language that you worked with the existing data centers?

Yes.

And is that, I think Mr. Lou Hamilton, Mr. Matt O'Leary brought up like there was a few tweaks in planning that you all agreed to.

This is so last week when we had this conversation, we had reached an agreement with the language that was presented and adopted last week. But if you remember, the speakers from the current operators had said they are reading it through another probably 100 times to make sure that they don't feel like anything either wasn't clear or missed in any sort of specific way that they wanted to clarify further. So these these clarifications are coming from them. The one thing that I added after they sent the desired changes was for the fuel tanks that they do have to meet the building and systems equipment design and screening standards when structural alteration is made to have those new fuel tanks. So that little and no structural alteration is made in that first bolded paragraph is something that I added and they agreed to. Okay, so those little few tweaks y'all I mean it's been a lot of conversation, a lot of, you know, trying to make it make it work for, you know, already operating data centers that are a part of our city economy and our land use that's already operating and permitted, even without the regulation.

And I'm a I'm a I'm a vote for the amendment, but I guess what I'm asking that little I think they had said there was some like little tweaks of language from planning that needed to get in and that's in there.

I think this is everything that was agreed to. I don't think I see him shaking their head.

So that answers my question. Thank you all the woman.

Thank you.

No more questions, Madam Chair.

Vice Chair, it's not yet.

I don't have any questions. Ask the questions I would have just to explain to the public the purpose.

I would just say that I am trying to see if we can get some more printouts of the amendments, and then maybe I can set them over to the side, and whoever will be following along with us with their own paper will be able to for everyone in the room.

All right. No more questions or comments on Amendment number 13. So all in favor? Aye.

Thank you.

Anyone opposed?

I'm sure that I made that motion, but I can't remember who seconded it. OK, thank you. Thank you. OK, thank you very much. Moving on to amendment number 14. Madam Clerk, if you could please advance the slide. Thank you. Okay, I understand. So amendment number 14. In the application requirements, there's a requirement for measurement of the baseline noise levels. And similarly, as we did last week, we added some language around other of those requirements in the application for a third party professional to be the one taking that baseline. And so this amendment adds as measured by a third party noise measurement professional approved by the city baseline data centers are permitted to to board bill 49 as amended.

Second. It was moved by Alderman. Second. It was moved by Alderman Switzer and seconded by Vice Chair Sanjaya that we adopt amendment number 14. We're open for discussion. Anybody? Alderman Cohen, I see your video just came on.

No questions.

Anyone at the dice? Alderman Aldridge.

Members of the committee, I thank you all for bringing this forward. So as measured by a third party, I know third party is in the kind of original bill that talks about a third party will be the one that like kind of go out and survey to make sure everything is done properly, correct?

So in the different application requirements, there's a third party environmental review, for example. And this is a requirement where there was a requirement in the application to provide the baseline noise levels, but it doesn't specify Who would do it? Applying those. So, you know, some of the feedback that we got was how important that is to have that third party verification of what the noise levels are so that the city can hold the data centers accountable to the regulations, which are laid out about how much more they can go over that baseline at certain number over that baseline.

Gotcha. And I like the idea of a third party. It's not done by city, it's not done by data center owners, but somebody independent. I guess one of the things I'd never ask is who's going to, I guess, pick, it says professionals approved by the city, who's going to pick these, or who's going to pick the individuals to do this work?

Yeah, the application be coming in through the Board of Public Service with the conditional use process. So between, you know, the Board of Public Service and Planning and Zoning staff, that would be where this, you know, approval would come from.

OK. No more questions. Thank you.

OK. I am taking my time with this because I did confirm. I felt like there might have been a delay. There's definitely a delay. So I want to make sure Alderman Cohn has time when I ask the questions. I don't want you to think I'm holding it up when I'm asking. Okay. So I guess he's fine with this one. Oh, okay. You got a thumbs up. All right. So it was motion was made and seconded. All in favor for Amendment 14? Aye. Aye.

OK, Amendment 15, in our first iteration of the requirements of the board bill that came out of the recommendation, the planning commission, we had local renewable energy credits as a definition. We have since moved away from that. term local renewable energy credits and moved through to say bundled and unbundled. And bundled and unbundled have both had definitions added to the bill as of our previous meeting, definitions coming from Ameren as a suggested language. So this, they noted yesterday in the meeting that it was confusing to still have a definition that was no longer used in the bill. So that is why this amendment is here. So with that, I would move to adopt amendment number 15 to board bill 49 as amended.

Second. It was moved by Alderman Schweitzer and seconded by Alderman Browning that we adopt amendment number 15. And I open it up for discussion. Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you all the women. So I'm assuming you have this definition, local renewable energy credits to try to get at data center owners, operators buying credits locally here in our area that would go to our grid. Is this local renewable energy credits for people not watching known as RECs that I'm learning? Is this something that will be, I guess, in the bundle? So they're able to capture these RECs locally through the bundle?

I think the definitions of bundled and unbundled that were provided by Ameren more clearly get to how this renewable energy requirement would be measured and what makes up bundled versus an unbundled rec is more clearly defined now in our regulations. And this was sort of a leftover term that had been used to kind of largely define bundled recs in a previous, in the planning commission recommendation that we had as introduced as Board Bill 49. And once we made the change to bundled and unbundled as the language, and I think really cleaned up the language, this term is no longer needed because it's not used. Local renewable energy credit is not used in the bill.

Got it. And I guess the REC is the renewable energy credit set, which you can get from bundled to unbundled. But I guess that one word, local, those will still be captured either in the bundled or unbundled.

Yeah, right. Both bundled and unbundled are defined where the RECs can come from. So even though an unbundled REC doesn't result in that same kind of bundling, that pairing of the actual renewable energy generation and what the customer is buying from the electric service provider, it still is within the more local i would say area and that's a bundle like um bundled and unbundled both of those um have some parameters in terms of where they can come from uh so like uh renew a renewable energy credit from california for example would not qualify as either bundled or unbundled

Got you. And just so I'm clear, because this is interesting, the unbundled can necessarily maybe come from our like region, but not necessarily would be like, we'll say like local, maybe compare more to like the bundle, which the bundle would be more like directly and I see MCE shaking their head like more like

Yeah, I feel that I'm not explaining it well enough. Do you mind if I have Renew Missouri come up and explain?

I would love to. I think it's important to make sure we all are educated.

I appreciate that. Nicole Merz with Renew Missouri again. I think that in the conversations with Ameren and these discussions that having that distinction with the bundled and unbundled RECs but still having it tied regionally kind of subsumes and captures the intent of having that local credit so that the region is still getting that energy. Really what the difference is going to be is that when you bundled a REC, the facility and it's retied on their behalf, they're both getting the energy that's produced and the REC. And so that, sorry about that, that actually would help put downward pressure on rates because if the data center or the developer is paying for the actual energy as well as the RECs, that's less for other customers to have to pick up. So that was an important economic thing that I think was kind of the intent, but having that A change definition still captures that, and that's why there's less encouragement to do the unbundled REC, because that's not necessarily have that same pressure on rates, because the energy can be sold to a completely third person. The data center can buy the RECs, but then the energy could go to Walmart or whoever else. So I think finding those as bundled is going to both provide benefits for the region, accomplish the renewable goals, but then also help with the downward pressure on rates, which bundled RECs might not have as much of an effect on that, if that helps.

Katya, and I get the point of trying to do the bundle unbundled is maybe some level of compromise, which may not be at a perfect level that everyone loved, but just in layman terms, so that everything that you said so eloquently and amazing, Bundled, again, it would, and I think that the goal of these is to, as Alderman said multiple times, to try to achieve our sustainability plan. So doing something in a plus instead of not doing anything or going in the backward direction, right? bundled data center by a bundle rec that energy being bought help people in our area to maybe go down on their costs and that is something that is a credit that not only are they buying but it's like direct energy from let's just say our grid.

The more important piece for the bundled, we can't regulate rates. We're not regulating rates in this bill, and that's very important. It's the actual production of energy that is feeding into what the customer is purchasing. So it's that actual production of energy that helps meet the sustainability goals, whereas unbundled allows the flexibility.

there is no desire with what we're doing with unbundled or bundled recs to change anything with rates it's not something that we can regulate at all through this process correct and i guess with the i guess the bundle we can't regulate those either because those are coming from uh the energy source and we can't regulate bundle or unbundled i think the what i'm trying to get at and just hopefully to educate folks and for all those that are watching that may also access bundled is more direct impact to consumers. I see her shaking her head, so I'm on to something. Consumers and will probably be energy that's going to our grid compared to unbundled is more a direct, it is a buy of a credit which will help the world or help our region go clean, but it may not necessarily directly impact local folks. It could impact somebody in Iowa or Michigan or Minnesota, somewhere at least in the region, not necessarily like California or New York because that's too far, but the unbundled is still supporting the environment with clean credits but it may not have and which I think why you're trying to get more at the bundle because this is something that would help more of our not only sustainability goal but like consumers here locally compared to what unbundled is.

We can't really do anything in the bill that affects consumers. That's not something that can be really a part of the regulations. But we can think about the people of the city of St. Louis and the reason we set sustainability goals and the goal within sustainability goals to actually have industry, especially as you get into these larger scale users of energy, using renewables. which is the bundled is the actual kind of use of those renewables into the system, into what they're buying.

So do my analogy, I get what you're saying, do my analogy of the bundled and unbundled make sense? I'm seeing heads shaking, but I'm not seeing like you saying yes. I'm seeing like maybe the experts shaking their head like that.

You mean like nodding or shaking?

Like nodding in agreement of my analogy.

I just want to be clear about what the like regulatory intent is of the.

Yeah, I think we've said we're not trying to regulate AMRAC because we can't do that. But since we're talking about bundled and RECs, I want to stay, I guess, kind of germane to these amendments that's in front of us, not like the bigger thing. But RECs being one that, going back to that bundle, unbundled, that's kind of the gist of how those work.

yeah the actual renewable energy production that's feeding in to what the customer what they're buying is really the main difference okay and the bundle acts of that are many and varied and important for different reasons to different people but in this case it's to um have the you know power generation that is powering a land use in the city of st louis um be heading towards meeting our sustainability goals.

Which that capture more in the bundle, correct? Correct. And then the unbundled capture the clean energy, but maybe not like in our grid or in our region, correct?

It's the credit for the existence of clean energy to that amount, but it's not the actual energy itself feeding in to what they're buying and using at the facility. So it's just not as strong, which is why I wanted more bundled requirements in this bill and why I've been pushing so hard for them. But I understand that

And you compromise with doing more unbundled to, okay. Yeah. I think I got it all. And what's your name again?

Nicole Merz with Renew Missouri.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments? Alderman Cohn? All right. All in favor for adoption of amendment number 15?

Aye.

All right.

Thank you. We are getting to our last amendment here, amendment number 16. In the earlier amendment we were talking about, especially with the five ability to have that one year waiver, that can show if the data center, if the land user is not able to meet the requirement of year five, that they have the ability to apply for that waiver to get an extension. One of the things that came up in thinking about that is, how is the city really going to know that efforts have been made to meet that requirement? And it's not just, oh, we get to year five and you have this waiver opportunity, so let's apply for it. And that is looking like amendment number 16. Mr. Clerk, if you don't mind advancing the slide to amendment 16. to add more information about what the renewable energy report has to provide. That is a yearly reporting requirement. So in the requirement, it includes the progress reports documenting the efforts to meet the renewable energy requirements so that it's clear what's happening and so that everyone feels comfortable that You know, if there is a moment in year five where a waiver has to be applied for, that they've done everything they can to meet and comply with the provision based on what they'd been reporting beforehand and then after as well to get to year 10 and to maintain because that's a big part of that year 10 requirement is it's not just meeting it at the end of the 10th year, but it's maintaining as well. So that is some clarity to add some information about what exactly the report needs to include. So with that, I'd move to adopt amendment number 16 to board bill 49.

Second. This move by Alderman Slicer and seconded by Vice Chair Sanye that we adopt amendment number 16. We're open for discussion. Anyone at the Dyess or Alderman Cohn? I guess we're good on amendment number 16. All in favor? I have a question. I'm sorry. Alderman Aldridge does have a question.

I'm diving deep into all of these, which I support them all. But like I said, as we say, this is where the work happens. And thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize. This is something that planning will be doing after, and to be clear, you're saying after year five because of the way... Oh, it would be annual.

So as the... if there are the renewable requirements for the standard and major data centers as in this bill of those past that annually those data centers will be reporting many things one of which is their energy use one of which is already in the bill that they'd have an annual report verifying compliance with the relevant renewable requirements but in this case because there's that waiver not only just you know we're at 38% now, but how are you going to get to year five? What is your plan to get to year five? What is your plan to get to year 10? How are you going to make more of those specifics in this requirement? So it doesn't add a new requirement for reporting. It just clarifies what is in the report.

And I guess the way reading it is something that's not changed, which changes in bold. This report goes to the executive director of the planning urban design agency.

Oh, yes. Yeah, that's not changed.

OK. And maybe this is so unfortunate, I think our executive director is leaving from that department soon. But there's a lot of great people to step up. Do these reports, being, I guess, a commissioner, are these reports public on their website for the public to see? How would the public be able to see these reports and make sure that data centers also the ones maybe in people neighborhood or abiding by the rules, is there any public ability to see these reports?

Just like anything that would come into the city, it is all sunshine-able. But I am definitely interested in adding more information about how to make more of these reports more clear and more easily accessible. It would certainly be my intention that these reports could be requested by anyone, available to anyone who would like to see them.

Would love it. And I mean, it's not something I'm married over. But if there's a way, since we're diving so deep into all this data center, and clearly there's an abundance of energy from the community to either have input or see what's happening, a way that we wouldn't have to force people to do a sunshine report to just be able to see it online. And I will say, um i think you already mentioned there's a lot of stuff in the build that you've changed a lot of stuff in the bill people don't like i think with some of the changes you made today i appreciate them and look forward to voting out a committee i will say uh this is kind of the not the reporting but with the waiver that's the one thing i i don't necessarily just agree with of i guess a waiver on the first end and then finding them if they can't meet it and i think that was just a conversation in committee if like demand and the market's not there we're kind of uh and maybe I could be wrong, learning, but if the demand's not there, first time they get a waiver, but if the demand's not there like second or third time that they're getting fined, not on their ability to try to meet it, but on the ability of the market just don't allow it, but that's hopefully as we get closer to the year five where there's more requirements, there'll be more conversations, legislation always can We've got to get something out there. I totally agree. It can always be amended and changed and tweaked. But we'd love to see if there's a way that this reporting is public facing without people having to do a sunshine request.

I appreciate that. And we'll think about that.

All right.

All in favor of adopting Amendment Number 16? Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, members of the committee, for walking through those amendments with me. I appreciate the time greatly. I know it's been a lot. Since we now have Board Bill 49 as amended and amended again in front of us, I wanted to invite Ms. Mary Miller up, if you're still here, to speak on the bill as a whole and any staff feedback as we move, hopefully, to get this bill out of committee today and then back in front of the Planning Commission for more feedback.

Good morning or I think now afternoon to members of this committee, Chairman Clark Hubbard, Miriam Keller from the City of St. Louis Planning and Urban Design Agency. I just wanted to briefly address that I think each of these amendments addresses kind of tweaks that in many cases were really needed of the Planning Commission's recommendation to resolve technical concerns that were not fully addressed and to respond to other feedback received after the Planning Commission made its recommendation. As this committee knows well, often technical and community feedback continues to come in after zoning regulations leave the Planning Commission's desk, as it were, and I think the Alderman Schweitzer, co-sponsors on this bill all did really, really good, dedicated work, working with stakeholders to understand those concerns, resolve those those issues, and also consulted with planning staff and other other staff that helped initially draft the regulations along the way. So I just wanted to As the staff to the Planning Commission addressed that, we have it noticed on our agenda for the Planning Commission tomorrow night to review these if that timing is right, if the committee moves to recommend these regulations out of committee today. And I just wanted to thank, again, all of the participants, all of the many, many dedicated participants. in this process and to coming to the table in good faith to share ideas, share concerns and work to address them.

Ms. Keller, I'll see if any of our colleagues have any questions or anything for you just in case. Alderman Cohn.

No questions.

Thank you. Alderman Browning.

No questions. I just want to say thank you. I really appreciate how the staff has sought to really understand this issue and I've worked with people on every side of the issue to develop really thoughtful regulations.

Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam chair members of the committee, uh, I guess process wise, Ms. Uh, uh, Keller. So you said this would be going in front of planning tomorrow, uh, the committee, the committee, the commission and committee members. Correct.

Correct.

And what time is that for? set for 530 I believe we have this as the second third item on the agenda important informational updates and what is I guess so for all these amendments to reach majority all the committee members will have to vote in favor each amendment

the commission will review amendments one by one i've grouped some into sort of thematically related changes just for the commission's kind of clarity and reviewing them all but each will be presented and discussed and voted on i believe any further feedback or flags documented and submitted to the board

Got you. And this is just truly a question and I do appreciate the work that you and planning has done. Have you seen I guess in your time a process move this quick of like a bill change that would need to go back to planning for those members to vote on like with less than 24 hours? Well, it would be a little bit more than 24 hours ago. That would be posted before then. But have you seen such a, I guess, a quick turnaround on a board bill that maybe changed in the board that would need to go back to planning? The data center set off the file. I'm just kidding.

I make the motion that we recess. Second. All in favor? Aye. All right. Good afternoon. Thank you, STL TV. Thank you, everyone, for your cooperation. We survived the fire drill. Everyone is okay here in City Hall. So with that, I'll accept the motion to return from recess. So moved.

Second.

It was moved by Vice Chair Sangang and seconded by Alderman Browning that we return from recess. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Out on Ms. Weiser, when we recessed, we were wrapping up comments. We had heard from Ms. Keller of the planning division. So unless anyone else has any further questions, I think we can go ahead and welcome out on Ms. Weiser. Ms. Keller is here, but I was seeing if nobody had any more additional questions for her. Yeah. Madam Chair? Yes, sir. Thank you.

Sir, I never left the room. I think we were listening to Alderman Aldridge. He had questions for Ms. Keller, I think is where we left off.

Yeah, I thought he said he was wrapped up because he might need to leave. Okay.

You have what?

Okay.

If Ms. Keller has anything additional she wanted to state, I'll of course pass it over.

Alderman Aldridge said he does have some additional questions.

Yes, welcome back from our tornado break. I mean, not a fire drill break, not tornado. I think I had left off asking you, Ms. Keller, have you seen the process move so fast of we'll vote this out today and then planning committee will take this up tomorrow. Historically, it hasn't been done this fast. If a board bill has been changed by the Board of Aldermen, it needs to go back to planning.

We haven't had that many items where this rule applies. I think what makes this distinct, though, is the number of conversations and hearings and meetings on this topic that have occurred in the planning commission. I think if planning and sustainability staff hadn't had the benefit of receiving and hearing a lot of the feedback and kind of participating in the technical problem solving, alongside the sponsors and co-sponsors, this would be more challenging. But we were part of that process and I think are prepared to fully describe the rationale behind each amendment.

And for the public, I do want them to know that the planning staff has been working on this topic for a very long time, and you have put a lot of work into this. I guess my last question would be a little bit for you, and maybe the Alderwoman. So this would be, if it would come out today and planning is taking this up, tomorrow, the board will process. This Friday will be second read. I don't believe the Alderwoman planned it. suspend the rules this week. If she does, she has my support with that. But if she don't, then it will be perfected next week. If any changes are made during perfection on the floor, which then there's other alders that are not on this committee, I guess would that bill then have to go back to planning again if amendments are made on the floor?

Any substantive changes would, yes. I think something I should have included in my previous response also is that this topic has been an expressed priority of the Planning Commission since, I suppose, April of 2025. And the commission has expressed, many commissioners expressed a desire to support the board's work to get regulations in place sooner rather than later. So I think staff is operating with that spirit in mind.

Okay. Would you, I guess, consider, and I was asking the Aldo woman, would you consider the reporting of, or the reporting mechanism that you all do be on planning's website or some like public facing, would you consider that like a substance change if we would to change that on the floor to make the reporting mechanism public for people to read?

I don't, I'm not sure. I was also in a text exchange with the executive director and he suggested ways we could do that even without a change to the regulations. I don't know that it's required for the regulations to, for us to do that. For example, we could provide those ports as notice to the planning commission or something like that i think our perspective everything received by the department then of course becomes public information in this realm gotcha okay and i know you i do do a good job of kind of making those documents either to the commissioners or people to sit on planning and

um it's always in my opinion not everything has to be in the bill but it's always good to try to get as much because who knows how teams change or departments change depending on administrations or executive director so that's all the questions i have and thank you for all the work you've done on this i don't want to slice it you're welcome to close

Oh, thank you. I do have Caitlin Smith from the mayor's office just to provide testimony of the mayor's office support of the bill as well.

Hello, Caitlin Smith, policy advisor to the mayor. I'm just here to thank the alderwoman for all of her time and consideration that she put into this board bill, as well, especially all of the city staff, Miriam, Alicia, all the work that they've put into this and the planning commission to get this board bill to where it is, and that the mayor's office is in fully support of this board bill. And we're happy to answer any questions that anyone has from the mayor's office perspective.

Alderman Collin, do you have any questions for the mayor's office or anyone at the dais?

So is the mayor's office supportive of the bill as it's amended?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. With that, again, I appreciate all the time and effort that's been put in this. I think the most committee meetings a bill of mine has ever had is three. So this has now made a new record for me personally, and I appreciate that. And all the people who've been here who are not paid to show up here, I really especially appreciate you. But for everyone who's come and weighed in, whether it's for a specific viewpoint or as a member of the community, your voices are so important and I hope that you feel they've been heard. So with that, I would ask for a do pass recommendation from this committee on board bill 49.

I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PASS BOARD BILL 49 AS AMENDED IN COMMITTEE WITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND. IT WAS MOVED BY, I'M SORRY, VICE CHAIR SONIER AND SECONDED BY ALDIMAN BROWNING THAT WE PASS BOARD BILL 49 AS AMENDED IN COMMITTEE WITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

ALDIMAN CONE. ALL THE WOMEN'S WIDE, SIR.

AYE.

Vice Chair Sonnier? Aye. Alderman Browning?

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge?

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard?

Aye.

Alderman Cohn?

Aye.

We have six aye votes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman Swicer. We're going to go back in the agenda to the approval of the minutes. I accept the motion to approve the minutes from Tuesday, June 30th and Wednesday, July 1st. So moved. Second. It was moved by Vice Chair Sangay and seconded by Alderman Browning that we approve the minutes from June 30th and July 1st with the call for previous roll by Alderman Swicer. With no objections, we have approved the minutes. Madam Clerk, are there any resolutions for review? We have none. Any additional committee discussions?

We have none.

Any written testimony?

We have 16 written testimony on Board Bill 49 as amended in committee.

Any announcements? All right, with that, I'll accept a motion to adjourn. So moved. It was moved by Vice Chair Sangay and seconded by Alderman Browning with a call for previous role. Alderman Swizer with no objection. We are adjourned. Everyone have a blessed day.