Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

The board will now come to order. Madam Clerk, please. Sorry, didn't see who was presiding today.

Alderman Cohn. Alderman Ryan. Alderman Devotee.

Present.

Alderman Velazquez. Alderman Sanye. Alderman Cox-Antwi. Alderman Browning.

Present.

Alderman Clark Hubbard. Alderman Keyes. Alderman Tyus.

Present.

Alderman Boyd.

Here.

Alderman Aldrich. Alderman Cohn.

Present.

Oh, President Green, sorry. Present. Alderman Cohn.

Present.

Alderwoman Velazquez. We have 14 present.

A corn being present, we will dispense with line items three and four. Any introduction of honored guests? Any introduction of honored guests? Alderwoman from the 11th.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Today, my family is celebrating my daughter in love, Keondria. Today is her 26th birthday. So I'd like to say happy birthday. We love you.

Any further announcement of guests? Seeing none, Alderwoman from the 10th, you're recognized on the approval of the minutes from Friday, July 10, 2026.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we approve the minutes from Friday, July 10, 2026.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 11th, that we approve the minutes for Friday, July 10, 2026. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion carries. Report of city officials.

Report of city officials can be found on A, B, C, and D of the agenda and has been placed in the Google Drive for your review.

Does anyone wish to take any bills or resolutions off of any of our informal calendars? Alderwoman from the 11th.

Thank you again, Madam President. I'd like to move Board Bill 44 to the Perfection Consent Calendar.

Mr. Clerk, please move Board Bill 44 to the Perfection Consent Calendar.

Thank you.

Alderman from the 3rd. Alderman from the third. Would you like to move board bill 52 off of the formal calendar and 53?

And 53, yes, Madam President, thank you. I would like to make a motion that we move board bills 52 and 53 off of the informal calendar.

No motion needed, but it can be. Mr. Clerk, if you would please put Board Bill 52 and 53 on the third reading calendar. So noted. Thank you. Alderwoman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President. I would like to request to have Board Bill 55. We can't hear you. Hello. Thank you, Madam President. I would like to request to have Board Bill 55 taken off the informal calendar.

Mr. Clerk, if you could please remove Board Bill 55 from the informal calendar and put it on the regular perfection calendar.

So noted. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to take any bills or resolutions off of any of our informal calendars? Seeing none, first reading of board bills.

Board Bill Number 63, sponsored by Alderman Clark Hubbard and President Green, an ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment wherein the Board of Aldermen authorizes the acceptance of grant and the receipt of appropriation of funds awarded by the U.S. Department of Labor relating to the Youth Bill Grant authorizes the director of the St. Louis Agency of Training and Employment to make, negotiate, and execute any and all contracts and documents on behalf of the City of St. Louis needed to expend such funds containing an emergency clause.

Reference to Committee of Board Bills.

Board Bill 63 to Health and Development.

Second reading and report of standing committees.

The following board bill was reported out of the Public Infrastructure Utilities Committee with the due pass recommendation. Board Bill 62 introduced by Alderman Browning, Alderman Clark Hubbard, Alderman Schweitzer, and Alderman Devotee. An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service authorizing the 2026 works and the 50-50 sidewalk program citywide providing for the construction, and reconstruction of gutters, streets, driveways, spot curves, sideways, sidewalks, alleys, traffic controls, beautification, tree planting, resurfacing, and related engineering adjustments listed herein. Appropriating $6 million from the Street Improvement Fund containing sections for a description of work, approval of plans and specifications work and material guarantees estimated costs from city funds and supplemental agreements and reversion authorizations applicable state and federal wage requirements equal opportunity provisions and the mayor's executive order containing advertising and statues and public work emergency clause this is the extent of the second reading report standing committees

Alderman from the 9th, you're recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of moving Board Bill 62 to the Perfection Consent Calendar.

Thank you. I would move that we suspend the rules to move Board Bill 62 to the Perfection Consent Calendar.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 9th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we suspend the rules for the purposes of moving Board Bill 62 to the regular Perfection Calendar. This is a non-debatable motion. Madam, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer. Aye. Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan. Aye. Alderman Devotee. Aye. Alderman Velazquez. Aye. Alderman Sangay. Aye. Alderman Cox-Antwi. Aye. Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Clark Hubbard. Aye. Alderman Keyes. Alderman Tyus?

Aye.

Alderman Boyd?

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge? Aye. President Green?

Aye.

Fifteen aye votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the 9th. Mr. Clerk, if you could please place Board Bell 62 on the Perfection Consent Calendar.

So noted.

Report of Special Committees.

We have none.

We can dispense with Line Item 15, Perfection Consent Calendar.

Board Bill 13, Committee Sub, as amended in the committee sponsored by Alderman Aldrich, pursuant to Ordinance Number 70333, and as amended by Ordinance 71394, the Director of Streets is hereby directed to install speed humps to calm the traffic, the flow of traffic on certain blocks in the 14th Ward. Board Bill 58, sponsored by Alderman Schweitzer, pursuant to Ordinance Number 7033, as amended by Ordinance 71394, an ordinance directing the city, the directive streets to install speed humps to counter floor traffic in the First Ward.

That's the extent of the, oh. Mr. Clerk, we have Board Bill 62.

And 44. Correct. And Board Bill 44, sponsored by Alderman Keyes, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor and comptroller of the city of St. Louis to execute upon receipt of and consideration of the sum of $200 and other good and valuable consideration, a quick claim deed to remise, release, and forever quit claimant to Willie Jarman, Certain city-owned property located in the city block of 4411A, which property is known and numbered as 4052 Camilla in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and containing an emergency clause. In Board Bill 62, introduced by Alderman Browning, Alderman Clark Hubbard, Alderman Schweitzer, and Alderman Devotee, An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service authorized in 2026 St. Louis Works and 5050 Sidewalks program providing for construction and reconstruction of gutters, streets, driveways, spot curves, sidewalks, alleys, shows, beautifications, tree planting, resurfacing, and related engineering adjustments listing inherent, appropriating $6 million from the Street Improvement Fund containing sections for description of the work, approval, plans, specification, work, and material guarantees, estimated cost from city funds and supplemental agreements, and reversion authorization, applicable state and federal wage requirements, equal opportunity provisions, and the mayor's executive orders containing advertising statutes on the public work emergency. And that is the extent of the board bills for perfection.

Consent. Alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adopt the board bills for the perfection consent calendar.

Thank you, Madam President. We adopt the board bills for perfection consent calendar.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderperson from the 1st, that we adopt the board bills for the perfection consent calendar. Is there any discussion? Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor to Board Bill 62.

Mr. Clerk, if you could please make note of that and also add me as a co-sponsor to 62.

So noted.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, it's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 1st that we adopt the Board Bill for the Perfection Consent Calendar. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Board bills for perfection.

Board Bill 49, introduced by Alderman Switzer, President Green, Alderman Sonnier, Alderman Ryan, and Alderman Browning. An ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission, amending the zoning code to add Section 26.77, creating comprehensive zoning regulations for data centers. Approved by the Planning Commission on June 10, 2026, and containing a separability clause.

Alderman from the first year, recognized in the perfection of Board Bill 49, as amended in committee.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Madam President and members of the board. I move to perfect Board Bill 49 as amended.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 1st, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 7th that we perfect Board Bill 49 as amended.

Alderwoman, you may proceed. Thank you, Madam President and members of the board. The discussions around data center regulations have been in front of our city for some time now. In September, this board adopted a resolution 111, which affirmed the Mayor's Executive Order 92, which directed planning staff to work expeditiously to put in place proposed regulations for data centers. At this time, we have the body of work that has been created since that time in Board Bill 49 as amended in committee. This is a bill that represents an incredible amount of stakeholder engagement. Dozens, if not hundreds, of people have put in their feedback. There have been many hours of public comment, both in the HUD's committee meetings and in the planning commission. Many, many meetings of staff who have worked on this, myself, many of you were involved in those as well with many of the stakeholders of these regulations. uh so just so we're all on the same page about what's in here i wanted to go through the bill with you all here today um so as you'll read we have information about this being adding a chapter to the zoning code specifically for data centers as they are a unique use that was deemed appropriate to have a separate chapter then you'll see all of the different definitions that have been made. Some of the definitions have changed based on the feedback from stakeholders. For example, how we define a renewable energy credit. Ameren provided that language so that we would be speaking the same language as them when talking about the type of renewable energy credits that are in front of us. Further in the bill, after we go through all of the different definitions, it goes into the use table. The use table shows where data centers of various sizes can be permitted conditionally. So you'll see that data centers from micro to standard to major all have at least one location, one zoning district that they can be permitted conditionally. There have been some folks who've called this regulation a ban, and I disagree with that, and I'll get more into that later. But in this use table, you can see that every size data center has at least one zoning district where it is permitted conditionally. So that is right on page six and seven of the bill. As you continue through the bill, you'll see the application requirements for data centers. As they have to apply, whether they are a micro, standard, or major data center, there are different application requirements they have. They vary pretty significantly between micro and standard and major, and there are additional differentiations between the standard and major category, which again reflects the difference of the impact that various sizes of data centers have on the community. and what is required for their application. Some of these things are about their type of use that they'll have, their site plan, how they plan to fuel, their maximum power demand, what sort of agreement they have with their electric service provider of how much energy they can use. So we can make a category that they're applying for is actually what their maximum power demand is. And then in the standard and major category, You can see more information about flood risk, the environmental review, third party noise mitigation or planning, the fire detection and suppression systems. It goes really into depth here about what information you have to provide. And that's important. We know people in our community are concerned about this use and how it will affect them. And so getting the information on the front end is just incredibly important when we think about how this use will impact the people of the city of St. Louis, which is why the application is so detailed. Once it gets into a major data center, that's where you see the environmental impact report, if there's a community benefit offered, the financing, going over the economic report. The letter of attestation from the electricity provider regarding any impacts to rate payers. I think there's a lot of concern in our community about how the increase of the energy that will need to be built to power this use throughout the region will affect our rates. I think there's already been a lot of conversation about that. But the major data centers certainly will have more impact on that than the other sizes as their incredible power demand is there with that use. And then there's also, for the major data centers, requirements for public engagement. There is requirements for what they have to advertise for the public engagement, the type of meeting they have to have, the feedback they have to have, and all of that becomes public information as well. There also is a caveat here at the end that if there's any reason why any of this can't be provided, they have the ability to put in writing in their application why they can't provide that. Going further into the site requirements, that's the next section. The site requirements are different depending on the category of data center, of course. So it talks about the location requirements and the... where the setbacks would be for each of the different sizes. This is really about the impact of the micro, standard, and major data centers. The impacts of each of those sizes are different depending on the power use and the size of the data center as to how much noise, how much heat, how much emissions that the generators used for backups will have. So that's why those setbacks are just incredibly important for the vulnerable users and the different lines that we've drawn here. And then also a clarification that the data center may only be permitted if their location substantially aligns with the St. Louis land use plan or strategic land use plan. Then it goes more into the area standards. Something that I think is really important is in page 13, line 12, regarding how close data centers can be built to each other. Right now, there is any building within 300 feet can only have in that size, within 300 feet of an already existing data center can be up to 30% used for a data center. That's really important because of keeping the vibrancy of those districts and making sure that we don't end up with just data center after data center after data center, and that we are thinking about the net impact of combining all of those uses close to each other regarding noise, heat, and emissions as well. So that's really important to the bill. And then it also talks about that at least 50% of the ground floor needs to be retained for active uses. for street raising ground floors. Then there is a section on noise and vibration controls. One of the things that is important here is that the noise levels will not exceed five dB, which is a measurement of noise above the baseline levels from the property line. noise is cumulative, so even if there is a noisy use already within that space, within that setback, those setbacks are in place so that as the data center is bigger, that it would make sure that the noise created from that data center would not negatively impact folks. That's why it's an amount above baseline as opposed to just a set level. Then there's information about the building systems and equipment design and screening. Some of this information was provided to us actually through the testimony of folks who are nearby the Tier Point facility and the Locust Business District area that is currently being built. They are in a situation with a data center currently being built that is not subject to the regulations that we're talking about today because it is already a permitted data center. And so they're having to negotiate a lot of these things themselves between the data center and the nearby neighbors. So what we want to make sure is that we're listening to people who are impacted by these uses now and learning from their experience. So there is some information here about the fuel storage and the screening of generators that they helped to provide for us. The site and urban design standards, another really interesting example about the current facility that's being constructed. They've got a really beautiful building that is having the windows blocked out and is a situation where it just doesn't look as good as it did when it was in active use. So this is trying to take care of that concern. We don't end up with just a bunch of warehouse-looking buildings in our city, especially in areas where we have goals for active use. So the site designs continue to try to be as thoughtful as possible regarding what kind of materials are used and what the building looks like. Then you get into the water responsibility. One of the concerns people have about data centers, and rightly so, is the incredible amount of water that can to cool the equipment within a data center. In St. Louis, we've got an interesting situation here where we have a water division with an excess amount of water to sell, but we do understand that the more energy a data center uses, the more problematic it can be for the health and safety of the people who live here, which is why evaporative cooling is not banned outright, but it cannot be something that is solely relied upon. It talks about wastewater standards, that any applicants for standard of major data centers would enter into written agreements with the city water division regarding any costs that may need to be defrayed by their existence. Then it goes into the backup power system. One of the big concerns for data centers for emissions they produce on site is the generators. So one, we've seen news out of other cities where before a data center was actually connected to the grid, that they were using jet backup generators as a primary fuel source, which is an incredible source of pollution. In our bill, we're making sure that they cannot do that, which is very protective and important. We also have a level of generator standard that they would need to use for any new data center or expansion of a data center. So there's a lot of information there about the type of backup generators. One of the things that we also discussed is when testing can occur. Backup generators do need to be tested regularly. So the more generators that a facility has, the more testing it, the more that affects our air quality. And so that the backup generators cannot be tested on days when the air quality index is above 50, which can be harmful to vulnerable groups. Then the next section is the environment, energy, and infrastructure standards regarding the LEED certification, the power usage effectiveness of the building, which basically means how much the building is able to use power effectively. So it's wasting as little as possible with a 1.35 or better. There is some information about what they have to be able to provide in terms from the electric service provider for being able to open, that outdoor lighting shall meet the standards of Dark Sky Initiative or other Bird City recommendations to reduce light pollution, and that heat plumes created are adequately dispersed the property line to avoid adverse impacts on the health or well-being of the individual. Then the next section of the bill is when we get into the renewable energy requirements, which have been something that we've spent a lot of time on, more time than almost anything else since this bill left the Planning Commission. Part of that is because, unfortunately, our electric service provider was not able to provide feedback on the bill until after it left the Planning Commission. At that time, they did provide some information about definitions that they wanted to see clarified, so they understood how to provide what the bill is requiring their customer to have to receive from them, both as bundled and unbundled credits, as well as maximum power demand, how they provide information to their customers about how much energy... that they can provide as well as what the connection and the maximum power demand means and how we could best say that. So I appreciate their input for them. We also had a lot of conversations between various stakeholders, people who were concerned that the initial renewable energy requirement would constitute a ban. As I mentioned earlier, that's something that people may have heard said. And I just want to give a little history of that. Back in February, one of the first times that we saw the framework from the planning staff, the renewable energy requirement was set at 100% after five years. So now it's 100% after 10 years. So the requirement has changed significantly from what was first introduced because of the feedback that it would not be possible to be met. So I want to make sure everyone knows that and how much change has been made already to the renewable energy requirement to make sure that people would be able to meet it. And then continuing on, once the bill was voted out of the Planning Commission, we had a 50% requirement for renewable energy at day one. That's something that was voted on by the Planning Commission and I sponsored as an amendment because I believed that we needed to have day one standards in place for data centers to make sure that they were able to show a commitment to renewable energy and that that was where they were heading. So the day one standard that we put in place in the planning commission was also viewed as a potential non-starter to reach. So the compromise was made to make that a smaller requirement, a 25% at day one. And that could be met by bundled or unbundled credits. And then at five years, the 25% unbundled would stay the same as a maximum, and now 25% or more would have to be met by bundled renewable energy credits. And then the 10-year requirement is now 75% bundled, 25% unbundled. As you can see, an enormous amount of flexibility has been created in the regulations since the planning commission's initial, or planning staff, rather, first recommendations in February, which have been in front of us for quite some time now. Today, there's going to be discussion, possibly, about weakening this requirement, and I encourage you to look at all the work that has been done to reach where we have in the bill now, which remains protective of the people while allowing the operation to continue and to move forward. The next section is about reporting requirements. I have some concern, and I've expressed it many times, about the city's ability to regulate this use after it is permitted. That's why, one, those application requirements are so important to have as much information as possible at the front end so that the city can make the best decision possible about whether or not this will be a good actor, a good partner, and whether they will adhere to the standards met. I think we've all been in situations in our ward where a permit is issued to a business, that business doesn't follow their conditional use permit or any other conditions of occupancy, and then we have to fight tooth and nail to make any changes, and rarely does the business actually end up being closed. So these reporting requirements are incredibly important, but so too are having high standards for these businesses. We all know how difficult it can be when a business is already operating and is not meeting those standards. So that is very important to have that reporting information in there. There's things about energy, the noise, the heat impacts, that they're providing the renewable energy reports and how they're meeting their requirements, their air quality. And then next is the public impact agreement that is for major data centers. This is an agreement that would be approved by the Board of Public Service, as well as a resolution that would come to the Board of Aldermen. While it would just need a simple majority at the Board of Public Service, I appreciate Aldermen from the 14th Amendment to make it a super majority of the Board of Aldermen would have to approve the public impact agreement as well. This is partially to... to bring up the concern folks have expressed about wanting to see consent for data centers, especially major data centers that are near them. So we as the elected body to represent the people of St. Louis would have that ability to weigh in on their behalf as we do here as representative. There's many things that would have to be or should be outlined in that public impact agreement, and more is possible as well. Right. And then the next section is the applicability section. This is one that also had significant amendments during the process after it left the Planning Commission. There are many operating data centers in the city of St. Louis right now, and there was a desire I think from members of this board and from myself and from the current operators of data centers to make sure that there would be a pathway so that their businesses could continue to operate and that also when there are structural changes to the building that partial compliance would be triggered whether there was an expansion that full compliance would be triggered or whether a new data center was coming in that they would have to also fully comply. So a lot went into finding that agreeable place. And this is outlined in the applicability section and why there have been so many conversations and changes to that section. It is much longer than it used to be. The next section is the application review process. So it goes over all the different parties that would need to weigh in as the information comes in, and then how long the city has to review those applications, and then the responsibility of the zoning administrator to submit the recommendation to the Board of Public Service for their review. Another piece that I think is really important here is that there is a deadline for review for the Planning Commission to take up this legislation again in two years' time. So a lot of folks have expressed concern about, you know, what if this is a ban? What if no data centers can be built because of this? There is a built-in review process to make sure that this is a finding that... that spot where the city is able to protect its sustainability goals while also allowing for this use to take place in the city. The next section is the severability clause, which means, if any of this, that each section is severable from each other so that if any part is determined to be unlawful or unconstitutional, it can be removed while the rest of the bill stays protected. Then there is an effective date that the ordinance would be in full force, 30 days after the approval by the mayor or adoption over the mayor's veto. So that's what's in this bill. I think it's important to talk about the facts of the bill, what we're voting on today. this bill has had numerous amendments numerous compromises made certainly by myself and many just the amount of public comment and feedback and stakeholder engagement is unlike any process I've ever been involved in before here at the Board of Aldermen with a bill that I've carried so I appreciate the time that everyone has taken to hear me out I know I've been Blowing up your phones for some time now and your inboxes for some time now. And many of you have given me time to talk this through with you. So thank you very much for that. I am happy to answer questions about the bill. I'm sure people have some. I do have two what are considered non-substantive amendments that do some cleanup of the bill that I would like to bring forward now. Amendment number one, this is a copy and paste error that I take full credit for, or responsibility for, rather. We introduced the data center impact monitoring bill at the same time, and so a section, a line needs to be changed that clarifies this is the zoning bill, not the data center impact monitoring bill, as it clearly is based on everything else that's in the bill. So with that, I would move to adopt amendment number one to board bill 49 as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the first, seconded by the Alderwoman from the seventh, that we adopt Amendment Number 1 to Board Bill 49 as amended in committee. Is there any discussion on Amendment Number 1? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you so much for that. Amendment number two is another non-sensitive amendment. It's inserting the word, changing the word requiring to for. So it's basically that when certain structural changes are made, that there is just a word change needed to make it clearer to everyone what it is doing. This is something that... This is something that doesn't change what's in the bill or what the planning staff or what I or what anyone really thinks that the bill is trying to do. It's just a word that makes it clearer. So with that, I would move to adopt amendment number two to board bill 49 as amended on the floor.

It's been moved by the elder woman from the first, seconded by the elder woman from the seventh that we adopt amendment number two to board bill 49 as amended in committee. Is there any discussion on amendment number two? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate you all entertaining those two amendments. Those do not require the bills to go back through the Planning Commission as they are non-substantive amendments. Any further amendments that are substantive do require this bill to go back to the Planning Commission. So that is something that I just want to make sure everyone knows today. We have been working on this for quite some time. Again, the resolution was put forward in and the resolution asked for requirements and regulations around everything that's in this bill now. So I appreciate the time you all have taken to review, and I look forward to the discussion on the floor today. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Elder woman from the 8th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. First, I would like to begin by thanking the alder woman from the first, and I know the many folks in the room that have been working very hard on bringing this board bill today to discuss data center regulation. I first want to express that I think regulating data centers is something that is incredibly important for this city to do. One, not only to address, I know many of the concerns that we've heard from members in our community and our residents regarding the fact that there are no current strict guidelines for how this use and these facilities can act within our city. But also too, because I think it's really important for us to make sure that we're setting a strong standard. One thing that I've been working on in preparation for discussing this board bill with everyone in this room today is really taking stock of just how substantial and detailed this board bill that we have in front of us is. And one thing that I've learned is I know that the city of St. Louis is really leading in this conversation regarding how we're regulating data centers within our nation. And I think that's something that's really incredible. I think that's something that as an alderman I am proud of. And I think even more importantly, that's why it's really important for us to make sure we get these regulations right. Because if we are going to set the standard, I think it's important that we make sure we are very clear about the guidelines that we're calling out to the industry, and also very clear about what we do and don't want to see when it comes to how this use acts within our city. And so for me... I am really looking forward to hopefully making sure we can put these regulations in place. But what I would like to do more importantly than that is make sure that they're right and that they are answering all of the questions that we know our community has. And so with that, and I know I've had many discussions with you in this room, I do think these regulations go really, really far in addressing the vast majority of concerns as the alderwoman for the first just shared an But there are a couple of things I think that we can do to just make them a bit better and a bit more clear. So with that, I would first like to ask if we can adopt Amendment No. 4 to board. Second.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 8th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 9th. Sorry, not the second. Couldn't tell which one of you said that. Alderman from the second, that we adopt amendment number three to board bill 49 as amended on the floor.

Sorry, I started with four.

Sorry, I can't hear you.

I said amendment four.

Four, okay. Amendment number four, then you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President. In line with what I just described, the intent of Amendment Number 4 is just to add specific detail to the section that the Alderwoman was speaking about when it comes to how regulations are implemented for certain strict zoning districts. So again, this bill is establishing very clear tiers for the size of data centers, but it's also establishing how there are certain strict guidelines for zoning districts within the bill. Amendment number four is describing a percent cap that's specific to the I, H, I and L districts. Many of those districts are actually in the eighth ward, the highly industrial and high dense zones. And I think it's just really important that we add some clarity to if that cap is going to be described, how it works. And just to be clear about why I wanted to bring this amendment forward. I think it's really important that, again, we set strict guidelines for if we're going to have data centers where they can be. But even more than that, I also think it would be really great to have tools to make sure that if we are going to allow this use, we can make sure it provides the best and most beneficial active impact to the community. So what this amendment allows us to do is allow a mechanism to address that and make sure that we can actually detail community benefits when it comes to how this cap is implemented. And it allows us to have a mechanism to negotiate for more active use, more community benefits within those strict zoning areas if the bill is described appropriately. Again, I know it's very narrow focus on the HI and L districts. I know all of us don't have those only within our ward. But what I think is most important is that for those of us that do, we have the most tools in the toolbox to be able to implement everything we can do to make sure these things are implemented well. So with that, I'll be happy to take any questions on the amendment.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 6th.

Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to inquire of the Alderwoman from the 8th. The Alderwoman from the 8th yields questioning from the Alderwoman from the 6th. Yes, I will. Alderwoman, you may proceed. Thank you, Madam President. Alderwoman, you mentioned that you have your ward is both zoned, has some of the zones that data centers would apply. Do you have any current data centers in your ward?

I do. I have a number of them. Actually, within the downtown, there are 12 currently to my knowledge. 12 in your ward, 12 downtown in total, but 12 in your ward specifically? Not in my ward specifically. I don't know the breakdown between the 8th and the 14th in terms of where they're located.

And since you obviously represent these areas, can you just talk about, can you just, I know you just did, but can you just go and explain your thinking a little bit and why you are trying to, it seems like, set up additional, the potential for additional investment if there's more investment with data centers, particularly in your ward?

Yeah, sure. I'd be happy to. So in my conversation, both with the planning commission and I've had many conversations with the alderwoman from the first about this as well. The intention of having this percent cap is because we don't want to have more buildings downtown that are, you know, just entirely data center. I think the goal as a city is for us to be able to make downtown a more mixed use and more active environment. And so while I agree with that intention of and set strict guidelines for how much, if we do allow for data centers, they can take up in a building. I think even more important than that, it's the question of what do we do with the rest of the space? How can we make sure that this is an additive impact and benefit to the community? One thing that I've heard from a lot of my residents that live downtown is they're tired of seeing vacant buildings. They want to see something. They want to be able to walk to coffee shops and community centers and restaurants. And I think having a clear mechanism to attract the active uses that the people want to see is even more important than just saying we're going to limit the space in the building what i'm trying to solve is then what do we do with the rest of the space how do we actually deliver on the active uses that we want to see in this section of the ward and i think by adding this amendment and creating that tool to detail that we can solve that problem great thank you i have no further questions

Need further discussion. Alderwoman from the first.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. What we have in the bill now is a 30% cap on data center uses for anything that is within 300 feet of another data center. So I understand what the Alderman from the 8th is trying to deal with, where there's a data center in her ward that wants to be able to open a data center right next door, and they'd like to be able to use more than 30% for that data center use. What the bill envisions is that only 30% would be possible for that because of the concerns that the Alderman from the 8th is talking about, about having vibrancy, about having people use these amenities downtown another concern I have with what she is proposing is that it is saying that right now we have that a 30% that 30% is there in order to be protective. And then there is in the bill as well that the 50% of the ground floor would need to be in active use. And it doesn't say, you know, if it's a lobby or if there's something else, that, you know, it doesn't do that at all. But what her amendment does is says that 100% of the net leasable square footage exclusive of the lobby, mechanical closets, loading docks, or building infrastructure space, would have to be in active use. So there's no guarantee whatsoever in this amendment that it would be more than 50% of the ground floor activated. So what it does do is allows more density of data centers downtown. It allows for the ability to have a building next door to another data center that is almost entirely data center besides some amount of floor space on the first floor that is not guaranteed to even be anywhere near 50% based on how this amendment reads, as well as proliferates the issues of the generators and the emissions that are caused by this, the heat impact, the noise. the dead space that exists when you have an entire block and now even more of a block that is data center. So I don't support this. I think it takes a big step backwards. I think it's specifically changing zoning regulations for the entire city for a specific parcel for a data center that wants to expand in her ward. And I think that's what this does, which is why I do not support it. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Would the Alderwoman of the 8th be willing to yield to an inquiry?

Would the Alderwoman from the 8th yield to questioning from the Alderwoman from the 7th? Yes, I will. Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Alderwoman. First, I just want to thank you.

We have definitely been able to... Alderwoman from the 7th, can you talk into the mic more?

I'm sorry. I don't know. Maybe I'll just take it off. We have been able to have many conversations over this bill, over this conversation, while it was in planning, while it was in HUDS, and now. And so I just want to make sure to folks watching that they know these conversations are not happening in a vacuum, and we have been in conversation. I wanted to ask specifically for this amendment, do you have any data centers in mind?

For this amendment, no, I don't have any expansions in mind, which is why I wrote it generally. But as the Alderman from the first said, there are data centers downtown that would like to expand. But again, this amendment is trying to put forward more general guidelines, not related to anything specific.

Are you concerned about some of the things that she uplifted and concerns that I share in terms of something that we discussed in the Planning Commission was knowing, obviously, that downtown is poised for space for data centers. I think if you watch the hearings, you watch the meeting, you see that there's interest there. But something that we talked about quite a bit was how do you balance that with not, you know, with encouraging people and having, you know, activity that comes along with people. And I have not heard from residents that they want to live near data centers, especially across the street from one or near one. I also haven't heard necessarily from business operators that they want to necessarily operate a business in that facility. So I'm just curious about If this amendment passes and is successful in being adopted today, how do you think it has the potential to impact just activity? In my mind, I think having activity downtown is essential. We did the Rams bill to invest in it. We've done convention center. We've done a lot of things, a lot of investments there. And I'm just concerned about how this type of... To me, this amendment opens up the door to a concentration of data centers, which is something that we were trying to be very mindful of. And I think that could have a negative impact on some of the business activity that I hope takes place downtown.

Yeah, so what I would say to that is your concern is my concern, and that's exactly why I'm putting this amendment forward, because what I don't want to do is create facilities where we have 30% data center and a void of the rest of the buildings in downtown, knowing that this bill is going to incentivize data centers to move forward downtown. So first and foremost, that is why I am putting this amendment forward because I want to allow a Mexicanism to try to negotiate the activation. What I will also say, and maybe you asked about addressing the Alderman from the first concerns, in the language and the way the bill is written, it says we need to make available for lease active uses such as office, retail or institutional uses and 100% of the net leaseable ground floor space. Just so everyone is clear, 100% net is actually a higher threshold than 50% gross because it eliminates the non-available leaseable space and asks the facility to lease the rest of the remaining space. So it's actually raising the threshold and asking for a higher threshold if they do want to exceed the 30%. So I just want to be clear on that term and what it means. And then two, again, to your point, I think a lot of folks downtown, you know, if you tell them there is a building next door that's 30% data center, completely empty, they won't want to move there. I agree with that. That is why I think the city has to be able to have a way to negotiate benefits to be able to provide more incentive to attract active uses. so that we can activate the ground floor of these spaces, make them more walkable, encourage the leasing of more of the ground floor of the space. And so, yes, it may be allowing for an additional higher percentage, but it will also do is make sure that we can activate the rest of the remaining buildings. That, I think, is a key, and I think it's very important, which is why I added Clause 2 in the amendment to make sure that if this happens, This facility has to enter into a community benefit agreement with the city and has to be able to commit and show that they are going to bring active use to the space. So again, I think this is making it stronger. I know there is confusion about how much of the ground floor, 50% versus 100%. I think 100% next is a much higher threshold, and it is not too much to ask if we are going to ask data centers to only take up 30% of their space.

Thank you. I think the 100% net requirement is important clarity. I think a lot of this is new language that I know I just really started tapping into with the planning committee. That kind of yields my questions. I hope that clarity that is put on workers certainly helps because I'm sure we'll get questions about this later just because of the nuance. What I will say is I think this amendment will just kind of come down to our perspectives and our view on this. I feel that this amendment will have the opposite impact of what you're intending to. And I feel that the planning commission and staffers, folks who are urban developers and planners have had this conversation We sat down with existing developers to figure out like, hey, what is a middle ground? What makes sense? And we landed here. But again, I think that what is in the bill centers what we heard from residents and what residents said that they wanted and what their concerns are. I think this amendment is a little bit more aimed towards just kind of other activity and business activity and making sure their parcels are fully activated, which is, you know, not necessarily a wrong intent, but I think that's just the difference, the difference of perspectives here. And so for me, I will be a no on this amendment. I am concerned that it will have the opposite of the impact there. I do want to make sure that we keep a downtown that, you know, thrives. And I think people are the best asset of the city and are the ones going to bring the thriving But I also just wanted to make sure that that inquiry was on the floor so that residents can have a full picture understanding of what is actually being proposed here from the proposer themselves. Thank you.

Alderman from the 14th. Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, will the alderman from the 8th yield for questions?

Yes, I will.

Alderwoman, you may proceed. Alderman? Sorry.

It's okay. Thank you, Alderwoman, for taking my questions. First, I want to go on record and say I do support this amendment. I know the areas that you're inquiring about mainly is in the 8th and 14th Ward, and I know there was a mention from the Alderwoman from the first of the data center want to expand. It's actually in the 14th, not in the 8th, but I just want to be clear as we're talking about this on the record. Could you kind of explain, I know we're talking about a lot of like activation and how this would seem to take away the activation of downtown, and I know outside of Rams Money and the downtown entertainment districts, We've already, I think, done a lot of great work to lay the groundwork to do expansion, even outside of this amendment. I'm excited that actually the food hall is coming to downtown, an empty first floor building where it was empty. And now we're going to have about eight to ten restaurants on the first floor. Thank you to Alex Oliver. But could you because I don't want your amendment to get lost. And I really appreciate the community benefit element. Can you just go a little deeper again of how your goal of making sure that we do not have just full data centers on certain floors and have the first or second or third floor be empty with the reason why you're trying to do this amendment?

Yeah, sure. And again, I appreciate you highlighting kind of all of the efforts that we've been putting in place and talking about on this floor to bring activity to downtown. Again, I know you and I have been working very hard on that. And that is part of why it's really important for us to make that clear for residents that that work takes effort. That work takes strategy because right now in downtown, we do have too much vacant office space and too much vacant ground floor space. And so to your point, I think, Part of the objective of doing this amendment and making clear is to try to give the city all of the tools that it needs to be able to attract that activity. I think it's really great to have a cap for a 30% data center, and I do understand the objective of that, which I think we all share. We don't want to see full-use data centers just concentrating and spreading all over downtown. But in addition to that, we also want to make sure that we have the tools to bring in the vibrancy and things that people have been telling you and I about that they want to see downtown. And so this is giving us a tool. This is giving us a tool in the toolbox to be able to go and have conversations and talk about the things that we want to bring into our ground floors that we know our residents want to see. I think it's important for us to go to the table with as many tools as possible. And I know that this doesn't affect sort of everybody's ward in the same way. And activation and attraction doesn't affect every ward in the same way. I think for high density areas like you and I represent and other areas, that conversation looks a little bit different. And that's why tools like this are really necessary for us. Yeah.

And I definitely, I mean, even outside, I think what we did here locally, when you talk about trying to activate downtown, because I don't want this to be, your amendment to be, it seemed as if this would be the opposite, right? There's so many tools that, one, this board has done. I think the state just passed an innovation district. I know you worked very, have been working. So talking about proactively trying to fill these vacant buildings, I know you worked with and been in conversations with the owner of the AT&T building, one of the biggest buildings that we have downtown, leading the charge on activating the riverfront. And in my opinion, there's going to be several amendments, which I know... we all don't sit on planning you know a lot of folks didn't have months and months conversation um maybe like the alderman from the seventh and the first and i appreciate all their hard work on it but i do believe that what you're trying to get at will kind of help the empty spaces that me and you deal with on a regular basis when we're out talking to our residents when we're talking to our businesses so i support your amendment and i will ask my colleagues also to support your amendment moving forward thank you thank you alderman

Alderman from the 9th.

Thank you. Would the other one from the 8th yield for questions?

The Alderwoman from the 8th yields questionings from the Alderman from the 9th. Yes, I will. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Alderwoman. I appreciate the discussion on this amendment. And I think mentioning the types of zoning that supplies, I have some of that zoning in my ward as well. So I'm keenly interested in what this amendment does. I'm a little confused on how it fills more of the building. uh because what i'm reading here is it says an applicant may exceed the foregoing 30 cap and then it sets some conditions for exceeding it but exceeding the cap where how much can they exceed the cap so 30 is the cap in the language right now this would allow it to exceed that where would the ceiling be on the uh going over that cap

So that, again, would be up to the discretion of the agreement they enter into with the city. And that is what I'm trying to make clear to everyone. What this amendment is not doing is setting specific detail. What this amendment is doing is allowing a tool to be put in place for the city to enter into agreements for community benefits if a data center seeks to do that within that zoning district. So if they enter into an agreement with the city, that is where that conversation will happen. But all I'm trying to allow us to do is to have a mechanism to do that. And in addition to that, outside of entering into the agreement, they would also have to exceed the 50% ground floor requirement that is already set in this bill that the planning commission set in order to be able to protect active uses. What I would ask them to do is go higher than 50% gross and go to 100% net. and enter into an agreement. The details that you're asking would be based on whatever the condition and the requirement that that developer is asking for.

OK, thank you for that clarification. My concern is that I don't think that downtown's problem or really anywhere in our city's problem is just ground floor activation. I look at towers like the AT&T Tower, like the Railway Exchange, like the Bank of America Tower. And these are massive buildings. There's tons of square footage. And the idea of allowing someone to exceed the cap on them to allow more than 30% of them to be used for a non-active use i mean machines just sit there and they just vibrate all day not vibrancy vibrations and it really just puts us in a situation where we're turning a bunch of buildings into these worrying machines and maybe maybe there's a maybe there's a restaurant or a retail use in the ground floor but where are all the people coming from I think the thing that I see with downtown right now is that with a lot of the office vacancy, there are no longer those lunchtime workers going out to restaurants. There are no longer those crowds that might go out to get a drink after work. There's just not that activity being created by the people who used to fill those offices. And filling those offices with machines, I don't think brings that activity. And so while this may allow a community benefit agreement to be worked out to add additional details, I feel like that creates some uncertainty. What is your thought to how the community benefit agreement would be enforced? Because to me, if you've got a 10-story building and you're allowing 30% right now with the cap, If someone uses more than that, I'm still a little worried that it's going to be impossible for us to tell whether the top seven floors of that building are being used for a data center or not, if all we can really see is the ground floor and the building's secure, as most data centers are very secure. So how are you expecting the city to enforce any agreement under this amendment?

Yeah, so I think I'll address two things that you said. The first, which I know I've been saying, your concerns about sort of not having the activity and vibrancy that we want to see. I can speak to downtown because I represent downtown. And my concern is what this will do to downtown, right, given that downtown will have so many allowable uses of the data center. I guess my perspective on the issue is without this amendment, as it's currently written, we can allow, we will allow adjacent data centers to have up to 30% of the building. And that's it, right? That is the concern. What I am asking for is to be able to have an additional mechanism to address the question that you're asking me, which is what will the community benefits be? How will they be enforced? What can we do with the rest of the active space? I think we have two choices here. it's either allow the 30% and then risk. We have a building that is just empty and vacant because we're not telling them to do anything else with the space or try to have a conversation to get something else done with the space. And in terms of the enforcement and conversation, I know many members of this body are interested in discussing that topic. I think there's certainly more work to do, but I think it starts with giving us a foundation and giving us a mechanism to have the conversation And I personally don't see the harm in doing that. I do see the harm in leaving it alone and leaving it to chance of what happens to the rest of these buildings.

Why would the rest of the building remain empty? Does not the owner of the building benefit from filling space? Like if I have an apartment to rent and no one's living in the apartment, I'm not making any money on that apartment. Why would I keep it empty? Don't they benefit from having an occupied property?

And they do, but I guess my question to you is, don't they have the option to do what they want?

You know, I think these regulations are putting in place rules on what they can do with that building. And what we're saying is we don't want them to use more than 30% of that building for that use so that we can reserve it for other uses. It seems to me to defeat the purpose to then say, well, we're actually going to raise that cap and let them do whatever they want with the rest of the building, provided that they fill some sort of wish list of ours. I think we're starting to betray the idea of zoning and that what we're trying to do here is encourage active uses of the building. And while we understand that data centers... this downtown already, and that they may have some benefit in small configurations. What we're really trying to avoid is having hulking massive buildings full of machines that contribute nothing to their environment around them, but do make money for some oligarch 1,000 miles away. That's my only questions. Thanks.

Any further discussion on other woman from the first?

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Just some further conversation about this. One of the things that we got feedback on again and again from stakeholders is consistency throughout the regulations. That's why it is a 30 percent cap and there is not if or whether or whatever it is. specifically laid out to be consistent. So that, for example, say one data center, there's another data center that wants to go next door. Why would that data center be allowed to have more than 30%, but this one isn't? So having that consistency is really key. Another piece that the city counselor's office flagged in some of the early conversations about the regulations as they were proposed is that originally the regulations did envision a community benefit agreement. But there was concern from the city councilor about, you know, contract zoning and how a community benefits agreement can or cannot be placed in zoning regulations, which is why we went with the public impact agreement. Very different. And I do think there should be further bills that outline a community benefit agreement. But this amendment says, into an agreement with the city detailing the community benefits. which is, to me, reading as a community benefit agreement, which we were advised by our city councilor's office to not put in zoning regulations. So I have concerns about the legality of this amendment to begin with. It is certainly not what the city councilor has recommended in other places in the regulations. And I do believe that it is setting up a situation where if this becomes a popular method for data centers that want to have another data center next door to them or another data center wants to go in next door to an existing data center It will allow for the proliferation of data centers downtown. I did not support all of the money for downtown in the RAMS bill just to see it become more and more data centers. That is not what I want for the place that I spend five out of seven of the days of my week is to be more and more data centers. And I certainly agree that we should spend money downtown and that we want to promote active uses. I did not support the Riverfront Fund in order to have more data centers. I did not support the city going after vacant buildings in order to turn them into data centers. So I think that somehow making those two things a similar fight is exactly opposite of what I think many of us, or at least from where I'll speak for myself, why I voted to support funds for downtown. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I just wanted to add to the conversation just to echo a bit of what the Alderman first was saying. We've definitely had a lot of conversations around what is the role of community benefits agreement. And, you know, some of those went really well. And I think we are on the right path forward with the public impact agreement. But I also want to just highlight that those community benefits agreement, because we don't have any legislation right now, public impact agreement, whatever we call it, has to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, which means right now you don't know what that community benefits agreement could be. You don't know what the standards of guarantee are. The city could decide that we think a suitable community benefits agreement is a community benefit that the community has not agreed to. And to bring the community into, I also want to highlight that as a planning commission and even my concern as somebody who works here five days a week, has a lot of residents that work down here, high density data centers are not good. We thought about this a lot because we thought about, especially in downtown where we have these large tall buildings, if it is possible to fill a data center up with that much infrastructure, of a data center, is that a good thing? And we kind of reached a conclusion that that wasn't a good point. And so while I want to see activity and density in downtown, I do not want to see high density data centers. And I'm very concerned, again, what's interesting about downtown as opposed to the other land regulations where data centers can go in the legislation we're discussing is that there are people surrounding these parcels. And so if you start stacking up all of these uses and putting all these things in individual businesses, and then you're able to do it in this building and do it in this building and do it in this building, but you have people around it that's not the best And I will also ground us that, again, I know it was mentioned that necessarily we don't, you know, I don't necessarily represent downtown, but have definitely had to explain to my residents why funds go downtown and not necessarily to the Seventh Ward as I just did with the Ram Settlement Bill. And there's also amendments here on medical schools from people who don't have medical schools necessarily in their wards. I think that's a good thing because we all drive through our city. We all live here. We're all city leaders. I think in a lot of ways, boundaries are arbitrary. But I just want to highlight that the reason why I'm not sure about this amendment that I don't think is good as I think is harmful is that it allows for high density data centers to go into buildings. And people have said over and over again that they don't want that and they're concerned about that. And the professionals who serve on the planning commission are also concerned about that. And that is why we have sat down with those who operate data centers and those who are interested in operating to find this middle line. This amendment erases that middle line. What this amendment does basically says that the 30% cap is out the window, and it says whatever is decided. That is not a protection. That means you can have an 80% building that is used for 80% of a data center. That's not the downtown I want to see. That's not the downtown I want to invest in. And a lot of residents have stated that's not what I want to see. And we also are not sure necessarily what the impacts of what that could be, especially because if this amendment passes, it's not like it's just one building or one project. It would allow for it to happen to a series of buildings on a series of blocks. And that type of activity accumulates. And it's not necessarily good activity to accumulate for such a new industry where we're still trying to discover how it will impact people. And so I think this amendment may be good for density or economic purposes. Perhaps, potentially, I am very concerned that it could actually be harmful to people. And I'm not sure that it lines up with the vision that we have for downtown. high-density data centers have the potential to be harmful to people. And so it could make money, it could not make money, and I know it might make money for the folks who are operating the data center, but it could be harmful to people. And there are a lot of people who live downtown, a lot of people who migrate downtown, and I hope a few years from now there are even more people that live downtown and migrate downtown. And I think this amendment will be responsible for there being a concentration of data centers downtown and not people. Thank you.

Any further discussion on the amendment? Any further discussion on the amendment? Alderwoman from the 8th?

Am I recognized to close first? Yes, you can close on the amendment. Thank you. First and foremost, again, I want to thank my colleagues for having the discussion and being willing to discuss them today. I do want to address a couple of the marks that were just made. And I appreciate the interest and the passion that I've heard from the folks in this room about downtown and the future of downtown. I know that is a very important conversation that the entire city is invested in. What I will say as someone who represents downtown, And what I will say as someone who would have to steward the future of however these regulations are implemented downtown is that there are a lot of nuances and more importantly, a lot of differences in how downtown functions from the rest of the city. I believe that is why the intention of the planning commission to allow this carve out for these high density districts in the first place was written because there is a major impact when you have these facilities concentrated in one area. I do not agree that this amendment will lead to further concentration and proliferation of data centers all over downtown. I think that is an exaggeration. What I do think it will do is create a potential to increase more vacancy and increase more open opportunity if we allow 30% data center and no question and no answer to the impact of what the rest of that space means. As someone that engages with downtown residents every day, every week, the problem of vacancy, the problem of emptiness, the problem of fear that people have for safety is one of the most important things that I'm hearing from the residents that I'm elected to represent. And so all I'm asking is that folks allow us to be able to address these problems for the areas that this section represents and the best way for us to address these concerns. I think this amendment does that. I think this commitment sets a foundation. And I agree with the questions and concerns about how the details are going to be negotiated. This amendment is putting those details in the hands of the city. And this amendment is saying we are prioritizing the activation of the space. And that, I think, is the most important thing that we will need to address. And so with that, I'll close.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 8th, seconded by the Alderman from the 2nd, that we adopt Amendment Number 4 to Board Bill 49 as amended on the floor. There's been a request for roll call. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer? No. Alderman Odenberg?

Aye.

Alderman Cohn? Aye. Alderman Ryan?

Aye.

Alderman DeVosy? Aye. Alderman Velazquez. Alderman Sanye. Aye. Alderman Cox-Sanchui. Aye. Alderman Browning. Aye. Alderman Clark-Hubbard. Aye. Alderman Keyes. Aye. Alderman Tyus. Aye. Alderman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich. President Green. No.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Mathias.

No.

There are 10 ayes and four noes.

Five noes.

Five noes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion to adopt Amendment Number 4 to Board Bill 49 as amended on the floor. Alderwoman from the 8th, you may continue.

Thank you, Madam President. As mentioned in my opening remarks, again, my objective today is to just make sure that we are addressing clear clarity and concerns with this bill to make sure that it's the strongest before we put it forward to a vote today. Folks may have seen in the drive Amendment 3 related to addressing the issue with schools, which is something that the alderwoman from the 7th alluded to. I have had multiple conversations, I know, not only with folks in this room, but with the Planning Commission and the sponsoring aldermen about the best way to clarify this issue. And so the amendment that I'm putting forward today that has been circulated on the floor, Amendment 6, seeks to address all of the questions that I've heard from you and from the community to make sure that we are defining this definition in the best way possible. Before I get into the details of amendment, I want to talk a little bit about why I'm putting this forward. I think when we talk about data centers, a lot of the conversation that we've been having is in the abstract about the building for data and the use locations about what it means. But we haven't actually had enough discussion about what specific types of data there are and what they mean and how our community uses them. One of the data uses that I'm really interested in and concerned about is medical and health data. A lot of folks in this room are not aware of this, but I have a severe medical issue. And one thing that I am really, that I don't discuss typically with people, but one thing that I am really happy and proud of is that I have rules and regulations to protect my health data and data privacy. And a lot of people I know are like me, and they really care about how their health data is used. And the protections that exist for that health data are actually very strong and often set by the federal government. And so I do think it's important not to just talk about data centers in the abstract, but also talk about the types of data that can be held in these facilities and make sure that when we are creating these protections and restrictions, we're also making sure that the regulations that govern them are easily available to make sure that they can be abided by to address those concerns that people have that do have questions about privacy data and health data and how they're utilized. This amendment that I am putting forward today seeks to define where those institutions that may need to abide by federal health data restrictions are. And it also seeks to define how they can be addressed with respect specifically to setbacks. And I want to be very clear about that. Because I know a lot of people have concerns about how data is utilized when it's adjacent to educational facilities. And I want to commend the Planning Commission and the folks that wrote Board Bill 49 because they created strict restrictions for that. And so in the bill, there are restrictions for where data centers can be that are regulated by something called setbacks. And those setbacks are tiered based on how the data center is set up, and what type of data center it is. Those setbacks restrict the vast majority of residential districts. Those setbacks restrict where data centers can be for parks. And those setbacks also restricts where data centers can be in adjacency to schools. And I think it's very important that we keep those setbacks intact. And so my amendment does that. However, my amendment also clarifies what we mean by the word schools. And I think that is really important. And so this Amendment 6 does two things. It defines institutional campuses and the types of schools that may have a need for medically protected data. And it says three things. That a data center that supports the principal use of those institutions may be located without regards to those setbacks only if the data center serves that institution only. The data center is a micro standard, so not a major data center. And the data center continues to fully protect all parcels outside of that campus. I think that clarification is going to be very important to make sure that those facilities are able to protect the data and abide by the federal guidelines that they are required to, specifically for the use of health or medical facilities. And it also makes sure that we keep in place the institutional protections that are needed for the original intention of that bill. Again, I know that this amendment is a change from the Amendment 3, which is the amendment that I initially put in the drive and put forward for all of you, but this is my attempt to address the concerns that I've heard from the folks in the room and from the community and make very, very clear what the intention of this section is and how we can still keep in place the original intent of those setback provisions. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Yes. Sorry. And with that, I would like to move to adopt Amendment 6.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 8th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we adopt Amendment number 6. Is there any discussion on Amendment number 6? Alderman from the 9th.

Thank you. Would the Alderman from the 8th yield for questions?

The Alderwoman from the 8th yields a question from the Alderman from the 9th. Yes. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Alderwoman. I appreciate the concern around this. I was wondering, did a medical school or an institution ask for this amendment?

No, no one directly asked me for this amendment. However, I did approach them with the concern when I identified the gap. And I have heard that certain institutions may be looking into these details further. I think that's why I said in my opening remarks, my goal here is to make sure we're proactive in the regulations that we're putting forward to make sure that we're addressing these concerns in advance so that we don't unknowingly create any issues for these institutions.

So do you have any medical schools in your ward?

No, I don't have medical schools in my ward. And to the point that was brought up here on the floor, I know all of us have concerns about issues and institutions that impact our residents that may not be fully based in my wards, just like you're passionate about. I know downtown, I'm passionate about making sure that health data is provided, just based, protected, just based on my personal interactions with residents that I have in my city and in the community.

I feel that. I think it's important for us to have a citywide outlook on things, and especially for something like downtown, which is critical to our city in many ways. But I also say that I represent the area that this amendment would affect. And I've had discussions with the government advocates for Washington University and BJC and the medical institutions in my ward with Cortex. And what I heard from them was that they met with the planning committee, our planning department, while this bill was being drafted and had their concerns addressed they felt heard so I don't think this amendment is necessary but I also think that it's it's messing with another substantive change that is going to I mean, I'll be honest, there's a lot into this new amendment that was just distributed, and I think it's a pretty big change to make. As someone who represents the area where these are located, I would be opposed because I think it's not being sensitive to as we've often discussed, all the questions that the community has about this. I've been hearing from my community ever since this topic came up last September. September 2025 was when we first passed executive order 92 we passed a resolution supporting the development of these regulations now we've been through four planning commission meetings four hud's committee meetings uh i don't know how we haven't been proactive in our approach we've really been taking every stakeholder every person that we can getting them at the table hearing from them and making sure these regulations work for them making a change like this seems like it would further weaken this bill and put a situation where these facilities could go in locations very close to residential One of the things that I deal with in my ward is the proximity of high density residential right next to a very active medical campus. It is a constant struggle. And I have to say the university is a great partner in that. They really do respect the community that they're in, which is why I don't think that they brought a concern about these regulations to me, that they were happy with where they were at. But I do hear a lot of concern from my residents who live adjacent to the medical campus about the uses of these properties, about how we are designing the areas around them. And I'll say there's more than just residential. like a world-class daycare facility right in the middle of the medical campus for employees. There's all sorts of things inside these areas that I know because I represent them that I would not encourage there to be a data center nearby. So I appreciate the sensitivity and the thoughtfulness that these institutional partners have displayed in this process and how they've engaged with the planning department behind the scenes to make sure these regulations are not adverse to them i do not think that this amendment is necessary thank you any further discussion on the amendment older woman for

Thank you, Madam President. Members of the Board, will the Alderman from the 8th yield to questions?

The Alderwoman from the 8th yields to questioning from the Alderwoman from the 1st.

Yes, I will.

Alderwoman, you may proceed.

In Section 3, you have the setbacks in Subsection A1 continue to fully... This doesn't... They don't have to follow the setbacks as long as they continue to follow the setbacks? Explain to me how that isn't contradictory.

They don't have to follow the setbacks of the initial provision. So the subsections above 150, 300, and I think it's 500 is your highest one. If they meet the following guidelines below is that language. But if there is a... How would they continue to protect all parcels after me? They would continue to protect all parcels that were referenced above. The references are A through K, so as the alderman mentioned, the other zoning areas. And they would have to make sure that they are also away from parks as long as they are on their institutional campus. So again, this is referencing the specific perimeter that we're setting in the definition of .

All parcels outside the institutional campus. So if they're on an institutional campus, They don't have to meet setbacks.

If they're on an institutional campus and across the street from the park, then they can't be in that location because it does not meet the initial requirement.

Without regard to the setbacks is in the first section. That is what I'm tripping over.

Okay, maybe explain to me the question to make sure I'm understanding.

So it says, a data center that supports the principal use of an international campus may be located on that same campus without regard to the setbacks in subsection AI, which is all the setbacks listed. Mm-hmm. So you're saying it doesn't have to follow the setbacks?

If, and then that is where the three detailed provisions are below. So if I need to add an initial clause there for clarity, but again, the intention is that they have to meet the requirements of all three subjections, including the third bullet point, which is meeting the initial provisions above. And again, let me just use a scenario as an example. If there is a facility, as the alderman described in his word, that maybe is a medical facility deemed as an institution, and they want to do an expansion of a data facility. They can only do so if, A, it is a micro or standard, B, it is not violating any of the other provisions next to a daycare or a park or a high-density residential, and C, as long as it is meeting... I believe the initial guidelines of only operating for the purpose of that institution. So it's adding clarity that only operating for the purpose of that institution, not a major data center, not violating any of the requirements of being next to any of the things like a daycare facility or a park that people are concerned. That's not what it says.

Okay, well, if it says that, then this is doing nothing. Because if it has to follow every other setback, an institutional institution isn't defined as something that it has to be set back from.

Well, that is why I'm defining institution in the first portion of the amendment. But let me just address a couple of things as you have time to review it, Alderman. Again, the intention of this is adding clarity for the institutional facilities that may have to protect certain types of data. The reason that I'm doing this is the alderman mentioned he represents an area where there is a major institution. There are other guidelines that that institution has protections from, so that may be why they may raise no concerns to that alderman. There are other institutional facilities in our city, right? And I think it's really important that we are very clear about how those facilities need to interact with these guidelines and with regulations. Again, I know that there are different types of facilities and they may have other flexibilities. But what I want to be clear about is what we intend to mean by these setbacks and what we are actually trying to accomplish. I think what we're trying to accomplish are making sure that data centers can't pop up right next to residential buildings.

That's not what this does.

We're making sure that data centers can't be right across from parks. And I think that's really important. But it does. But it's also saying that within the boundaries of those campuses, we do have flexibility for them to meet the requirements. So I disagree with you. That's not what this is.

I mean, your last one says, so it's saying that they'd be located on the same campus without regard to the setbacks, without regard. So you're saying it could be on a campus across the street from a school, and it wouldn't matter. That's what your amendment says, Alderwoman. That's what it says. That's right there. But then the third thing says that it has to continue to fully protect all parcels outside of the institutional campus. So it does or does not have to adhere to the setback. I don't think this makes sense as written at all. And then it also is basically saying that they can operate without regard to the setbacks, which is very concerning. for anyone located in any of those residential parcels. It is very concerning for other schools that might exist. And then it's a confusing amendment in general, because then it says that they have to continue to fully protect all parcels outside of the institutional campus. And fully protect isn't defined. What do you mean by fully protect? Do you mean meet the setbacks? Because if you mean that, that's not what you're saying in the first section here.

Okay, again, Alderwoman, I think addressing your fourth point is the intention of the third bullet point, which is that they cannot be next to residential A through K, right, or however it's defined. But what I would say to you is if there is a language change that you would like to put forward, again, I'm asking the board to adopt this amendment. If there is a change or specific wording that will address the concerns that you're making, I am happy to include that in order to make that definition clear. Yeah, I mean, the current setbacks address the concerns that I have, and this undoes those.

and then doesn't define what fully protect means. at all.

Okay, well, I would disagree with your interpretation. I'm happy to, again, take any recommendations for language change.

Yeah, I mean, I think you should not do this. That is my language change. That's my recommendation. Okay, thank you. So I think, you know, that's a concern in and of itself. I don't know what an institutional campus means in terms of, you know, common ownership. You know, are we just going to have, who's going to decide what's an institutional campus and what isn't? It's a very confusing definition. I've never heard that defined before. We've not discussed this definition before. This would have to go back through Planning Commission, so there's that if people decide to vote on this. But again, your amendment here is contradicting itself as well as creating harm to vulnerable uses nearby. That's all my questions. And I do believe that when you brought up some of these concerns to the planning staff, they did send you a map that shows all of the locations that are possible while meeting these setbacks, while meeting the concerns of the community, while addressing other concerns about how these data centers will impact these vulnerable users. So I don't know why this is humming forward, because there are so many places that already have been considered and already could be used for micro and standard data centers that would not need to cause harm to our schools, to our residential parcels. And so I don't understand the point. Yeah, well, that's actually a great question. I was done asking questions, so you don't have to answer. You can answer when you close. Thank you. OK, well, thank you.

Alderwoman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I have had a chance to discuss this amendment with the alderwoman, so I do understand her intent. I think... You know, this data center conversation is such a new conversation for all of us. And I think from our conversation, her interest is she's wanting to make sure that medical school campuses that have a lot of data, that what we put in place does not keep them from expanding. And I actually we were able to have a little language exchange. And I think that maybe this some of this language is from some of that language exchange. um what i would offer um i do share some of the sentiments i share the sentiment all the women of the first ward is i think maybe some of this wording and i will offer if you wanted to wait to bring the amendment i could work with you i'm sure the next one will be some conversation not that i support the amendment but to clean up the language because i do have concerns i have slu's medical campus is in the seventh ward the seventh ward is very dense we have a lot of concentration and In the planning commission process, we did talk a lot about what that looks like. And I referenced my ward. If you think of where the gate district is in comparison to where SLU's medical school campus is, I do have daycares. I do have parks. You know, some of those things were of concern. We're putting this in. And I do have concerns that this amendment as written doesn't kind of takes those protections out, which, again, I don't want to prevent. medical campuses from expanding should they need to and I do appreciate that there's language in here that says you know if it serves that institution only I think that's very helpful but I do think this needs to be kind of reworded and cleaned up so that the impacts don't do away with what we're trying to do because I do think that without regard to setbacks takes away some of those other things so I just wanted to offer on the floor if you would wait to pull this amendment in I would be happy to work with you so at least the amendment does what I think you're intending to do

Alderwoman from the 8th. Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Alderwoman Saunier, for that feedback. As I expressed, I am happy to language changes or things that I think add clarity to the amendment, and so I'd be willing to hold the amendment to work with the Alderwoman for the 7th if we would like to proceed with other discussion on this bill.

You will need to withdraw your amendment and withdraw your second. I withdraw my amendment. Okay. Alderman from the 2nd.

got me excellent thank you madam president members of the board i'm with that we adopt amendment number five to board bill 49 as amended and committed it's been moved by the alderman from the second seconded by the alderwoman from the 11th that we adopt or five to board bill 49 as amended on the floor alderman you may proceed thank you madam president colleagues this is an amendment that truly defines collaboration over the weekend between the mayor's office, between the president's office, between the business community, between potential sponsors and data center applicants, but most importantly also from Renew Missouri, who is the renewable energy advocate that had a considerable amount of input on this legislation. and a balance was struck to keep this section mostly in its entirety on page 21 line 3 but adding some clarifications that this the general portfolio was already required under a state statute which the renew very provision. But most importantly, at the end, it allows for a waiver process to proceed in the event that the utility provider is unable, evidenced by the Board of Public Service, unable to provide the energy load from the renewable energy sources The sponsor or owner may petition the Board of Public Service whereby a hearing takes place, much like a process if someone is aggrieved by an approved or disapproved occupancy permit or any other transacting with the city. The Board of Public Service is petitioned by the owner. There must be a certified testimony from the utility provider along with documentation that represents they are unable in the market to fulfill the energy load renewable requirements. at which point the Board of Public Service, based on recommendation I assume from their staff, along with the Sustainability Office, along with the Planning Department, can make a recommendation to provide a waiver for that five-year period of time to which they are applying. Now, all this does, in my mind, is provides a very reasonable off ramp so that this market can be sorted out, which allows for a little bit of certainty for investors and anyone who may want to provide the jobs as well as the economic activity associated with this development. so for example if an applicant makes application and they still have to adhere to all of the bundled and unbundled rec requirements in this section in the event that they are unable to as a result of market disruption Let's remember the energy markets are only about 25 or 30 years old. The grid, electricity grids, yeah, they're about 150, 160 years old. But this market is still not mature. I think that's important. And when you're talking about risk takers, hundreds of millions and half billion dollar facilities, um providing this potential off-ramp in the event that the renewable energy cannot be obtained produced by the utility provider all this does is allow them to go through a waiver process through the city which gets reviewed by the board of public service it taking its recommendations from those folks i mentioned earlier and they allow a waiver that is the amendment happy to entertain questions

Alderwoman from the first.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. The way that we have the renewable requirements written now, the alderman from the second pointed out, is not really being changed by what he's proposing. What we have now is very possible. Through the information that's provided by the electric service provider about what they're planning to build, it's possible. It's something that can absolutely be done by what's in front of us. What we have in the bill now is we do have a waiver available at year five. It's only a one-year waiver, though. It doesn't exist in a five-year period or in perpetuity for a board with no expertise in this to continue to make that decision. The thing that I'm really concerned about, and I think all of us would be concerned about, is if we were to apply a similar way of thinking to other things. Take, for example, something like prevailing wage. If we said developers are telling us that it's very hard to meet prevailing wage, that it's difficult, that we don't know how much it's going to be set by the state in the coming years, the state may continue to raise the prevailing wage above what the developer can pay, and the city, I don't think anyone in this room would vote for a waiver process for the developer to be able to not pay prevailing wage. I don't think anyone would do that. So why are we doing it here? Are we saying that the emissions produced by this use are nowhere near as important as the jobs? And if you're saying that, that's up to you. That's fine. But what I think we need to be thinking about every day as much as we can is being protective of the people of St. Louis when we're thinking about the emissions produced by the amount of energy that this industry will use. This is unlike any industry that we know of in the city of St. Louis that exists today. We know how much energy will need to be built to power this use. We know how much emissions will be used to power this use. Why would we want to provide an off-ramp to that? Why would we want to do that? I think that when you walked outside this morning, you probably were impacted by wildfires from another country because of the air quality that came from far, far away to us today. So what we're saying is if for some reason this user can't meet this requirement, which by the way does allow them to build it themselves, they can build it themselves. That's what data centers are doing in other places in Missouri. They're paying for it because they want to build it. So it's already possible what we've laid out. What we're saying is, in case for some reason the market, which we don't control and we can't control, doesn't allow for this to happen, that we're just going to let this use continue to emit the amount that they want to emit. I think that at some point elected officials need to stand up and think about what that means for the air we breathe, for our children, and for the future of this country. That is something that we all have to live with. That is something that we agree will be a constant and a condition that we live in. This bill already provides a pathway for this renewable energy requirement to be met. It is a generous pathway. It is a compromise pathway. This has changed enormously from what was presented at Planning Commission in February. That compromise has already taken place. What you're being asked to do today is to say, But if they can't, that's fine. We'll just continue to allow this user to emit as long as they want with no penalty. The bill currently has penalties laid out. So if they aren't meeting the requirements, which again, they will be able to because it's going to be bills. If they aren't meeting the requirements, the city of St. Louis will get a financial benefit from that. What is being laid out in this is no benefit. None. But we will continue to breathe the awful air that is created. We will continue to deal with that. People around us will continue to deal with that. I don't think that's good enough. I hope that you don't think that's good enough, especially with what's in this bill is possible. And I understand that the alderman from the second is bringing up Renew Missouri and having them stand in front of this amendment like they supported or they voted or they agreed. And they may have provided language because they were asked to find something that perhaps other industries would get on board with and say that they now are fine with it. And you know why they're fine with it? Because they know that... They're fine with it because they know they won't have to do it. We have already seen the Board of Public Service approve a major data center that the majority of our constituents, not just my constituents, our constituents didn't want to see happen, that we know will cause incredible amount of pollution in our region and in our city. One of the things provided by the staff members to us is a single 30 megawatt data center, if operating at full capacity with no renewable energy, would be a 20% addition to our industrial emissions. One facility, one 30 megawatt facility without renewable energy requirements would set the city back two years in achieving its adopted climate goals. Two years. One facility. There is up to 27 megawatt facility that is being built now in the city of St. Louis. We're already going backwards. We're already past what we should have done here as a city. What we're talking about today is deciding whether we want to go forward with real renewable energy requirements that we will require people to be met if they want to operate in our city, or whether we want to allow them to just say, well, we couldn't do it. Couldn't do it. That is not how we would treat other things we care about. I know it's not. Absolutely would not. There is not a single way in this world that we would stand up here and say, if a developer said they just couldn't meet prevailing wage, we can get a waiver from the Board of Public Service. No one would vote for that. I'm asking you not to vote for this, because this is important too. Many of you have children. I hope that they have children, and I hope that they can live here. But we are seeing the effects of bad decisions of governments in everyday life. We are seeing the proliferation of heat, of bad air quality. And we have an opportunity to do something about it. And if you vote for this amendment, you are setting the city backwards. And that's up to you. And I'm going to let you make that decision, and you can explain it to your constituents and why you did it. And if it's because business wanted it, if it's because labor wanted it, explain that to them. I am trying to fight for what I think the next generation of the city of St. Louis wants and what the people we represent want. And that's why we're here, isn't it? Isn't it? And isn't that why people don't trust government anymore? Because they're in the pocket of big business? Because they're in the pocket of their campaign donors? Isn't that why we see problems proliferating in our society? This amendment is part of that. That's what it's doing. So please don't vote for it.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Alderman from the 5th.

Madam President, members of the board, would the alderman from the 2nd yield the questions?

The alderman from the 2nd yields a questioning from the alderman from the 5th.

Was that a yes? Yes, sorry. I will.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you. Alderman, I'm reading the amendment, and perhaps I missed it in your initial inquiry or your initial discussion. If you would clarify certain language, just to make sure we're on the same page. I know that the amendment begins with the language, if the electric utility is verifiably unable to meet the requirements. I'm looking at the language verifiably unable, which sounds to me like something more than a layup. Can you describe for me that process? What is envisioned under this particular?

I mean, verifiably unable that through market conditions or market disruption or the ability to provide the power, the electricity is somehow unable, right? In extenuating circumstance, for sure, when you use the words verifiably unable, is what resonates with me. And I would not be so cavalier with those decision makers on the positions of the Board of Public Service that, ah, we're just going to, ah, we're just going to leave it. I think this language is strong in the sense that you better verify with documentation, it's another great word down here as we go a few lines further, that this has to be evidenced. And recommendations from any city department will flow to the Board of Public Service in making this decision. This will not be something that's taken lightly. And I think the alderwoman from the first pointed out that, yes, while I think the utility provider is committing, that word's also in here. In the original language here, before an occupancy permit is issued, facilities shall seek commitments So this is a commitment that the utility provider is making, right? In the event that they can't, they throw themselves at the mercy of the Board of Public Service for it to be verifiably determined.

Well, and to be clear, when we read the amendment, and you just referenced it, there is a requirement of the provision of documentation. Now, I'm going to put my trial lawyer hat on for a moment. When I think of documentation, I think of data, record keeping, something material that is prevented to the Board of Public Service to demonstrate, to show documentation. why the certain requirements weren't met. That's the way I'm reading your amendment. Am I reading the plain language of the amendment correctly?

You are. You are, Alderman. The onus would be on the utility provider to answer any question the Board of Public Service has and to provide any documentation to help them make that decision. So that would be power analysis, infrastructure strength. That would be the renewable energy plans. That would be weighing that against the city's sustainability efforts. All of that would go into the decision-making process of issuing a waiver or not.

I appreciate your patience with me. Thank you. I don't have any other questions.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Elder woman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I know that this part of the bill has kind of been the, I would say, the biggest linchpin in the legislation, the point of the most conversation, the most controversial. I do just want to acknowledge the ultimate for the second. We've been able to talk and have some conversations, and I do understand the intent of the amendment, I think, which is that a desire to as best as possible, prevent developers for not being penalized for energy that does not exist in the market. That is how I would sum up our conversations. And I see the ultimate from the second nodding his head. And so I would just add to that that I think, again, this is a new market. These energy credits do not exist. They don't they don't exist. We don't exactly know what the world would look like in 10 years. But I do think there are some things, as I mentioned to the alderman. One, I think five years is quite a long time period. That's longer than any of the terms that we serve here. A residential term. uh folks who own properties who don't pay their taxes in three years get their homes taken and that's all it takes is three years and so i think this five-year time period is uh pretty long uh which again this is not new information this is something we've uh conversed about and had the conversation about um and then i think the other thing that's really important to talk about is just um i have sb4 uh pulled up and a a side conversation is to consider that the language of sb4 Because of the energy and electrical requirements within that legislation, another impact of that is not just environmental impacts, which I think is incredibly important. And the heart of putting this in there was to have some protection of the city's sustainability growth, but also to consider that it does allow the cost to be passed on to residents. That's very unclear. So I wanted to put that in and also just add that market conditions You know, it's hard to talk about market conditions in this type of industry with such finite. We don't know what the market conditions will be. So I think that's also a struggle here. And then I will also just add that there are projects that are happening now with data centers that Ameren is doing where they are already using gas instead of renewable energy. We did take a look at what that was going on as far as what exists within the market. And that was a concern. And so it is some of the language I think that is in this bill. The heart of this legislation, we were doing our best to put something in that would protect the city's renewable goals. And I think this makes that vulnerable because there are data centers that are happening with gas, that are building with gas. But also, I think that those costs could be passed on to residents within the city of St. Louis. There's nothing in this that makes sure necessarily that... Who's going to pay for it is very ambiguous. So I just kind of wanted to add to the conversation. I missed parts of it, that those were my concerns, that the five-year time period seems very long to me, that there are places where data centers have been built where they're using gas, and that could do away with our purpose of protecting our renewable energy. And that I do think it's possible that, again, the language within SB4, which is mentioned, some of those costs could be passed on to residents. It is not clear. Again, a lot of the conversation, and I understand the difficulty in crafting the legislation, because you don't necessarily get the most clarity right now of answers of questions that we're trying to predict in 10 years. So I'm sure in the Alderman's conversations and in mine that it can be a difficult thing but I just wanted to highlight those things that I think this does get us away from our renewable energy potentially and I also think five years is really long and I also think that this could lead to some costs being passed on to residents in particular reference to this legislation that is just about land use and not cost I do think again we wanted to just thread a needle to protect that renewable energy language and I think this amendment has the potential to get us away from that

Any further discussion? Alderman from the 9th.

Thank you. Would the alderman from the 2nd yield for questions?

Would the alderman from the 2nd yield to questioning for the alderman from the 9th?

I will, yes.

Alderman, you may proceed.

So, Alderman, I think you know the history of this bill. I think you know that we've had extensive discussion about this, extensive research, really dug into the issue to understand it. I think the planning staff, our Office of Sustainability, the zoning staff, everybody that's been a part of this, and I know you respect their work. I think you have an urban planning degree yourself and really see the value of planning in our city. So I'm wondering... if it was them or who really was asking for this change that you're proposing today?

First, thank you, Alderman, for that. I appreciate that. This amendment sprung out of a compromise from an initial amendment that I had planned to introduce whereby the business community, Greater St. Louis, the labor, particularly the building trades, as well as other members of labor, asked for some compromise around the potential for unbundled versus bundled rents. So there was an amendment drafted, which I shared with the sponsor of this bill, whereby it would greatly have just combined any combination of bundled versus unbundled recs in those provisions, I think, two and three, at the five-year and the 10-year benchmark. And we were really close to having full support on that amendment. I'm going to give credit here to the mayor's office who stepped in with labor and negotiated a compromise. I think that had I gone forward with that original amendment, it likely would have been vetoed by the mayor. And I don't think vetoes are veiled threats. So in the spirit of compromise, there was great leadership from the mayor's office on this. working with labor, working with business, working with some potential applicants and sponsors to come together with something that not everybody loved, but something that they think they can live with and still protects the values and upholds the integrity of the bill, which I got to be honest, I think this does.

So if this upholds the integrity of the bill, did you discuss it with the Office of Sustainability?

We did. We had a couple of meetings, yes.

And were they in favor of this?

I don't know if they took an official position. They were providing information and they were working at the request of, I believe, the mayor and others.

I think that they worked really hard on this. And I think the way the bill came to us today was their recommendation. It is what was approved by the Planning Commission as well. So as we continue to make changes to this bill, I do want to suggest that we are disrespecting the work of our planning and zoning staff, of our Office of Sustainability, that we are telling them that they're not, in fact, the experts, and that when we talk to the business community, we actually know better. I think it's a shame that we continue to water down this bill. And I wish we worked just as hard to remove barriers to building housing and building other things in our city. But you know, if market conditions don't allow for that, we just sit vacant lots. we just sit around and don't have small businesses open in our city we sit with vacant storefronts in our neighborhoods because we don't bend over backwards to water down the burdensome regulations that are sometimes preventing these things from happening uh... we say no we have values in the city and if you're gonna build this here in our city, you have to build it by our values. I right now have buildings in my ward, large residential buildings that are having difficulty adhering to the energy requirements from the building of energy performance standards. They are, you know, I talk to them quite often and they're quite concerned it's difficult to update these old buildings to meet modern day requirements. But the answer has not been, and the city is not jumping, to remove those requirements. And I suspect that if I brought a bill to do that, I would really get maligned by my colleagues for watering those requirements down that I believe our own mayor sponsored that bill or co-sponsored that bill when it came back several years ago when it came in front of this committee. So I think I'd receive a lot of pushback if I tried to minimize and reduce that bill. I think that if there is something that cannot meet the requirements we've set up and have been recommended by our planning commission, by our planning staff, maybe it's okay to say no to those things. Maybe that's not the right fit for our city. Maybe we're not prioritizing the people that elected us. I don't know who we're building this city for when we are making it easy to build data centers but making it hard to build housing. I don't know why we think it benefits even labor, because I'd rather have them be building things that benefit them, that benefit their neighbors if they live here. I've seen electrical workers post online saying, we're building our doom when we build these data centers. And I don't think that there is some... golden egg that's going to come out of this that's going to save our city. But even if there was, what kind of city would this be to live in if we just built it for the machines and not for the people? So this is an existential question in front of us today. This is a very existential issue that you brought with this amendment. I think the alderman from the first mentioned it. It is hazy outside. There are cities across the US, Minneapolis, Chicago, that have seen record levels of smoke from wildfires. We are continuing to see the damage that we've done to our environment from the burning of fossil fuels and the continual march of industry and capital that does not care for how many people they hurt because they don't live here. Now I've seen the proposals that have come in front of us for our city. I've spoken against the proposal for the site next to the armory in the former Goodwill building precisely because I don't trust that that is going to be a benefit to the communities that surround it, the communities I represent. And I've spoken against the amendments that have been done to this build today. I just want to make everyone aware that we're now going to have to come back for extra meetings. because we've made changes that will now have to be approved by the Planning Commission. And again, I'll repeat that the Planning Commission was already happy with the bill that we started with today, and we are just whittling it down I will still vote for these regulations, even if these amendments are made, because I think it's important that we have regulations, but just the changes we've made today are gonna delay the passage of those regulations, keep the door wide open for every bad actor that wants to come and take advantage of our city. We talked about trust in government. I wouldn't trust us.

Any further discussion on the amendment? Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, Alderman from the second, you are recognized to close. Oh, is there Alderwoman from the seventh?

Yes. Sorry. I just changed positions. This is just my general thoughts on this amendment and some other things. I just have to be honest and say the thing that I'm going to also say to my constituent. I do think it's telling that all the amendments brought forth today.

Can you speak more into the mic? Sorry. I think it's because I'm tall.

Yes. I just want to say, you know, I want to hold a few things as true at the same time. I would not paint the Board of Aldermen, especially because I've had conversations with all of us. I do not think that anyone who I've spoken to is anti-regulation of data centers. I do think that's important to say, because I know folks are going to pick up on the conversation and things are going to run all the way. But as someone who's been involved in this conversation, that is not what I would say. I would not support that statement. I would say that many of the amendments that were made today, including the one that we're discussing now, I'm really appreciative of the decision to move away from the eliminating renewable energy threshold requirement. It's a hard line that I've tried to protect. I do feel like sometimes people have looked at me like I have a second head when I have ridden so hard for that protection. But I just want to remind us of the city that we live in and things our people are dealing with. We have some of the worst health disparities in this country. And a lot of them start with the asthma and the mold in our buildings and the breathing. And you don't have to take my word for it. I would encourage any of you all, if you have any specific questions, SLPS. We have so many children who have asthma and other health-related respiratory diseases. It is something that they talk about regularly. There are information there, data about it. But I will say, too, in regards to this bill, you know, I think something that it's telling today that I'm going to have to discuss the answer for is, like, none of these amendments being brought forth are about the well-being of people. All of these amendments are about this economic growth and that economic growth and this thing and that thing. And again, there's nothing wrong with economic growth. It's vital. We need it to stay alive for a city. But also, like, government is supposed to be a regulator. We're supposed to be the ones who thread a needle. We're not supposed to have necessarily given to any one particular interest or concern. And I believe that when we do that, we're supposed to be centering the well-being of people. So when we're talking about these renewable energy goals and we're talking about these other things, we're talking about very real things. Air quality index is a real thing. The amount of asthma and respiratory diseases that folks have is a real thing. The other amount of health disparities that we have here is a real thing. And also, it's black children who have the worst health disparities here. So I'm extra invested in that conversation. I do think it is telling. None of these amendments are about the well-being of people. Nobody's asking about, what are these concerns about with this rule? They are about these other things of making it easy. And it is possible. As a matter of fact, I will argue this has happened several times in the history, not just in the city, but period where there are economic booms that displace people or that harm people. It's possible that there are things that are good for economy, bad and detrimental to people. And this is such a new industry. This is such a new thing. Even if it's not the case, we won't know. I will point to the RICA Act that we're talking about right now, when everybody was in a rush to build nuclear plants, that it's going to be so great, like the jobs it's going to create, the economic boom is going to be awesome, and then the folks who lived around those centers got cancer, but we didn't know until there were studies later on, and folks are trying to be compensated for that right now. And so I just think like this has to be a part of the conversation too. While I understand some of the conversations I've had, I do share just the disappointment. I don't think that we are centering people the way that we should in this conversation. I don't think that that is our primary consideration when we're having these conversations. I think we're putting other things, again, not things that are not important. I'm not dismissing or trivializing the importance of making sure that our city continues to grow. That's critical. But we've got to have people to do it. People are our greatest assets. And I don't hear, and I haven't heard that really mentioned in our conversation as a root. So I just wanted to put that on the record and say again that I am really glad, again, because I know the public doesn't get to see all of our conversations, like I am glad to see the evolution of some of these amendments, to see that conversation went back and forth, that things changed. But I do just feel a deep sense of I don't know if the word is sadness, I don't know if the word is disappointment, but I don't feel like we're centering what's best for people. I think we're doing a lot to please, whether it's developers, potential developers, or whatever the case may be, and not talking about the things that matter the most, which is the people. I know that we all really love our people and want them to want to be here. And I don't think that's being considered in terms of this particular amendment. My fear with this is, again, I hope the folks who the Board of Public Service that I don't get a representative on, that is all of the mayor's appointees and others, I hope that they don't exercise some of the things I've seen in the past where we got notice about decisions being made shortly, and then they're approved, and we don't really get a say so on that body. And I also really hope that they hold true if this amendment is adopted, like making sure that they do verify that that bundled energy is available. And I do have a fear that diluting this in any way will allow for people to not try. Because what I've seen with the history of waivers, is that sometimes people just go for the waiver and they don't even try to meet the standard. And it often takes government to be the one to set the standard because the standards we set become the bare minimum often that corporations will do. But if we don't try to set the standard and folks know I can just go get a waiver, they won't try. So I really hope and pray that that does not become the case. I really hope and pray that if this is adopted and ended up in the final version, The Board of Public Service acts with a little bit more transparency, a little bit more inclusion, and lets us know. And I really do hope that we make sure that we're verifying, you know, what is truly available in the market, because I do think it is really important for government to hold the line that we're supposed to be regulated. Primary consideration should be the people. Thank you.

Any further discussion on the amendment? Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, Alderman from the 2nd, you are recognized to close.

Thank you, Madam President. Alderwoman from the 12th.

Sorry, if your video is not on, the hand doesn't show up on the screen, so I can see you now. Alderwoman from the 12th.

Thank you. If the alderman from the second would yield, please.

The alderman from the second yield to questioning from the alderwoman from the 12th.

Yes.

Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you. I appreciate it. So I've been back and forth with this amendment because I thought that I saw a different amendment originally, and maybe that's what you were speaking of. And so can you tell me again why this is a better amendment for this board bill? Can you go over it again? Because I'm just trying to... This is kind of a big change, and I want to understand it.

You bet. You bet, Alderwoman, of course. There was an original amendment that you did see, because I believe I sent it to you, that I had contemplated in earlier discussions before a compromise in the convening of a lot of stakeholders that would have... made a combination in years five of bundled and or bundled recs which was a very big sticking point i think for the sponsor as well as in year 10 it could be any combination of a bundled rec and an unbundled rec now those are defined terms in the bill um pretty self-explanatory but this was a this was an incredible sticking point for i think the environmental lobby for uh renew missouri and for a lot of people and we were darn close on having we're darn close to having full support on that amendment after a conversation with the mayor being a leader on this uh we backed off that so that there wouldn't be continued vitriol about this process so that there could be a calm and a reset and where we could point to a compromise. And that's what generated the current Amendment 5 that's in front of you today, Alderman, which basically says this bill is still 100 percent renewable energy for 10 years. This amendment changes none of that. It changes none of that. All it does is simply say that if the electric utility is verifiably unable to produce the renewable energy power or source the bundled or unbundled RECs that are required in the subset, that there's a waiver process that we potentially hold harmless to the sponsor or owner in that. And for my colleagues to characterize this as some pro-smog amendment is incredibly disrespectful. That's a cheap soundbite, and I take offense to it.

So my question is this, if they can't meet it, is there a standard in here that shows that they have to show that they've tried as hard as they could to meet it? And they can't just say, oh, I couldn't meet it and apply for a waiver?

Absolutely not. Absolutely not. If you read on further, it says that the facility petitions the Board of Public Service and must provide documentation to the amount and the reasons for the shortfall. throughout this. So there would be testimony from the utility provider, there would be testimony from the sponsor slash owner, our operator, and then the Board of Public Service can certainly get a recommendation from anybody that they else want before making a decision. I also can say publicly that the mayor has committed to utilizing the recommendation of the Sustainability Office when in staffing the Board of Public Service on this recommendation.

Okay, and so for people who are watching, would you tell what the difference between bundled and unbundled is, please? Yeah. I'm going to read it right here.

Sorry.

I'm going to read it. There was a nice explainer put together by the great staff and the planning department, which I have an incredible amount of respect for. And the amendment process, by the way, doesn't disrespect anyone who works for the city. 60% of the Board of Aldermen decided has the option to weigh in and didn't sit on HUDs through the amendment process. So I will just also say to categorize an amendment as disrespectful to city staff is also a cheap soundbite, and I take offense to. Sorry. um amendments here are no i'm sorry unbundled and bundled let's see ah what is the difference between a bundled and unbundled rec bundled recs means that the physical energy of the certificate are sold together so the energy and the certificate the rec are sold together they contribute to actual renewable energy generation and reduce community emissions unbundled recs are certificates not tied to the physical energy. They act as a way to claim renewable energy while using the credit's grid mix. Unbundled RECs have no impact on emission reductions, but do signal a demand for renewable energy and help support clean energy. That's from an explainer from our planning staff.

And just so to be clear, most things that come from the I call them the alphabet company over there are recommendations. They are not mandates. They are recommendations to the boards. And we have the ability to follow it or not follow it. Is that your understanding? So if they recommend a TIF, we don't have to follow the TIF. That's a recommendation. So that's the thing is that we're the actual final judge besides the mayor of what happens with legislation. Yes. Not. Planning Commission or the Planning Department. Also, I would like to bring up that the Board of Public Service can be, I think, appealed. So if there's someone who feels like that they have been affected negatively by a decision, I believe that they can be appealed. So that's another process.

100%.

Right, okay. And I have one other question, just a minute here, please. I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong side. There's a penalty clause in here someplace for a facility failing to meet the 10-year compliance deadline. The non-compliance penalty should be 300 percent of the average market rate for Bundled retired RAC. Is that right?

Yeah, that's the original bill. This amendment doesn't tinker at all with that language. So those fines remain in place.

So if they're just playing around and trying to wait for the length to go away and say, oh, we don't. They will be fined.

You're right.

Okay. And it's a, okay. And they have to reapply, if they're using an exemption, they have to reapply every five years, which was, I think, also in the original bill, right?

Correct. Also, the language that Renew Missouri and the stakeholders negotiated and signed off on was that five-year window.

Okay, thank you. I have no further questions.

Thank you, Alderman.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the first.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I just want to point out, in addition to what the alderman from the 12th was saying, you know, options to appeal. You know, that's true of every single thing in this bill. If there is something that can't be met, there is an appeal process. So baking in, not meeting the requirements. is a step away from the requirement that we don't have to make, that we shouldn't make, especially with the process already existing the way it is. Thank you. That's true for every amendment that's been made and will be made. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, Alderman from the second, you are recognized to close.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I just think it's important to remind everyone that I think everyone holds the goal at this Board of Aldermen that renewable energy is our goal, that that should be our standard moving forward. This bill, I'm going to finish how I started. This bill requires 100% renewable energy for 10 years. This amendment does not change that. It's also important to remember energy purchasers do not control energy producers. That's the reason for this amendment. Plain and simple. Madam President, I renew my motion.

Mr. Clerk, it's been moved by the alderman from the second, seconded by the alderwoman from the seventh. Adopt amendment number five to board bill 49 as amended on the floor. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer. No. Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Ryan.

Aye.

Alderman Davoli. Aye. Alderman Velazquez. Aye. Alderman Sonia. Aye. Alderman Cox-Anthony.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

No.

Alderman Clark Hubbard. All the keys. All the tires. All the boy.

All the knowledge.

I was present. I want to ask is.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the second to adopt Amendment 5. Alderwoman from the 8th.

Thank you, Madam President. I move that we adopt Amendment 6.

Second. It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 8th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we adopt Amendment Number 2, Board Bill 49, as amended on the floor.

Alderwoman, you may proceed. Thank you, Madam President. First and foremost, I would like to thank Alderwoman Saunier for taking a minute to work with me on this bill to make sure that any clarification questions were addressed. Before I talk through the revisions that we make, I first would like to respond again to some comments that have been made just about The intent of what we're doing today on this floor, I personally believe that this bill is extremely important to many residents, which is why it's really important, again, as I've said earlier, for us to work on it, work on the details, and get it right. I get that many people feel like the subject of data centers is the most important thing that we're talking about here, but I also think it's very important for us to remember what data actually is and what it means to people. I do think talking about the implications that data has on individual lives are very important. And that is why I am bringing up in this amendment the concern that we truly have in the city that has a lot of institutions that provide health care for what happens to people's health care data. Data is information, everyone. Data is something that isn't just numbers on a code. It's names. It's addresses. It's social security numbers. It's medical test results. It's blood test results. These are real things. And they relate to real people, and they have real implications when they are not treated well. So I think it is unfair to say that talking about the details means that we're not talking about what this means for actual people. I think it's the contrary. I think it's really important for us to remember that when we talk about data, we are talking about real human impacts and real things that can be attributed to actual human beings walking around. And we are taking this conversation with the gravity of what that means. And so again, I do think it's really important for us to make sure that we are defining what the institutions are that have things that are very important specifically to health data and talk about where they can go and how that relates to the facilities that they are located in. That is the intention of this amendment that I'm bringing forward, to make sure that we address in this bill those particular facilities And I appreciate the older woman from the first question and clarification, making sure we make those details heard. First, again, it is defining what it means by an institutional campus and actually adding in the word medical institution, which is the intent, like I mentioned, of bringing this forward. So we're making sure we're very clear about what institution that we're talking about. So the word medical institution has been added for higher education or research purposes only under this zoning code. And then again, talking about the provision and in the details. It is saying that a data center that exclusively serves an institutional campus, as defined above, may be located on that same campus, provided that it is not a commercial facility, so it's only facilitating its intended use. It's a micro or standard data center, not adding any exclusion or opportunity for major data centers. And it's abiding to the setbacks, provisions, and continuing to fully apply for the original text of what the bill said to all parcels outside of that institution. Those are the changes that I hope will address some of the concerns that were raised here. Again, I do think regardless of what happens with this amendment, it is very important for us to talk about it because we cannot ignore what the real data implications are that we are talking about when we speak about data centers. We have to talk about what data actually means. We have to talk about the actual impact it has to people's lives. And we have to be honest, not only with ourselves, but with our city about what this means for actual human beings.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the first. Thank you, Madam President. Would the alderwoman from the eighth yield? Yes, I will. The alderwoman from the eighth yields a question for the alderwoman from the first.

Now you answer. Okay.

Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Great. So I see that you made a change to Section 3, that it would fully contain light rail station transit centers and parcels containing a school or public park. You did not choose to include residential. Can you speak to that?

Yes, I did not choose to include the A through K residential areas only. And as mentioned when people had questions about the conversation, that it was with respect to what's around the individual areas. You actually brought up concern that that was unclear. So in subsection A through I, I just pulled out the actual remaining of that definition from that previous section and attributed it specifically to that to actually address your question.

So it can be within 10 feet. because there's no setback requirement of a house. It could be across the street from a house.

It still has to abide by the zoning provisions that you all actually set with the micro standard data center. It still has to fit within that footprint, and it still has to be on campus.

Okay, so if it's on the edge of an institutional campus and within 150 feet for a micro and within 300 feet for a standard of someone's house, they could build it. You're saying that that is not a setback they'd have to follow. That's still what this says.

That is not my understanding. But again, I appreciate that. That was not the intention of that language. The intention of that language was specifically to pull what the original language referenced.

Right, because they can exclusively serve an institution campus may be located on that campus provided the setback continue to fully apply to parcels containing a light rail station or transit center. and parcels containing a school or public park. So now it's not quite clear to me if they don't have, because now it looks like, because you removed the beginning where it said they don't have to meet setbacks, so they should still have to meet every setback, and then item three is saying the setbacks still can apply, but it would be every setback should still apply because you didn't keep anything saying it doesn't apply.

It says the setbacks in subsection A through I continually apply to parcels and naming the specifics from light rail, transit, school or public park that were in the previous section. And then it says to all parcels outside of this institutional campus. So if there is a house outside of the institutional campus. the setbacks would apply. Okay, yeah, because it used to say that the setbacks didn't apply.

That's what your original amendment said, that the setbacks wouldn't apply. All setbacks should still apply. And then three seems to specifically say which setbacks apply.

Yes, and in my attempt to address your original race at the First Amendment, I did not address that, yes. So it still has to meet every setback because there's nothing that says it doesn't. For parcels outside of the campus. The intent of this bill, again, is to clarify what happens inside the campus. For parcels outside, these setbacks would still apply, yes.

I mean, I still think it's pretty confusing because it's not clear when the setbacks apply and when they don't. Because if the setbacks always apply, no matter what.

For parcels outside.

This campus provided that. OK. The setbacks in subsection AI continue to fully apply to parcels containing a light rail station or traffic center and parcels containing a school or public park and all parcels outside of the institutional campus.

OK.

So I don't know why 3 is even there, if it always will apply anyway. There's nothing in this amendment that says they don't apply. So they should all apply. There's nothing that says they don't. I don't know why that's there.

Because the intent of the amendment subsection three institutional data center provision is for parcels on institutional campus that are located on the campus. The above provisions are applying to parcels on the campus and it's keeping the setbacks in place for anything outside of the campus.

Okay. Well, I'm reading this to say that all the setback requirements would still apply because they don't explicitly not apply.

Okay, well, that is not the intent, but I do appreciate your interpretation. Again, I propose this draft. This is the draft I intend to put forward to the board. It will be up to everybody in this room whether or not we adopt it, but I appreciate your concern.

Okay. Okay, yeah, I think that you don't have, I mean... As long as the setbacks all still apply, but then it looks like only certain ones apply, I think it still kind of needs some work. But I appreciate the update. Thank you. Thank you. I remain opposed to this. I don't think that it's clear enough what institutional campuses are and when it would or would not apply. And one of the things that we kept coming back to in our discussions in the planning commission is that we can't specify what sort of facility a data center serves to because it's not about the type of facility or the type of data it's about the impact of the land use which zoning is what zoning strives to regulate the impact of the land use it does not matter what data they're storing or transmitting or whatever, if it's a certain amount of megawattage, it's going to need a certain amount of generators. If it has a certain size, it will take up a certain amount of servers, which will make a certain amount of noise, which will make a certain amount of... And so it doesn't differentiate about the type. There was a lot of concern from the people we represent about AI, about surveillance. And we could not specifically say in our zoning regulations, for example, that we did not permit surveillance or AI because that's not what zoning regulations do. They are about the land use and the impact of the land use on the city. So I don't think this is a necessary amendment, especially because it doesn't seem to have any, it doesn't seem to change any of the setbacks because it doesn't say that it doesn't have to abide by the setbacks anymore. So I'm not quite sure what it does. So thank you.

Alderwoman from the 12th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. If the Alderwoman from the 8th would yield.

The Alderwoman from the 8th yields a question from the Alderwoman from the 12th? Yes, I will. Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you. So when I look at the word institutional campus, an institutional campus could be an education campus or it could be a medical center campus. It would just be a campus. Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am. That's why I added the clarity for speaking specifically about medical institutions for higher education or research.

So I'm saying it could be Tyus University or Tyus Medical Campus, but they would both be institutional campuses. It was a big campus, right? I don't want to use the names of the institutional campuses that we have here. So I'm going to use Tyus just for, so I won't have to use their names. But so if I had a medical campus, And my medical campus was, I don't know, acres. I wouldn't have to use setbacks in the middle of my medical campus that are in this bill because it would not affect anything except for the building surrounding me. Right. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay, but if my buildings or my data center was on the edge and it was right next to residential or commercial facilities that have a zoning setback, then that setback would apply to them. Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so that would, okay. That's all my questions. Thank you. I have no further questions.

Any further discussion on the amendment? Alderwoman from the 8th, you are recognized to close on amendment 6.

Thank you, Madam President. Again, the intention of this amendment is just to be very specific about what uses and where they're applying and making sure we have the clarity and consistency in this bill to speak to any of the actual scenarios when it comes to how data is actually used in our city and make sure we have clear provisions and guidance and to make sure that the institutions in which those would be affected have clear guidance as well. So with that, I would ask for your favorable consideration of Amendment 6.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 8th, seconded by the Alderman from the 4th, that we adopt Amendment 6. There's been a request for a roll call. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer. Alderman Odenberg. Aye. Alderman Cohn. Aye. Alderman Ryan.

Aye.

Alderman DeVotee. Alderman Velazquez. Alderman Sonnier. Alderman Cox-Sanchui. Aye. Alderman Browning. No. Alderman Clark-Hubbard. Aye. Alderman Keyes. Aye. Alderman Tyus.

Aye.

Alderman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

President Green. No. Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Velazquez. We have nine ayes and five nos.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderwoman from the 8th to adopt amendment number 6. Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I think now with amendments are on the board bill as amended on the floor. And first and foremost, I think there's a lot of

Alderman, if I could first recognize the Alderwoman first to make the motion on perfection of this, and then you can speak on the bill. Unless you have another amendment.

No, I thought now we was on the amendment, maybe we didn't perfect it.

You have to make the motion to perfect now that it's been amended.

now that it's been amended i will be asking to put it on the informal calendar because it needs to go back to the planning commission um so if there's people who want to speak to it before i do that that's fine with me but i will not be making motion to perfect it as it's been amended today okay thank you alderwoman so alderman from the 14th okay so we're speaking on board bill not amended or

49 as amended on the floor, but there has not been a motion to perfect it as of yet.

Gotcha. OK. Well, speaking on Board Bill 49 as amended on the floor, first I do want to thank the Alderman from the first for carrying this bill. Also, I think there's a huge thank you that goes out to Miriam and all the staff at planning that has done a lot of hard work on this legislation. You know, I don't think there's not one person, and I can speak for myself, that is not in favors of making sure that we have regulations for data centers. as somebody who represent a large chunk of data centers in the downtown area, as I've even talked to the data centers, I think the way that it's laid out in our city kind of code is that, you know, they're categorized as warehouses and we have no regulations around them, and 110% agree that there need to be regulations. And I know, I've seen firsthand the amount of meetings Alderwoman from the first has put in, a lot of negotiations she has made to try to get the bill to a place where she felt comfortable that she brought it to the floor. But I will be remiss, I think, if I don't bring up kind of the legislative process. And even though Y Planning has done a great job, and we have members from the Board of Aldermen who serve on planning, the Alderman from the 1st, and now the Alderman from the 7th, previously Alderman from the 10th, from the legislative side, this bill was introduced on June 18th. And then the next week, we did have a committee hearing where the Alderman did present the bill. The week after that, we had another committee hearing, which amendments was made literally the next day, a little less than 24 hours. The Alderman did not vote the bill out and asked a HUD's committee member to meet literally the next day so that we could work on the legislation. It did not get voted out there, and then it got voted out in the seventh. And in that short time frame, there's been probably about 15, probably 18, even today on the floor we've seen additional amendments made by the sponsor, which was small clerical ones, but also some major ones by older people here today. And there's been a lot said that by changing this bill, we do not support the work of planning. And I want to push back against that because I believe that all my colleagues on this floor have the ability who does not sit on the HUD's committee to be able to be part of conversations, to be part of making amendments. And while there's been a lot of negotiation with all the women from the 1st and the 7th and many stakeholders that are up in the gallery from labor to advocates that have been doing a lot of work on it to data center folks to try to get it somewhere. That doesn't mean that everybody was at the table. I think I've at least said it in committee that this is a very important conversation and it's a very nuanced conversation. And I wish, as I've told all the women, that we, you know, took some more time. Now that it's going back to planning, planning meets on the 8th. So this board will probably take that up sometime right after that. But that there was more time on this legislation so that more folks could have been at the table that may not have felt that they weren't at the table. There's been a lot of things that were said today on the floor around centering people. And by voting for these amendments, your constituents can hold you accountable. Absolutely. Do you care about kids' asthma? Well, I could tell you, at least in my ward that's north of Del Mar, there's a community called Pruitt-Igoe. a community that way before some of us, not all of us was born, strategically was sprayed on that not only hurt the air quality, but also hurt the health issues of many folks. When we talk about centering people, I don't want us to forget that this isn't the only legislation that people could have been centered. I believe there was even legislation when we first got to this board all meant to make it easier for unhoused shelters. And sponsor and some of the co-sponsors that was on it didn't support that. Which I supported that legislation from the all women from the 7th. So I pushed back when we, that mainly came from the sponsor of trying to put colleagues in a box that by supporting these amendments, you don't care about kids. Go back to a Ramsville where there was funding for early childcare and that got all stripped out just to go to water. I appreciate The fact that the ones that offer the amendment today, I think, is trying to get this bill to a stronger place. I think this is the legislative process. And if amendments was made and it has to go back to planning, well, so be it. we are already here on summer break as it is trying to get it done if we have to call more meetings i'm totally for that to make sure we get it across the finish line um i want regulations i will be supporting hopefully the bill that comes out of planning i planned on Signing on as a co-sponsor, we'll see what work is done and planning. But I know this is an important conversation to many folks. And it's not one person I haven't heard at the board that say they don't want regulations. But I push back that some of the alders, including myself, that vote for amendments that represents a lot of those kids that suffer with asthma, black kids that look like me, that I represent, that wards like the 12th, the 11th, the 10th represent, that we don't care because we voted for the amendments. Yeah, and I would just hope once we get back to this bill from planning, even with all the motions that is tied to this, that we can have a conversation of how we get it right the first time, instead of pointing fingers at colleagues, because you may not like amendment got added to a bill, which that is the process here at the Board of Aldermen. So thank you, Madam President, and I I'm done talking for the moment.

Alderwoman from the 1st, you want to make that motion?

Thank you. It's been brought to my attention that in order to continue discussing the bill... Oh, I believe the alderman from the 12th has her hand up. Alderwoman from the 12th.

Yes, and this time I made sure I kept the video on, so I've had it on for a while. I just would like to make a correction before she puts it on informal. If we look at page 5, line 15, they struck out something, and the numbering went to 10 to 11, and we struck out the whole paragraph of 11, and we kept going to 10, 12. So we need to renumber from page 5... line 15 we need to renumber um and go all the way down to page six uh line 11 i think it is yes we we kept 11 we took 11 out but then we went to 12. we didn't ever renumber that mr clerk could you please make note of that

Later. Thank you.

Okay.

Other woman from the first

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the clarity that you offered that in order to continue debating the bill as it's in front of us, I do need to make a motion to perfect the bill. Need a second. And then there could be more discussion on the bill. And at that point, then I would put it on informal. So not cutting off discussion by any means. I hope people continue to share their thoughts. And with that, I would move to perfect board bill number 49 as amended on the floor. Second.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the first, seconded by the Alderwoman from the seventh that we perfect Board Bill 49 as amended on the floor. Alderwoman from the first.

Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate the questions and comments of my colleagues today. This has been one of the most complicated bills that I've ever worked on at the Board of Aldermen. And so I appreciate that it has been hard for all of us to wrap our heads around it. At no point did I say that people could not or should not make amendments to the bill. I just wish that some of the amendments today would have strengthened the bill instead of weakened it. So that is what I think occurred today. So that's on all of us, I guess. So I really do appreciate everyone. I'm sure I made some people angry in this room, and I look forward to repairing our relationships.

Any further discussion? Other woman from the 6th.

Thank you, Madam President. I want to echo my colleague from the 14th's thanks for the hard work by the bill sponsor. As you've mentioned, it's a lot for anybody to wrap their heads around. I know that you have dove right into it with full heart and with enthusiasm. I want to thank my colleague from the 7th for also all your hard work on this bill. And I know we're going to have some more discussions. I just do want to echo what my colleague from the 14th said about the legislative process. I'm not on HUD, so as one of your colleagues or one of the colleagues here who has been watching the process but not been a part of the process, I do think that's why many of us would like to get it done and get it out and get it signed into law. The fact that we are discussing substantive changes and may make substantive changes, Laura, I think, is an integral part of the process. We've seen many of the big bills that have taken a long time, food truck bills, which did not go to planning. Those took a few years. And so, you know, I think it's important to manage, one, to manage my expectations, but to manage people's expectations that these discussions... would happen very quickly or would not be necessary in this moment because it is a big complicated bill and there are more perspectives because all of us are not at HUD. So obviously we're going to be having more conversations but I thank the sponsor and also my colleagues who brought lots of questions and I just ask that we keep on respectfully moving forward with this process on the floor with each other as we go forward. Thank you.

Alderwoman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I have given some commentary already, so I want to keep this brief, but I did want to respond to some of the things that were said earlier. Something that I hope that all of my constituents, and honestly all of city residents, because when we pass policies, they don't pass for one ward, they pass for the entire city, and all of my colleagues here, I hope that everyone can hold me accountable for Something I really believe strongly in is you, as a legislator and someone who represents a community, I don't keep a tally of, you voted this way on that bill, so I'm going to vote this way on your bill. When legislation comes in front of me, I really do my best to look at what's in front of me and figure out what is the best thing I think is for people. And so we could have just last week had it out really bad right here on the floor. And if you found something that I thought was good for people, I would fight with you and do what I could to get it done, because that's the type of leadership that I think our city deserves. And so, you know, I don't want us to be using votes on other bills as a reason for this. And also, I think that these things are much more connected than we think. I would say that I've learned like the one thing that some people might hate more than shelters is data centers. And so it has created some very, I would say it's given me the opportunity to talk to folks from all different wards, folks from all different backgrounds, to hear different perspectives, to talk to just a number of mirrors and a number of perspectives. And something I've tried my best to do. Again, nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes. I've certainly had some spirited conversations with folks on this body. But I think it's important. I've actually enjoyed getting to work with the Alderman for the first ward on this. I appreciated her diving in so deeply. into the details, getting into the nuance. I really have enjoyed, I mean, Miriam and the planning staff have just blown me away. I don't know how you guys have the capacity to manage what you have. Folks from MCE, folks from different entities, and I want to highlight folks who are not necessarily, you know, staff is one thing, folks who have an interest in one thing, but this conversation even got so much work from people who are not necessarily getting paid or have a financial benefit from this issue. but have been at the table. Right now in our gallery, there are folks not just from planning commission and from staff, but folks who have been vital parts of these conversations, even the contentious conversations that may have happened with different interests or different groups, whether it was different unions. I appreciated the opportunity that I had to put everybody at a table and have some of these conversations and work it out. I think that that is important. the democratic process, and I think the thing that the city needs in order for us to succeed is we've got to be able to have these conversations, and not only do we have to be able to have these conversations, but I think we should be able to do them respectfully, without personal insults or personal hurdles. I hope nothing I've said makes anyone feel personally attacked. This is about the city of St. Louis, and this is about the trajectory of our city, and this is about my concerns for people, and representing what I feel residents have said. I will say, I do think in all the things the Board of Auditors has discussed, this does have... On the whole topic, and I know this legislation that's in front of us is one thing, but again, the approval of that major data center, approving that so quickly, and today we're going to have another wait, potentially of another month, to get some regulations on. We shouldn't act like we don't see why people are uneasy. I'm uneasy. I really do feel uneasy not having regulations on the books. I feel uneasy. I've said it before. I've said it in every public hearing. I don't necessarily trust that the Board of Public Service is going to be transparent, is going to share information with us, I don't like the decision that they made to approve that Karen Data Center. I sent in a letter of support for the appeal. But on this body, you know, I think it's important to hold that this is just a difficult conversation that has a lot of tense. And I think we could do that without painting anyone with a broad brush. I would not say with a broad brush that, like I said in this conversation, is necessarily anti-anything. I think this is a new topic. It is a lot to learn. I do wish that some of us would have maybe dug in a little bit more I hope now, this is going to be another month, so I hope if folks still have questions, the forum is available. We know there will be another planning commission. I'll make sure we end it out. I hope folks plan to attend so that whatever these final concerns are, we are. But I just want to make sure it's clear on the record that, one, I definitely don't choose who to work with based on their previous votes. I choose who to work with based on what I think is best for the people in the city that I love. And two, I think it's important to do so respectful and without painting broad brushes. And I just also want to make sure, again, that I just acknowledge all the folks. I know a lot of my residents are going to be like, oh my gosh, you guys are not done with this. No, we are not done with this. And trust me, I want us to get this done. But I do think it's important that we do it right. And I don't necessarily think that anything happened today is not a part of our legislative process. It's absolutely a part of our legislative process to have amendments brought forward. Um, but I do still remain my concerns that I am disappointed that not one of them that was brought forward seemed to me to really about the wellbeing people. Thank you.

Alderman from the third.

Thank you, Madam President. I would just like to add my name as a co-sponsor.

Mr. Clerk, please make note of that. So noted. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, then Alderwoman from the first year recognized to put it on the informal calendar.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Please place Board Bill 49 as amended on the floor on the informal calendar.

And just for the knowledge of everyone in the gallery, the reason it is going on the informal calendar is because since there were substantial changes, it now has to go back to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission is not able to meet this week, but we still have some other matters that we need to attend to Friday, so there still will be a Friday board meeting. But just keep on social media and Civic Clerk on our website for when Planning Commission meets and sends this back to the full board. 55.

55. 55. Okay. Board Bill 55 sponsored by Alderman Sonia, President Green, Alderman Schweitzer, Alderman Clark Hubbard, Alderman Velazquez, and Alderman Aldridge. An ordinance amending Chapter 3.160 of the City of St. Louis provides code of ordinances to add definitions in a section prohibiting the award of tax incentives to data centers containing a severability clause and containing an emergency clause.

Alderwoman from the 7th, you are recognized on perfection of Board Bill 55.

Thank you, Madam President. I would like to place Board Bill 55 on the informal calendar. Mr.

Clerk, please make note of that.

So noted. Thank you. That is an extended board bill for perfection.

Report of engrossment.

Board Bill 32, 52, and 53.

Third reading and final passage of board bills.

We have none. Okay. Let's extend the third reading and final passage of board bills for consent.

Third reading and final passage of board bills.

Board Bill 32, sponsored by Alderman Cohn, President Green, Alderman Sonnier. An ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment authorizing the Office of the President of the Board of Aldermen to execute and accept a subaward from the Bloomberg Philanthropies American Sustainable Cities Initiative for the grant purpose of its Youth Climate Action Fund specifically to activate youth and leadership roles as they participate in climate solutions consistent with the city's sustainability goals, appropriating such funds to the Office of the President and Board of Aldermen, and authorizing the expenditure of such funds to fulfill the obligations of said grant to the extent such funds are received and containing an emergency clause.

Alderman, from the third, you are recognized on Board Bill 32.

Thank you, Madam President. As discussed at our last meeting, Board Bill 32 is the acceptance of a grant from Bloomberg to provide assistance for funding opportunities for our youth council and would ask for folks' favorable consideration.

You need to make a motion.

Oh, thank you. I move that we finally pass Board Bill 32.

It's been moved by the alderman from the third, seconded by the alderman from the fourth that we third read and finally pass board bill 32. Is there any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th.

Madam President, members of the board, I again rise to oppose this bill. I do think that this is inappropriate that it goes to the legislative body. I think it's an executive function. And so I will be voting no on the bill. I don't need to go into it any further than that. And I'm going to make sure that I've asked for a roll call.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Alderman from the third, you're recognized to close.

I renew my motion.

It's been moved by the alderman from the third, seconded by the alderman from the fourth, that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 32. Madam Clerk, or Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer. Aye. Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Ryan. Aye. Alderman Devotee. Aye. Alderman Velazquez. Aye. Alderman Sonnier. Aye. Alderman Cox-Entry. Aye. Alderman Browning. Aye. Alderman Clark-Hubbard. Aye. Alderman Keyes. Aye. Alderman Tyers. No. Alderman Boyd.

No.

Alderman Aldrich? Aye. President Green?

Aye.

13 aye votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion for the alderman from the third to third read and finally pass Bill 32.

Board Bill 52, sponsored by Alderman Cohn, an ordinance pertaining to the transit sales tax imposed pursuant to section 94.660 as adopted by the voters of the City of St. Louis on August 2nd, 1994, pursuant to the ordinance 63168, creating the City Public Transit Sales Tax Trust Fund, directing the Treasurer of the City of St. Louis to deposit funds received pursuant to sales to said sales tax to City Public Transit Sales Tax Trust Fund account number one appropriating $13,529,900 from said sales tax for the period of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027 to the Bi-State Development Agency for certain purposes and containing a severability and emergency clause.

Alderman from the third, you are recognized on the third reading and final passage of Board Bill 52.

Thank you, Madam President. I move that we third read and finally pass Board Bill number 52.

It's been moved by the alderman from the third, seconded by the alderman from the 14th, that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 52. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President. This is one of two bills that are before us today that are related to the transit sales tax. I'm sorry.

Alderman, you froze for a second. If you could repeat yourself.

Okay, this is board bill number 52. It's related to, it's one of two bills related to appropriations over to Metro for the transit sales tax appropriation. So board bill 53 coming up next is also related to this. And this is helping to fund our Metro bus operations.

Any further discussion? Elder woman from the 12th.

Okay.

Alderwoman, I think you're muted.

Madam President, members of the board, the alderman from the third would yield.

The alderman from the third yield to questioning from the alderwoman from the 12th.

I will.

Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Alderman. So this money is the money that's used for the bus and Metrolink. Is that correct?

That's correct, Alderman.

OK, so I feel like we can go back. You and I are just the only ones here that can go back. When I came back here in 2013, when I raised a whole bunch of hell about this particular money, John Nations was the president. ceo and chair at that time and it was about the fact that um i'm the only original member still here that actually voted for metro link based on the fact and this is what i talk about when i talk about uh the rams money and stuff and why i don't trust things because the new auto woman from the 20th voted for this money to go to start metro link and we uh dug up graves by the uh by out by the airport because we were gonna be, the North St. Louis, we were gonna get part of Metrolink. And we were gonna get Metrolink from coming out from UMSL all the way downtown. And we met and we have a whole route that was planned. It was the north-south route and other people got Metrolink, but we never did. And when I got up and started talking about it, even the mayor, current mayor at that time, was Francis Slate, tweeted, yep, she's right. Stephen Conway was the chair of transportation at that time, and he actually held the bill up because he was there. There was a lot of people there when we first put MetroLink. But here we are, 35 years later, having put a shovel in the ground. We spent, do you know how much money we spent on that trolley to nowhere down Del Mar? Do you ever have an actual account of that?

To my recollection, Elder Woman, it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 million.

Okay. Or maybe a little more, because I think, I don't know if that, does that include the amount that the former mayor, the prior mayor put in? Because we might lose some funding if we didn't put that in. Is that included in that amount? Do you know?

I don't recall, older woman. Okay.

Okay, because I heard it was a little bit more. But I was outraged because this is what happens about promises to North St. Louis. They just don't happen. That's why I can't believe in the Rams because they don't happen. They trick you. They promise you. And to go a little further, John Nations did come out at that time, and that was in 2013, and started promising me, oh, we can do this big bus route, which is now what I'm hearing more. And I said no. We want what was promised. And he owe him and how to say we don't have the money. And I tried to ask him, where'd you get this money to put the trolley for nowhere, which we could have spent a bus and spent two hundred, three hundred, four hundred thousand and got better service than the trolley to nowhere. But we spent this money. And so he could not answer that. And he went round and around. And then a few years later, when Toby Roach came on board, he called me up maybe two or three years ago and just told me that he already had the mayor on board. And that was former Mayor Jones. And she was going to be for this and that he wanted me to support not having a metro link. The north south route had moved from going north. from UMSL all the way down Natural Bridge to going to Jefferson or whatever the South Side Alderman wanted because we each were working on it. And all of a sudden, and it was going to go downtown or it was going to go over, no, it wasn't going over Jefferson. It was going downtown. I'm sorry. And so he said he already had Tashara support and he was talking to me and I said, no, I'm not going to support that. And he said, well, we have a new north south south route and it's going to come down Jefferson and stop at Natural Bridge. and grand. That's not a north-south route. In fact, the whole point about why we agreed the Black aldermen to go around us and to go ahead and go to the central quarter was because we were fed a bunch of malarkey about, well, they got more population there. And so if we go there and we can prove that it's successful, we promise you, you will be next. But 35 years later, we've never been next. Now, the central population in North St. Louis is not at Grand and Natural Bridge or Parnell and Natural Bridge. It's actually out west at Natural Bridge and Kings Highway, Natural Bridge, and all up and down Natural Bridge in the western part of Natural Bridge, most certainly not down there. But that was what he was proposing to me. And he didn't just propose it to me. He went out to the county and talked to several of the ladies out there and sure to his word, they had one vote that was our mayor's vote that agreed, our former mayor, thank God, that agreed to give that route a chance. Now, of course, in the meantime, we've lost all our money. We still don't have anything. We don't have anything and we're back to the big bus thing. again. And so I want to make sure I just vote no on these two board bills to remind people that they don't keep their words to North St. Louis. And if there's not people like me around to remind them, then people just go on about their merry ways and go, oh, that's too bad. And I would tell people, In the future, the next young Sharon Tice, don't believe them. Anything that they don't give you your money up front is not true. Just like the Rams field, there's not 180, it's not 120, it's 35 million guaranteed. The rest is a possibility and a probability. And when you look at all our past history, which I will continue to break up, it's not a good possibility. So for that reason, I will be voting no on 52. I want to roll call on also 53 is because they have not kept their promise. They have not attempted to keep their promise. And not only that, but they wasted money wastefully and put railroad tracks down from the city limits. that we paid for i'm sorry from del mar uh i guess up by city hall all the way down to forest park and back the biggest waste of money that i can talk to about a city that doesn't is not rich and doesn't have money and then would do that after they got all the black aldermen to vote for it and then we dug up the funerals i mean we dug up the um the graves up by the uh Airport, we did all of this in anticipation that it was going to be our turn, and it's not our turn. And whoever's coming with the big bus route again, nope, that shouldn't be voted yes, because North St. Louis should get it. MetroLink, I don't care if we have to put 50 or 100 millions. over and over and over again until we get the route built, because that is ridiculous that a whole section of town does not have Metrolink and have waited 35 years, and we have spent money and wasted money. And I do want to thank the former alderman from the 8th Conway, because he knew that I was telling the truth, and he even said, well, that's not right. And some of the Southside aldermen were kind of upset with what was going on. And now... We probably won't get a Metrolink at all in North St. Louis, but we should keep their feet to the fire saying this is a promise you made. And if you really do keep your promises, then find a way. I don't care if we have to do it a few tracks at a time. Find a way to start laying that track and find a way for North St. Louis to get a Metrolink because 35 years is way too much. And maybe we'll get a different commander soon. on Pennsylvania Avenue that might believe in public transportation. And if maybe we show that we were really serious about trying to do and keep our promises, maybe we could, as a united group of people, say, hey, we know that we owe North St. Louis this. It's on the records across all the papers. Even the American big groups of people met We came to an agreement, and it's just so ridiculous that 35 years later that we have not one piece of track laid, and they don't deserve to get any money if they can't keep promises to all parts of the city. And that's a way to show North St. Louis we're not important, is that we can't get a MetroLink after we were promised that. And that's why I'm going to vote no, because the city doesn't keep its promises to North St. Louis. I have no further statements.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, Alderman from the third, you're recognized to close.

Thank you, Madam President. I'm sure it doesn't necessarily directly at least address the Alderman from the 12th's concerns, but these two bills in particular are related to transit-related sales taxes that were passed, this one in particular back in 1994. So it's not related to the economic development tax that was passed for the north-south expansion that we've been discussing the last decade or so at this point. Three decades. Yeah. Well, this particular green line expansion, that was the sales tax that was specifically passed probably last I want to say seven or ten years ago. But these were both passed decades ago, back in this one in particular in 1994. So this would be an appropriation of roughly $13.5 million that would be going over to Metro by state for their existing operations, not for the expansion and would ask for everyone's favorable consideration.

It's been moved by the alderman from the third, seconded by the alderman from the 14th, that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 52. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer. Aye. Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Ryan. Aye. Alderman Devotee. Aye. Alderman Velazquez. Aye. Alderman Sunway.

Aye.

Alderman Cox-Antony. Aye. Alderman Browning. Aye. Alderman Clark-Hubbard. Aye. Alderman Keyes. Aye. Alderman Tyers.

No.

Alderman Boyd. Aye. Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

14 ayes, 1 no.

By your vote, you sustain the motion of the alderman from the third to third reading finally passed Board Bill 53.

Board Bill 53, sponsored by Alderman Cohn. An ordinance pertaining to the transit sales tax imposed pursuant to section 94.660 as adopted by the voters of the city of St. Louis on November 4th, 1997 pursuant to ordinance number 64111 created by the city public transit sales tax trust fund, directing the treasurer of the city of St. Louis to deposit funds received pursuant to sales tax, said sales tax to the city public transit sales tax fund. Account two, appropriating $13,529,900 from the dead sales tax for the period of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027 to the bi-state development agency with certain purposes and containing inseverability and emergency clause.

Alderman from the third, you're recognized on the third reading and final passage of Board Bill 53.

Thank you, Madam President. I move that we third read and finally pass Board Bill number 53.

It's been moved by the alderman from the third, seconded by the alderman from the fourth, that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 53. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President. Board Bill number 53 is the second out of the two board bills I was discussing. This is a identical amount of money, same amount of sales tax that we're transferring over to Metro by state development agency for existing operations of their of their routes. And so this is roughly, again, about $13.5 million. This was approved by the voters in 1997, so just a few years after the initial bill. I guess I do want to just... Reflect a little bit. The alderman from the 12th reminded me of another time where this body really worked. I remember when I was with Metro by state to address some of the concerns of our constituents. I remember working. With the board when I first got elected, I think it might have been my first term. We actually held these bills in order for Metro to start emptying out trash cans along their routes. And so, and actually install trash cans that some of the more major stops that were missing them as well. It was a pretty contentious issue at the time. And for those of you that might not be familiar, you know, when you get onto a bus in the city of St. Louis, you are not allowed to carry, you know, soft drinks or food or things of that nature. And so people are often just, you know, dropping their things. Styrofoam cups or what have you on our streets. And so this body at the time held these bills until Metro came up with a plan to address the trash that was on our streets around, particularly those larger bus stops that didn't have trash in them. containers and service. And so, you know, there are some things that we can do to partner with our other governmental agencies to make sure that they're paying attention to our constituents. I've always appreciated Metro being forthcoming in terms of at least showing up and trying to answer those questions and address those concerns. You know, the committee you know while i've been on it has also tried to work with them in terms of uh having conversations and um addressing concerns from our uh you know uh disability advocates and in terms of color ride and other you know programs that are offered through metro um so you know always appreciate you know the input from not just members of the committee, but members of the public as it comes to how we can improve our services here in the city of St. Louis and work with our partner agencies to do so as well. And with that, I open it for any discussion.

Alderwoman from the 12th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. To the alderman from the third points from last time and this time. First of all, the reason why we had to put those things on a ballot, all the Black aldermen voted for it. At that time, it was a Black alderwoman of the first, named Joanne Wayne, that was the chair of transportation. And we could have easily held it up. We all did it in 94 and 97 because... We were going to get MetroLink. We were being team players. That's the whole point. Being a team player in North St. Louis gets you broken promises and broken hearts. And so that's what has happened. And it's very well documented. We had meetings at Lexington School, which I built. And we all came down there before Griffin was the chair of the caucus. Then we all came and met and met and met and came out with a new plan because we had already had a plan from before she came down. So this has been ongoing planning about the north south quarter started in 92 or 93, even as Metrolink was becoming popular. a reality in the city. And so you have to just face what has happened is they didn't keep their words, period, dot, okay? We have no business believing anything that people say about what's going to happen because who would have thought after you redistricted me that I would be sitting here again talking about this very same thing. So to me, that tells me that God had a plan for me to be back here. Okay, so I could talk about this and say that they don't keep their words. And then they say, oh, I can give you a big bus. Okay, well then take up all the tracks every place else and give them a bus too. Especially take up the tracks on Del Mar, just a waste of money. I mean, when you tell me that, and then I see you buy, it's like saying, let them eat cake, okay? Just ridiculous and insulting to a whole part of the city. But let's even talk about the trash cans, which I don't know if you understand this now, they have pushed the trash cans off on other people. Like they look for people who are on the corners and they don't empty the trash cans anymore. We empty the trash cans and or you have to get somebody who's a business to empty the trash cans. And often when they get burnt up or messed up or anything, Metro is horrible. I can show you, I've called in on several of them several times. They sat up there, they're overflowing, they're not getting empty, and they're burnt up or whatever. And so although we had very good intentions, that's why we need to hold their money again. Because the only thing I found, Alderman from the 3rd, that gets their attention is when we hold up things. um and then they'll do it for a while but then they don't do it so we don't have metro link we don't get trash pickup service uh the big bus theory i guess it's something like the big bang theory it's good enough for north st louis even though all the promises were made and what has taught me is if you don't put it in black and white if it's not a guarantee like the rams money the guarantee of 35 and then they got a possibility it's a more and a probability very low based on block grant, based on MetroLink, based on all the promises that I've set through in these 30 something years. And so I don't believe the city anymore and they don't have any intentions. And most likely nobody will be here to say, hey, you lied to me and nobody will bring it up. And even if you do, people say, well, we need this money too bad for you. and that's why anything that we get in North St. Louis has to be upfront or it's not guaranteed, and that's why RAMS money, 35 million, not 180, whoever's telling you that, and we're hiring lawyers to do legal opinions about this, and we haven't found a lawyer yet that said this, that 100 and something that people said we were going to get. That's a shame when one part of the city is treated like that, especially when we did. I don't like sales tax. The people who were on the board served with me, don't like sales taxes, regressive against people. And so this was before we even cleaned it up and took some of the sales tax off of medicine and stuff like that. But we were all in being team players because North St. Louis was going to get Metro Lincoln. We all agreed on the route. And for us not to have had a, not any track late, but to spend... Any place from 75 million to 100 million on a boondoggle that runs on a good day, maybe once a month, that is just ridiculous. And that is the power of one person over in a community that gets to have more power than a whole community. That doesn't look good for St. Louis. And we don't deserve any more federal money if we can't follow our promises. And we do not deserve to get the money. if the current chair, Toby Rauch, tries to, if we ever get money again, I hope he's not there, because he's trying to take it by the soccer stadium. That's why he wants to take it down Jefferson. And that was never the plan. The plan when we had it was so that North and South could meet up downtown. And then every part of the city, downtown, central quarter, North and South would all have Metrolink. And I believe in that, because I think that's a good way for people to get to work whatever. And when you have a whole section of town that's left out, that is not a good look for our city. And that does not speak to, oh, we keep our promises. It's a promise you anything. And then sorry, we're not doing it. And for that reason, again, roll call vote. My vote will be no. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, Alderman from the third, you are recognized to close.

Thank you, Madam President. I renew my motion.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the third, seconded by the Alderman from the fourth, that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 53. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. There's been a request for a previous roll. Hearing no objection, you have voted to sustain the motion of the Alderman from the third to third read and finally pass Board Bill 53.

That is the extent of the third reading and final passage of the board bills.

Report of the finally passed and signed by the President.

Board Bill 32, 52, and 53.

All other business being suspended, the President shall in open session affix her signature hereto to the end that these may become law. First reading resolutions in reference to committees.

Resolution 78, sponsored by Alderwoman Boyd, urging the Board of Education and St. Louis Public Schools to provide additional public engagement, transparency, and coordination with the city's previously adopted educational planning efforts before taking final action on the future ready plan.

Alderwoman from the 13th, you're recognized on the first reading of Resolution 78.

Thank you, Madam President and members of the board. I ask for Resolution 78 to be sent to the Health and Human Development Committee.

Is there a second? Second. It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 13th, seconded by the Alderman from the 2nd, that we send Resolution 78 to the Health and Human Development Committee. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Second reading resolutions, committee reports and adoptions.

The following board bills were held in Legislation and Rules Committee. Board Bill 41 as amended in committee and Board Bill 50, floor sub, substitute.

Aldermen from the 14th, you're recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing Resolution 79.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we suspend the rules to introduce resolution 70.

It's been moved by the alderman for the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the first that we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing resolution 79. This is a non-debatable motion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer. Aye. Alderman Odenberg. Aye. Alderman Cohn. Aye. Alderman Ryan. Aye. Alderman Devotee? Aye. Alderman Velazquez? Aye. Alderman Sonnier? Aye. Alderman Cox-Antwi? Aye. Alderman Browning? Aye. Alderman Clark-Hubbard? Aye. Alderman Keyes?

Aye.

Alderman Tias?

Aye.

Alderman Boyd?

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge aye President Green aye Alderman Cohn we have 14 aye votes by your vote you sustain the motion for the alderman from the 14th you could please place board resolution 79 at the end of the courtesy resolution calendar so noted thank you Alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we adopt the courtesy resolutions calendar.

It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th, that we adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar. Is there any discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th? Alderwoman, you're muted.

I'm sorry, Madam President, if I could request that my name be added to, is it 79? Yes.

Mr. Clerk, please make note of that.

Thank you.

Alderman from the 14th and then Alderman from the 9th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. First, I will make a motion that we embank Resolution 79.

Second. It's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alderman from the 9th that we embank Resolution 79. Is there any discussion on the motion to embank? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Resolution 79, I think we all have had our experience or at least a run-in with somebody who have served our city very well. As we know, last week, Mr. Gary Stoff left and he got his wings and went off to heaven. I do want to read kind of one little section of this resolution, talk about Somebody who's been dedicated, who has served this city for over three decades, that was Mr. Gary Stoff, who was the Republican chairman of the Board of Election, or commissioner of the Board of Election. But whereas Gary Stoff donated nearly three decades to the administration of elections in the city of St. Louis, he was first appointed chairman of the Board of Election by then-Governor John Ashcroft. In 1989 and returning in 2021 to serve as a board Republican director, a post he held together with a period as deputy director continuously from 2021 upon his death, making him a fixture of bipartisan board of election commissioner for a generation of the city of St. Louis. I actually had the opportunity to first meet Mr. Stauff when I first ran for committee man back in 2016. And he was a wealth of knowledge, but also a very kind and gentle gentleman. Anytime I walk in his office, it was a lot happening. And as I've heard, he seemed like he was the archives of the Board of Election. But I always enjoy being able to go to the Board of Elections and just being able to have a conversation. I wish Mr. Stoff, like I say, he was always just very helpful, very sweet, very kind. He probably was a Republican director or director. Yeah, the Republican director commissioner. But that didn't stop him, regardless of being a Democrat or Republican, helping out. And I think that, you know, it's going to be a very long time to the board of election find such a person as him. And I want to to all his family members. just send my condolence as well as the Board of Aldermen we all signed on as a co-sponsor, our condolence to his family and just thank them for allowing us to have such a gentleman who served our city very well. So to the family of Gary Stoff, you have my condolence and pray for you. And it was an honor to be able to get to know him and just so thankful for all he's done for the city of St. Louis.

Alderman from the 9th.

Thank you. Thank you, Alderman from the 14th, for bringing this resolution and to all my colleagues for adding themselves as co-sponsors. Similarly to the Alderman from the 14th, I met Mr. Stoff when I first filed for office, and he sat down, he helped me figure out the paperwork, which isn't the most clear thing sometimes, and he just was so I think all the words in this resolution say it well. He was gentle. He was kind. He was the kind of person who really wanted to help our democratic process work. And when I heard that he had passed, I couldn't believe it because it's just one of those fixtures down at the Board of Election Commissioners that it's going to be hard to walk in those doors and not see him there. uh so i just echo the sentiments my condolences to his family uh just know that gary was well known by many people and and loved by many so sorry to see him go but happy for the the good that he did while he was here any further discussion any further discussion

Alderwoman from the 10th. May I please be added as a co-sponsor to Resolution 77?

Mr. Clerk, please make note of that.

So noted.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by Alderwoman from the 1st.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I missed the first little bit of the alderman from the 14th marks, but I do want there are services for Mr. Stoff later this week on Wednesday at 10 at St. Stephen's in the first ward. So I hope to see you all there.

It's been moved by the alderman, alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we adopt the courtesy resolution calendar. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Announcements.

Tuesday, July 21st. There's a Transportation and Commerce Committee at 9 a.m. It's a webinar. Legislative and Rules Committee at 2 p.m. Webinar. Thursday, July 23rd, there is a Personnel and Administration Committee meeting at 11 a.m. and a Health and Human Development Committee meeting at 9 a.m. That's a webinar. And then Friday, July 24th, a full board meeting here in the chambers.

I would, before we proceed to other announcements, ask if we would all stand for a moment of silence for Gary Stoff. Any further announcements? Any further announcements? Alderman for the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, today is a very special day for a special person who is in the chambers today. Some of us may know her as a former legislative assistant of the Ninth Ward. Some may now know her as the policy Deputy Director for now, Mayor Spencer, with Casey, or I know her as somebody who I tease and she tees back, and we both get on each other's nerves. But today is Caitlin Smith's 25th birthday, so if we could give her a happy birthday today.

Any further announcements? Alderwoman from the 6th.

Thank you, Madam President. I would like to announce a legislation and rules hearing for 2 p.m. on Thursday. Webinar.

Any further discussion or any further announcements? Seeing none, Alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to excuse.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. All members are present this morning.

Alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we adjourn until Friday, July 24th, 2026 at 10 a.m. in the Board of Alderman Chambers.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th that we adjourn until Friday, July 24, 2026 in the Board of Aldermen Chambers. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We are all adjourned except for the Alderman from the 14th.

Let's get it done. Let's just wait here to plan immediately.