Housing, Urban Development and Zoning - Regular Meeting

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

Alderman Cohn.

Present.

Alderman Schweitzer.

Present.

Vice Chair Sonnier.

Present.

Alderman Browning.

Present.

Alderman Aldridge.

Present.

Chairman Clark-Hubbard.

Here.

Okay, we have six present. Have a quorum.

Right, with that, I'll accept a motion to approve the minutes from Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026. So moved.

Second.

It was moved by Vice Chair Saillet and seconded by Alderman Aldridge that we approve the minutes from Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonia.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich. Aye. Chairman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

We have six ayes. Motion passed.

All right. With that, we successfully approve the minutes. Alderman Sweitzer, you're recognized on Board Bill 49.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. Today, we are continuing the discussion of Board Bill 49, which is data center regulations in the city of St. Louis. Over the last week and before then, while we've been discussing this as a community, it's come to my attention that some of the aldermen, when discussing how they plan on voting on this and talking about the use of data centers, just had a lot of questions about exactly why the micro standard and major data center categories were all outlined and why such different requirements existed for each category. As many of you may know, the data centers that are currently in operation in the city of St. Louis most regularly fall under the 10 megawattage of usage category in terms of megawattage. So the data centers that are coming to the city and coming really to the region and world for permits now are often looking in the standard and even major category. This is quite a different energy use, quite a different land use than what is currently happening in the city of St. Louis now with the data centers that exist. And so that's one of the reasons that it's broken down in the way that it is. So in order to make sure that we are all in the same, you know, operating with the same amount of information, the same pieces of information, I asked our sustainability director, Alicia Russell, to talk a little bit more and put it on the record here at the Board of Aldermen about the differences in energy. what we're talking about, especially in context of the city's adopted sustainability plan. Unfortunately, it needs to be said that expanding data center use in the city of St. Louis will already, no matter the size data center, put us in the wrong direction of our sustainability goals. That's where we are. Even with all of the renewable requirements that we have in this and the amendments that we're looking at today to help streamline some of those renewable requirements, any expansion of this use puts us in the opposite direction. And I think we really need to approach this topic with that understanding. This is a very serious thing to go through. in the opposite direction of what we should be trying to do for our climate goals. And I understand when we're making decisions in the city of St. Louis, we're making decisions about a lot of different types of goals. People here today might talk about job creation, tax growth, development, all of those things. But at a certain point, we have to make sure that the goals for our environment and our energy use are just as important, if not more important, than some of those things. So in order to set the stage for that conversation, I'd like to have Alicia Russell give a presentation. Thank you.

Thank you so much and good morning. Thank you for having me. My name is Alicia Russell, Sustainability Director for the City of St. Louis. I'm housed in the Planning and Urban Design Agency. So the Alderman asked me to kind of create a short presentation information on data center energy usage to kind of put in perspective how much power these use and how that relates to our climate goals. So I'll go over briefly a little bit about Ameren's service area energy mix, scaling renewable energy, data centers versus traditional industrial commercial uses, pollution comparison, what this means in terms of our city's community, greenhouse gas emissions, and how can we mitigate some of these challenges of increased energy demand. So in Ameren, Missouri's territory, I mean, that's where all of our energy for electricity comes from. So all utilities have to meet growing energy demand needs, including from data centers. So that means new power generation and transmission infrastructure. And most of the time, customers or the developer, they pay for this transmission cost. But new energy generation costs impact all rate payers. So new costs for new gas plants or power plants, that's shared across rate payers across anywhere in Ameren's territory. And Ameren's current renewable energy mix is not quite ideal right now. So they do have great renewable energy programs and a variety of those, but there is limited supply in the current mix. Currently, there's about 12% renewable energy online in the form of wind and solar. And they do have a requirement by the state to get to at least 15 percent renewable energy within the next few years. And they also have an integrated resource plan that gets updated every three years where they put into place like this is what we're planning for in terms of generation. And this is how we're going to achieve it. So their current preferred resources plan has about almost 60 percent coal right now. with that number not reducing down until 2040. And that's when the Labde coal plant would be fully retired. So there's still quite a ways to go in terms of cleaner energy on our grid and then kind of moving away from those heavy fossil fuels, which add so much to our emissions. So when we think about renewables at scale, solar and wind are not constantly deployable like gas power, like they can't turn on a plant right away. You kind of hear some things like the sun doesn't shine at night, et cetera. But there's also like a factor to consider. So based off how much energy wind or solar is actually capturing at the moment, there's like this 25% factor for solar. and 33% factor for wind. So for example, a 25 megawatt data center would need 100 megawatts of solar to be powered 100% of the time by solar or 75 megawatts of wind. So while we would think we need 25 megawatts of solar for this 25 megawatt, facility, it's actually four times the amount. And then that takes up a lot of space. So one megawatt of solar requires about five to 10 acres of land. And a megawatt is equivalent to what we have on the IKEA rooftop. And solar is also pretty quickly deployable. So if all approvals go smoothly with the state, solar can be built within less than two years. So when we think about how much power a data center uses, it's not like your typical commercial or industrial use. A typical data center uses 10 to 50 times more energy per square foot than a commercial office building. And if this were like a large hyperscale data center or AI data center, it could use 20 to 50 times more energy per square foot than a hospital. And all this depends on the server density itself, how much processing power is happening. And of the city's largest energy users, based off our building energy performance standards, those are typically hospitals and grocery stores, and they're considered commercial uses. And then also through our building energy performance standards, that requires a benchmarking component, and it's actually recommended by the U.S. Department of Energy that data centers do benchmark their energy using Energy Star Portfolio Manager. So how much power is this? So for example, a 30 megawatt data center is the equivalent of maybe 22 to 25,000 homes. It's use in energy. And the size of that, if we compare that to a typical office space, is 13.7 million square feet of office space, which is like double the size of the Pentagon. So that's very, very large. Or it's the equivalent of 73,000 electric vehicles driving 12,000 miles per year. So the 30 megawatt data center is more comparable to like a medium-sized chemical or manufacturing facility based off energy load, but it's important to note that chemical plants use other forms of power like natural gas or steam rather than strictly electricity. So here's another little comparison chart. How big is that data center? A 1 to 5 megawatt data center is using as much power as maybe a regional hospital, where a larger co-location data center, 5 to 20 megawatts in demand, is similar to a university campus. So what does this mean in terms of pollution? So data centers don't emit pollution from typical industrial plants, like with smokestacks. Those are the direct emissions that we see. But the emissions mostly are indirect coming from the energy generation process itself, so from the power plant. So right now, our energy mix has 60% coal on it. That's where we're going to get a lot of our emissions from if it's not powered by clean energy. However, the direct emissions or local pollution and what people experience is coming from the generator use, whether that's from testing or because of emergency use, and that could be nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, noise, and odors. So the emissions from generators really just vary on when they're used and when they're tested and for how long. So for example, if tested for 15 minutes at full capacity, a two megawatt tier four generator is similar to having like a parking lot full of cars idling for 15 minutes. And that's if this isn't an extreme example where they're testing at full capacity. I'm not sure if they, you know, might test at half capacity or not. It really just depends. So when we think about our emissions within the city, our emissions from industrial buildings based off our 2023 greenhouse gas report, industrial buildings alone accounted for 13%. Buildings in entirety, which is industrial, residential, and commercial, was 74% of our emissions. And this is based off Ameren's current energy mix, like a rough comparison, 120 megawatt data center running at full power demand for like the whole year, could account for upwards of 8% to 9% of the city's community emissions. So this really varies on usage, like how much power is a data center using per hour and what is available on our grid in terms of what time of day. Is it more coal? Is it gas? Is it renewable? All these things fluctuate constantly. When we look at our emissions goals, we have a goal to get to carbon neutrality by 2050 with a first step of getting to 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Right now, with business as usual, we don't change anything. We just keep going. We're looking at 1.51% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per year. So business as usual will only get us to 50% of that goal. So in the face of data centers, there's an immediate need to deploy emission reduction strategies at scale. Because like the older woman said earlier, I mean, as these large energy demand, you know, large energy users come online, they are kind of pushing back our climate goals at the same time, imposing other risks. So when we think about as energy demand and costs are going to continue to rise, especially from data centers, we have to activate more reduction strategies. So one consideration could be to drive energy investment toward households and small businesses where we consider households part of the energy infrastructure. And that investment could be in the form of a dedicated fund from data centers or large energy investors. via tax revenue, community benefit agreements, public impact agreements, whatever that may be, to actually mobilize energy upgrades for residents and business owners. So then we can reduce the energy burden on our owners and renters, help mitigate local emissions, stabilize the grid, and help protect residents from rising energy costs. And this is one of the key strategies that hasn't quite been adopted yet, at least in our region. based out of the Rewiring America report. So this is kind of all I have to share, but hopefully it helps put the amount of energy that data centers use into perspective. Thank you.

I'll just see if any colleagues have any questions for her before I comment. Thank you. I'm sorry, Alderman Cohn raised his hand. Go ahead, Adam.

Good morning, neighbor. You went through the slides pretty fast. I'm curious, would you mind going back through? I don't recall which specific slide it was. It was probably about halfway through the presentation. But I feel like a lot of the comparisons that were being drawn were between homes and office spaces, which this would probably be more akin to manufacturing or storage facility or refrigerated storage facility. And I thought I saw you were only on the slide for that one. So can you maybe walk through this slide a little bit more in terms of what we're supposed to take away from this?

Yeah, I mean, I found this from a municipal co-op electrical utility in South Carolina, and I thought it was pretty helpful to kind of break down the scale of size of data center, you know, how small or how large it is and how much power that uses compared to what we're more familiar with. in everyday life. So one to five megawatts could be like similar to a regional hospital's power demand where we have data centers upwards of 20 megawatts is similar to an automobile plant, university campus. And then greater than 20 megawatts, which could far exceed 20 megawatts, that's similar to a heavy industrial facility or even like a large airport. And it's because the computer server processing just uses so much power and that itself has to be cooled down and that in turn uses a lot of power as well.

So the alderman from the first tenor opening remarks was saying that this is not aligned with our sustainability plan and that it would throw us out of whack with those goals. I'm curious if we had a semiconductor manufacturer or a bio life science or pharma manufacturer that wanted to create those types of manufacturing facilities, which are not super job intensive either, in the city of St. Louis, how does that align with some of the statements that are being made around this? Would we not want those jobs and those industries in the city either?

I think in terms of energy demand, any large intensive energy user is going to affect our climate goals. And within the sustainability and climate plan, we call for policies around both large water and energy intensive users, like data centers, but not explicitly data centers. And then we also call for including manufacturing, industrial, and data centers in our building performance standards in terms of benchmarking so we can understand more about their energy demand and what that plays a role in our greenhouse gas emissions.

Do you, this is going to be a fairly specific.

This slide I think is really important. Emissions from industrial buildings account for 13% of the city's total community emissions. Just one single 120 megawatt data center running at full power would be 8 to 9% of the community. So the total industrial makeup, 13% of the city's total emissions. One data center at 120 megawatts is 8 to 9%.

But I think what's missing out of that conversation, though, Alderwoman, is that our industrial footprint has shrunk significantly over the last 50 years. And we had, you know, auto manufacturing here in the city of St. Louis, we had large breweries in south st louis north st louis that now sent empty we have multiple hospital sites that are now empty uh depaul hospital in north st louis the old st luke's hospital that was just rehabbed into residential we have the old south city hospital we have the old st alexis hospital we have the old uh you know uh paint uh you name an industry in the city of st louis it's almost all non-existent right now but you know i guess where you know my concern is is so we keep seeing that industrial footprint shrink and our population shrink along with it and we're making comparisons to you know what seems like apples and oranges with this conversation and so i'm a little bit perplexed why um So are you arguing that we should remain static in terms of the amount of industry that we have here in the city of St. Louis?

No, I'm not arguing that. That is why there's such different standards between the micro data center and the amount of megawattage, which is 10 and below for that specific size. And then once you go from 10 to until 30 and then 30 and above. So as was on the slide that Ms. Russell showed, there is a significant difference in what kind of energy is produced with those different categories.

I'm curious, since you're at the podium, Alderwoman, we just recently passed tax incentives for a manufacturing company in your ward. Do we know how that impacts our sustainability plan as well?

Right. As I just said, the difference between a typical industrial use, as was shown on the slide that Alicia had as well, is a lot different than what we're talking about here for data centers. This is why there's three different categories in the

No, I'm trying to get some perspective here, Alderwoman, though. So, like, you know, the facility that we just approved incentives for, you know, what's their power usage?

I will ask them that. They are subject to the building energy performance standards, so we can get that from them, which this bill also requires the data centers to have to report that information for new uses. Okay.

I appreciate that. I'm just kind of trying to, again, like gain some perspective here. So, you know, if they were to grow their footprint and go above a certain amount of power usage, are we going to regulate them as well?

I'm happy to do that next with you, Alderman.

I'm just I'm OK. All right. I mean, that would just be, I think, helpful for me in these conversations.

I will happily get any information anyone on the committee asks for that is within my power to get. But this slide is really important to your questions regarding business as usual versus what our goals have been set. So when we think about these large users of energy, a major data center set, that is why there are different requirements and different standards placed on those because they are so much outside of the scope of business as usual. that this chart would probably change in the opposite direction for the red line. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Chair Roman, I think that's the end of his questions.

Okay.

Thank you very much. The other piece of the regulations, let's see if I can stop share. How do I stop this? Can a clerk help me just so this isn't up the whole time?

Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. So the other thing that has come up pretty regularly is the other regulations in the bill and how that those regulations would affect new data centers going in and why they're written the way they are regarding the site distance from other uses and all of the different categories about screening and different pieces that we have in here about each data center use and what they would have to do to comply. Recently, the city of St. Louis, before the executive order and resolution were in place that made all of the uses, all data centers conditional where they are conditionally allowed, there was a data center that was permitted by right. That data center is in the standard category in terms of the amount of megawatt is used and is currently under construction. That construction is flagging some of the reasons that we have written in these regulations about the site requirements and the distance from generators and the screening and all of those things. And so just to give some perspective about what that looks like in an unregulated state, I asked Ms. Ann Kitlaus of the Locust Business District, is that the right, to come and speak to their experience of operating near a data center that falls into the standard category that is currently operating without any of these regulations as in this bill for some perspective.

Thank you, Alderwoman. Before we get to you, Ms. Anne, I see Alderwoman Boyd has her hand up, so I want to see if her questions or comments were towards something that was already said, or did you want to wait until after the presentation, Alderwoman?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, I wanted to address what kind of piggyback on what was spoken before. And it was pretty fast. So I hope she does send those slides to us so we can review them. But I'm in agreement with what Alderman Shane said. And my question is, what you all are saying in regards to these data centers, have any of you all toured these data centers? Are you aware of what is going on? Because from my understanding, as you build and you keep going, they get more advanced. So what I'm hearing from all the woman twice or the person is coming on is talking about one that is it one that's already been built or is being built?

So good questions, I'll address different pieces of that. The data centers that we would have had the opportunity to tour in this region, to my knowledge, are in that sort of micro category in terms of how much energy they use. So they are five megawatts, six megawatts, seven megawatts. So a significant difference between some of these larger facilities that we're talking about once you get into the standard and major categories. They are significantly different in terms of the amount of generators that would be used, the amount of energy used, and so forth, the amount of noise. There's a lot of different things that could be considerations, which is, again, why the regulations are so clearly broken into micro, standard, and major, so that the effects of each of those uses would be the best regulated by the City of St. Louis. To your question about, what was your second half of your question, Alderman, if you don't mind?

And so what I've asked continuously, and I know pretty much everybody is aware that we have at least 13 data centers already in this city. So from the first one that was built up to present, how advanced have they become? And they have focused on these questions that you all are putting out there.

We have been in communication with the data centers that currently exist in the city of St. Louis and are trying to make sure that as these regulations are triggered for them in different situations that we are able to work with them on those pieces. But they are, to my knowledge, either planning some expansions of the amount of energy they use, new licenses, new leases, to come into their data centers to try to become you know, bigger uses. It didn't sound like any of them are done with where they're at and not wanting to expand further. It's a lot, frankly, easier for us to move forward with new data centers coming in and have these regulations in place for the new data centers and then conversations are also happening to figure out how these regulations would be triggered for currently existing uses and non-conforming uses. And I do expect to have an amendment a little bit later in the committee hearing after we hear from the public around that piece in particular. But to the question about how the data center that's being built currently in the city of St. Louis is different, my understanding is that they are in the upper... the upper level of the megawattage that is allowed in the standard data centers, so almost 30 megawatts. So a pretty significant change from what we are currently seeing in data centers that are currently operating. But Ms. Kittlaus will be able to speak better to that than I will, and she has some remarks prepared about just the, what it's, the experience, and I'll let her share her side of the story.

Okay, so my last question. So it's a Senate Bill 4 that was presented. How is this connected with that bill? How are they impairing what's already in Kansas City?

Sure.

That focuses on data centers and their restrictions, and they kind of did that up there.

That is largely related to the large load tariff. When a data center is using 75 megawatts or more, they're responsible for building more of their energy structure than if they're using less than 75 megawatts. That's one piece. Another piece of what Senate Bill 4 did is it undid some of our consumer protections. in that before Senate Bill 4, if a utility company wanted to build new energy generation, they would be responsible for paying for that, and only once it was online would the consumer have to pay for it. Unfortunately, Senate Bill 4 removed that, and so now any time an energy user is building a new nuclear power plant or a new coal-powered plant to power the grid, that will go on to our constituents' energy bills. before it is even in operation. So while it did make data centers larger than 75 megawatts have to pay more of their fair share, it made it that anytime a data center is built, anytime the grid is expanding, anytime they're doing massive overhauls to the grid and building new energy that serves the entire grid, now we have to pay for that before it is even online, which will cause our constituents' bills to grow at even higher rates than already. which is yet another reason why I think it is important here in the city of St. Louis to be very thoughtful when allowing these new users of large amounts of electricity into the city and into the state. Not that I have any control of the state.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Ms. Kittlaus, would you be able to speak to your experience? Thank you.

Welcome, Ms. Kiddhouse. Good to see you. Thank you.

I'm glad I got the memo on the blue and black outfits today.

Before you start, I'm going to have you raise your right hand. And then can you announce your name and your title and everything for the record as well in the beginning?

uh... my name is and kit last and i'm the executive director of the locust central business district otherwise known as the lbd thank you for inviting me to speak today on our experience with city based data center development in the absence of regulation For context, the LBD encompasses a large swath of the city's central corridor in downtown West and downtown. Jefferson Avenue splits the LBD between Alderman Aldrich's 14th Ward and Alderwoman Key's elevated 11th Ward. The LBD's City Commons neighborhood in downtown West is one of our city's fastest-growing commercial residential sports and entertainment districts, nearly a billion dollars in new development come to City Commons since Major League Soccer awarded St. Louis a team in 2019. In addition to the construction of Energizer Park, significant building rehabs include the Butler Brothers, the Victor Building, the Draper, Westgate Lofts, the Martin Building. Groundbreaking is near for AHM's major new mixed-use developments. As a business district, we had no general objections to the purchase of one of our historic buildings to become a data center, only some disappointment in the loss of more vibrant uses and employees to frequent local establishments. But when they started boarding up the gorgeous showroom windows, We wanted to get in touch to encourage utilization of the building's exterior for potential artistic or wayfinding purposes. I contacted the city planning office for guidance and learned that there really was no framework from the city for the data center's build out or operations. That was only three months ago. Since that time, the national and local conversation about data centers has exploded, and with it concerns among the locus data center's immediate neighbors about their unknowns and genuine alarm about what they were seeing, particularly the installation of rooftop fans across from a condo building's pool and barbecue deck, and installation of large ground-level diesel fuel tank within feet of another commercial building. The data center had been announced with some fanfare, but no initial community engagement. Community members knew nothing about what was being built and what it would mean for them. In that space and on our own, the LBD has opened conversation, navigating competing interests, skepticism, and an aggressive construction timeline. We are pleased that the data center developer has been responsive to our inquiry. We've spoken numerous times. They've met with me, the LBD's board chair, who also oversees the condo building across the street. the immediate neighbor and the leader of the downtown community improvement district who brings deep safety and security experience. Question and answer documents are being shared and safety protocols also shared. A tour is being scheduled. So far a fragile trust is holding and communication is proceeding. We're hopeful that this approach will continue to work. However, this is the role of government. What your committee is doing today is critically important if we're to incorporate data centers and other non-conforming businesses into existing and planned urban land uses. Based on our experience, City Commons stakeholders who are deeply invested in and excited about the activities in the neighborhood have shared with me the following recommendations, many of which are in your bill. uh... we believe that data centers in central business districts should be required to develop an ongoing relationships with immediate neighbors to share plans and navigate concerns activate ground floor spaces for office retail and restaurants meet or exceed noise and emission standards and restrictions on backup generator testing and use install visual screening of equipment to benefit neighboring ground level and rooftop patios provide landscaping and tree lawn plantings along public streets, and most importantly, and I don't know that you're really addressing this as well as you should, provide robust safety and security protections, alert protocols for onsite fuel storage and refueling operations. The same would go for future battery storage systems. Right now, cities are working hard to establish standards that keep pace with the industry. That change will only grow. The technology will continue to change quickly, and regulators' appetite for seeing that progress may diminish over time. For that reason, safety must remain the priority. The foundation of this type of regulation, past, present, and future, must begin with safety, particularly in densely populated areas. Then, back to our initial interest in bringing the building back into the neighborhood of vibrancy efforts, we will add a desire for installing and maintaining attractive pedestrian lighting and architectural uplighting on historic buildings to counter the warehouse look. contributing financially to neighborhood beautification and safety efforts, particularly if incentives have been provided, and limiting data center density and mixed-use business districts like ours. We do not, for example, want to see a data center strip mall on Washington Avenue or Del Mar or Page. If data centers are to be a value add in our business community, it is critically important that standards for their operation are in place to protect the health and welfare of community members and the vibrancy of our urban spaces. On behalf of the Locust Business District, I thank you for giving us this opportunity to help inform your policy and decision making. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's see if any of our colleagues have any questions by you being one of all the women as vice speakers. OK, Vice Chair Sanyet.

Thank you for being here today. I just wondered if you could speak a little bit more to the earlier part of your testimony where it seems like things were resolved because it seems like things were resolved because the developer was responsive, the data center operator was responsive, but could you speak a little bit more about the specific things that you are having to reach out to to get a response to? I just think it's really important that this bill encompasses a lot of potential regulations, and so I think it's really important to know, should this legislation be passed, what are the things that you wouldn't have to be relying on if a data center didn't go into your business district or your neighborhood? You wouldn't have to rely on a hopeful goodwill response, but due to it being a law, it would actually be a part of our regulations.

Yeah. I would say that the most important aspect of what we've done is just created dialogue. I don't know. And in some ways, I don't know exactly what the outcome will be. They are taking seriously the concerns that have been raised. assuring the community that noise standards and emission standards and things like that will be met. But without regulations, there's really, there are no requirements on those things, except what requirements already exist in state regulation and things like that. So I provide the list of things we would love to see. What they will end up doing, I think we're still in discussion about.

Thank you. I just think that's really important to put on record to my colleagues and I that without legislation in place and without any regulations in place, it falls back on community members, on individuals to ask for a response, hope that they get a good response. And I think this is a good example where this person was responsive. And certainly I have I would say a majority of my interactions have been very positive with developers or operators. But these things have such a possible impact on the neighborhood and the residents and the businesses that I just think it's another highlight to the importance of Board Bill 49 in making sure that we're not relying on goodwill and hope for things. There's actually a government that is regulating impact so that we don't have future circumstances or are able to avoid as much as possible circumstances where a person is prayerful for response and prayerful for noise, you know, standards and prayerful for emission standards and prayerful for water use consumptions and all these things. But right now, without regulations, it is a prayer because there is no actual mandated requirement by law that says as such. So thank you for sharing. You're welcome.

Thanks for the prayer. Alderman Browning.

Thank you, Ms. Kowals. It's good to see you. Maybe I didn't catch it in your testimony, but how large in terms of megawattage is that data center you're dealing with?

I think that they are allowed up to 27 megawatts in different, you know, if they, I mean, that's for their permit with the State Department of Natural Resources in more than one phase.

And what was the size of that diesel storage tank that they're installing?

The one that is in place is 30,000 gallon. It's very large.

Can you give us an example? How big is the 30,000 gallon tank? Is it like a minivan? How big is that?

I don't know, three minivans?

It's helpful context because I'm asking because when you look at the charts, that very informative presentation that Ms. Russell brought us, you really get a sense of the larger the data center, the more power requirements. And what happens when those power requirements are as large is that you have to have backup power that also meets that because a lot of these facilities cannot lose power. Otherwise, they lose their value. uh to the customer so that is something we're talking about not just the energy consumption while it is operating but also in case of emergency they have to have a certain amount of storage on site in order to run generators do they test the generators that are in the business district

Yeah, they have to test them to make sure that they're operational in case of emergency. So they've told us that it would be 15 minutes per generator. And if they've got five generators that, you know, the types of things that we've talked about is you know what are the hours that they're allowed to test because they will make noise uh... they have said that the noise will not be intrusive but they do it during business hours monday through friday they're not trying to interrupt anyone's sleep or weekend uh... and then we've talked about do is it preferable to do them all at once or to test them consecutively you know those are the types of conversations that the community is having with them, and they're listening, but it's a dialogue, and that, like I said, is really the role of government.

It's helpful to understand, because when we're talking about hyperscale or anything larger, I mean, 120 is four times the size of the data center you're talking about in this case. And so that's why these regulations are so important to get into place. To put a point towards what Alderman Cohn was talking about earlier about the decline of industry in our city, I think that there is a place for industry in our city. Just like someone's not gonna build their single family home on the North Riverfront, or down in Kosciuszko, like they're gonna try to, we have different zoning for different places, so that's part of these regulations, but I also recall back that this city used to be a lot more polluted than it is now. In fact, 1939, there was something called Black Tuesday, where they had to turn on the streetlights during the day because it was so thick of smog. So our climate goals, our energy goals, our environmental goals are all very important towards making sure this is a city that people can live in. And we have gone too far in the other direction. and so again i just remind everyone that like most regulations we're not going to make everyone happy today but we are trying to protect our city and our people and all the other types of commerce and industry that happens in this city and as we as we progress i heard alderman boyd talking about are these getting better they're certainly getting bigger. I don't know if they're getting better at energy consumption, but in the event that there is, and this might be a question for Ms. Russell, in the event that there is technology improvements in the future to where these facilities could become more energy efficient, is there a benefit to these guidelines being structured in a way that refers to megawattage instead of something else because we are allowing for future improvements in technology?

I think if I understand your question correctly, so if I... My understanding from data centers is as they become more efficient, it just means that they're better at using power for processing. So that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to use less energy in the future because they're making money off processing data. So if you're going to save money, you're going to want to process more data. So it's important that our regulations are tied to those megawatt caps or thresholds so then we're aware of how intense that use is.

so this these regulations and i've said this before the planning staff that really sought to understand this issue really dove into this and figured out what is the best way we can measure the metrics of these data centers and regulate them in a way that protects the interests of the city and megawattage in this case has been identified as something that relates to the, we'll call them external effects of data centers on our city.

Exactly, yeah. I mean, the more power it uses, like you said, the more redundancy generators, more backup power, all of that adds to our emissions mix, local, indirect, indirect.

Okay, thank you. Those are my questions, and I believe the other one, Boyd has her hand up again.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry. I wanted to follow up with Alderman Schweitzer because we were talking about city board before. I'm just trying to get clarity and I apologize because I am not the data center queen. I'm trying to understand this whole process and how it would impact communities. and benefit communities. But it's my understanding that Senate Bill 4 cannot be used for nuclear power. My understanding, it can only be used for natural gas generation only. So am I correct or?

I don't know about that.

Okay, because you said it was for nuclear, and so I'm reading the bill because I had to get it to get a better understanding. So that's why I was asking that question. It can only be given you an answer. It can only be used for natural gas. So the customer protection that you're referring to does not apply in the situation that we're addressing right now.

So I just want to make that known. Okay. If they're building new energy production to serve the entire grid because the amount of energy needed by the grid is increasing in a large amount, especially when thinking about these sorts of energy uses going in and the amount of energy that they're going to need in the expansion that will be needed in the grid in order to accommodate that, that energy production will be, the new plants that have to be built will be placed on, will be spread throughout the ratepayers and will be passed on as cost to the ratepayers. I can get you something from the Consumers Council on this if you would prefer. They are definitely the experts on that piece.

Okay, and I've been in conversation with them also, so thank you for responding. Yeah, thank you.

Alderman Aldridge?

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you, Alderman Swyser, for bringing this board bill forward and continuing the conversation on the regulation. I guess my question, I have one question for Russell, and then one question for Ms. Ann. Whoever wants to take it first. How you doing, Ms. Ann? Good, good. So the data center that you're talking about on Locust, that is at the tier point, and It sounds like, and I think the Alderman from the 7th said it right, it's good that we do have regulations. Sometimes you never know where conversations may go. It does sound like some of the conversations between the Locust business and SharePoint has been on a productive dialogue. With those diesel tanks, are those diesel tanks, and I'm not, you know, I'm learning about data centers. Like you said, three months ago, it kind of blew up, and I think we're all learning about it. And our planning commission has done a marvelous job of, I think, putting some very sensible regulations in place. Are those diesel, I guess, four minivans size, are they connected to the generator? Is...

Well, I'm not an engineer, but they are used to generate the backup power for the generators, yeah.

Have you heard the generators running at all since your time of them being there?

No, I don't know that they have been tested yet.

Okay, okay.

They were just putting some fuel in the tank just this week, so...

Okay. Because I was curious of the amount of sound with these, you know, running, and I know you're on locusts quite often on both sides of Jefferson, doing the work in the 14th and 11th of how loud, if you have heard them to run, how loud they've been. No. Okay. I guess my question for Miss Russell is, There's been conversation about, I guess, expansion, which I know we're gonna dive into that a little later with maybe some amendments around structure of some of these facilities. And did I hear you correctly that you said if a data center expands or upgrade their technology, it might not be, it's definitely gonna, you said something of like not efficient on the cost, but it's gonna produce more energy.

Yeah, so if a data center gets new technology, that may mean that they're processing data more efficiently, so they're putting more power towards processing that data. It may not actually change their maximum power demand or anything like that. They're still going to have electricity going towards cooling the facility. It might be a little less waste heat. We don't know because it all depends on how it's designed, what type of servers they have, and how it's running.

So it could be also it's producing more energy, but it could also be reducing on other ends. Like, none of the stuff we know, that's why the regulation, but it could be reducing because, you know, cell phones ain't the same, technology all is advancing, that maybe it's producing less water or it's producing less heat or it's producing less because... just like an air conditioner?

Yeah, it could be. It really depends on what their operations are. So if they had, I would assume, a max number of transactions that they're going to run and they get more efficient, then maybe they'll use less electricity. But if the goal is to make more transactions happen, to make more money, you probably... Oh, yeah, they definitely go...

They're going to push out more electricity and electricity as technology advances, there's more and more as we're on our Netflix and on our Facebook. They're getting us to want to be on more stuff. As you've been doing some of these, and thank you, and thank Miriam, I think she's in the room maybe. For planning, and I've already mentioned it, thank all women twice here and Sonia and the president's office for the intentional work that you guys have put into these regulations. No, they're not perfect. Hopefully we make some changes to get there as much as possible. Have you or planning any members of the planning department visited or took a tour of any of the data centers as the recommendations was being presented?

Yeah, we visited a facility out in Maryland Heights that was about three megawatts. And then they were planning to expand, I think, to like maybe add 10 more or something like that. Very high tech. Yeah, a lot of security. And then we also visited Netrality downtown as well.

Yeah, I had the opportunity to visit yesterday and learned a lot. And the reason I asked about the generators, because that was one of my concerns, because I sometimes go to Jack Patrick's. I walk down Olive, didn't even know the generator's right there. They turned it on. They told me they use a generator in the last seven years, probably a maximum of 10 hours. They only need to turn it on every blue moon to give it energy. And when it was turned on, didn't even know it was on. So I'm sure every generator is different. I am glad that as we're making these recommendations, planning, who's really spearheading this, have also, it's one thing to talk about it, but it's one thing to actually, I think, also see it. And I think we all definitely want to get it right. So I appreciate the work.

Thank you. I don't want my boy.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm trying to learn this whole process. I was wondering, on the diesel storage tanks at AB, Barnes, and P&J, is there an order for their generators? Does anybody know? Autowarm and Schweitzer? Planning? Planning.

Do you mean like an ordinance specifically regulating their generators?

Right. Because they have generators also.

No, I don't believe there is. Again, I'm happy to work with you on the next legislation on anything else that we can do to make our city more sustainable. What's in front of us today is regarding data centers.

Right. I know what's in front. And so it starts with data centers and it goes on and on. And so that's why I was asking that question. So I guess I'm just looking at, I'm hearing these questions that's asked in regards to the data centers. And then I heard Alderman Aldridge was thanking you all that was sitting on this committee that brought this bill. So has any Northside alder persons been contacted in regards to this bill to work with them as a team?

I've reached out to every alder person on the board. and have been happy to take feedback.

I can only speak for myself, Ms. Weiser. I spoke to you after you created the bill, and then that's when we had the conversation. But when you and the president and planning was doing this bill, that's the question I was asking. Had anybody from North been contacted in regards to this? Because me, like Alderman Aldridge, I toured that site also. And so I just somebody just happened to reach out. I want to say it was the mayor's office invited us to take the tour. But besides that, nobody has reached out to say this is what we're looking at.

Yeah, these regulations were crafted over months of deliberation at the Planning Commission. And then what I introduced was what was approved, recommended by the Planning Commission.

So you're saying no, nobody contacted North Lake Lewis Alderman?

I guess that depends if people are paying attention to planning commission meetings. I don't think the planning commission historically reaches out to individual aldermen for their opinions. The aldermen who serve on that commission are Alderman Sonnier and I. We serve on the commission, and I'll let Miriam Keller, who's approached the mic, speak to any further questions there.

Yeah, I just wanted to share that planning staff, and this was before the final recommendations were developed, but we did reach out to every alder person to offer a briefing on the general approach, some of the questions we were exploring, and some of the feedback we had received from the community during planning commission meetings and in writing.

So again, as I'm telling you, as I'm telling both of you ladies, I didn't know anything about it. And when I got the call, the first response I got, we've been working on this since February. The next call I got said we've been working on this since September. So I just want to know the record. No, I did not know about it until Alderman Schweitzer brought it to me and said, this is what's going on. Thank you.

Thank you, and I do appreciate you attending the briefing with the planning staff. I appreciate you being part of that conversation with planning staff. When I said this conversation started at the Board of Aldermen in September, that is because our resolution, which passed out of this body, did direct the Planning Commission, along with Executive Order, of the same language, to work on these regulations. So that was... with our body kind of pushing that work forward. So at that point, the Board of Aldermen was involved, and then again, I do appreciate you attending the meeting with planning staff to learn about it before this bill was introduced.

I just had a quick question for Ms. Kittlaus. It's really quick. So what I know for sure is that people closest to the problem are most times closest to the solution. And between you and the subject matter experts that are in the room and you going through this process in real time, I know this is the moving target. I hope we have more time to work on the stuff that's coming through this bill. I know we even have amendments coming today. Do you see alignment in this in what your community has spoken about what they may need in the process and how we'll move forward in regulations for data centers? So do they, I didn't hear the... Alignment in the legislation here with what you all are going through right now?

Generally, yeah. I think that the list that I provided is very similar to the list in the bill. As I said earlier, I think that safety considerations need to be given more attention than are included in the bill. I think that we need to be... That that this committee should be more thoughtful about protections against You know some kind of You know I mean anything to protect you know having an energy source and above-ground fuel tank, future battery storage. My understanding is batteries could be very volatile. So whatever the energy source is, you just need to really focus your safety around that. And that's outside of other impacts of a data center, whether it's noise, vibration, odors, or whatever. whatever I think most people seem to put their focus on, energy use and water use and such like that, but really, if you have a data center in an urban mixed-use commercial area, you need to put safety first.

Thank you so much. That's what I wanted to capture as we continue to work on this. You know, it's going to have to ping pong back to the commission anyway. And the more time that we take on this to get it right, I think it'll be most impactful as we move forward. So I did want to capture it on record. I'm sure you've already shared the list, but if not, we can make sure that we share that list to not just our colleagues, but our colleagues in the planning commission as well.

And I'd also add that the data center developer is very receptive to those reactions and recommendations and are working on that actively.

Thank you.

Thank you all for your thoughtful questions and for hearing out some of the speakers here today. At this point, I would love to hear from the public, Madam Chairwoman, if we can move to that section of the...

Mr. Clerk, I apologize earlier. I said Madam Clerk. I didn't look over and see that we had switched out. If you all can turn everybody over online that may want to speak so they can turn their screens on. And everybody in the room that has signed up to speak on Board Bill 49, I'm going to swear you all in at the same time to save on that, having to do that individually. You can all raise your right hands and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. OK, that was in the room, and then we'll see. It would be the sheet for Board Bill 49. And so to keep from the delay, if there's a delay online, Mr. Clerk, we can go ahead and get started with people in the room. OK. When you hear your name called, please come to the podium. You can state your first name, your ward or affiliation with this legislation, and then proceed with your three minutes of testimony.

First one is Joe Delia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairwoman and members of the committee. My name is Joe Delia. I've owned business both wards four and six, and I am a proponent of reasonable data center oversight. I applaud the staff, the Planning Commission, and the members of this committee for working hard to find common ground because this is a very important and complex issue. It has become abundantly clear as I've sat through every meeting on this subject that it needs additional time for study and review. We have recently seen numerous changes and amendments that keep bouncing back and forth on very important issues, such as the renewable energy credits The percentages have changed three times in the last month. Even more concerning is that Ameren, the sole utility provider, is not committed to being able to supply these two data centers at the capacity they need. Producing 70 megawatts through solar renewable energy program means 100,000 to 140,000 solar panels on 350 to 500 acres of land. That's just not realistic. trying to push through unachievable regulations and bad public policy. The issue is too important to the city, which currently has a financial shortfall of nearly $1.2 billion in capital infrastructure needs over the next decade. I would encourage the committee members to put aside their personal feelings, be reasonable in their approach, and continue the discussion. The mayor's executive order is in effect and should suffice until this matter can be thoroughly and carefully studied. My concern is that if this is not done reasonably at your level, the slate legislature will intervene next year and pass laws that are much less restrictive than what you are proposing. Please don't try to pass something for the sake of expediency. This is far too important of an issue that it will affect the city for decades to come. And as Alderman Aldridge said earlier, we need to get it right. Thank you.

Tim Rinker.

Good afternoon. My name is Tim Brinker. I'm the Senior Policy Director of Greater St. Louis Incorporated, the unified voice of the business community, not only here in St. Louis, but in our 15-county footprint. I'd like to first start by thanking Madam Chairwoman and the members of this committee for your conscientious work on this important issue. I also want to extend my gratitude to Miriam Keller and the entire planning staff for their diligent work for nearly a year now on this framework. As the regulations stand today, there are six provisions we find problematic that will discourage data center investment in St. Louis and warrant reconsideration. Number one, the district buffer rule. The 300-foot proximity cap and 30% square footage limit are arbitrary constraints that don't reflect downtown real estate markets or current conditions. No over-concentration has occurred under existing rules today. Number two, the setback requirements. The 600 foot or over one tenth of a mile setback for major facilities and 300 foot for standard facilities eliminate viable sites. Restoring the previously proposed 300 foot standard would allow better align with realistic project economics. Number three, renewable energy mandate. Requiring 50% renewable energy pre-occupancy and 95% by year 10 exceeds regional capacity with a 25% local cap, compliance becomes prohibitively expensive and effectively blocks any and all projects. Number four, major data center definition. The 30 megawatt threshold is out of step with utility reporting standards. Also, the building size affecting the data center classification over power usage discourages adaptive reuse of larger downtown industrial properties. A 50 megawatt threshold would better align with actual impacts. Number five, retroactive requirements. Requiring existing facilities to comply with new standards discourages reinvestment from some of our most reliable community partners and imposes a fiscal detriment to those existing businesses. Number six, public impact agreement. Adding a separate PIA for undefined conditions after developers meet all established requirements creates post-approval uncertainty and undermines investor confidence. I'd like to thank you for these important considerations and as well as for your service to our beloved city of St. Louis. Thank you.

Nick Podsler.

Good afternoon.

My name is Nick Hartzler. I'm a first ward resident and a senior project manager with State City where we've worked on a number of these types of projects. I've spoken before you all quite a bit on this subject as well as before the Planning Commission. Hope to be brief. Generally speaking, as the Board Bill 49 currently reads and from what I understand some of the amendments that are being proposed today, it still remains a ban by another name, specifically when it comes to the renewable energy goals and requirements as well as the legal non-conforming discussion components of it. At many points throughout this whole process, It seems that the language for amendments just still seems to ignore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, those thoughts and opinions from the subject matter experts on the topic. And those experts not being myself, but more so planning staff, Miriam and her staff, and Director Russell, utility regulators, utilities themselves, and the city counselor's office. One thing I'll note from Director Russell's presentation was within the renewable energy discussion, there's a map shown of Ameren Service Territory, which does include both Missouri and Illinois. But as the amendments for local RECs would be defined, Illinois is not included in that. It's just the Missouri portion of their generation capacity. Otherwise, the Ameren Illinois Service Territory acts as if they are any other utility that is serving the Illinois or Wisconsin or any other MISO utility generator. Additionally, there have been many discussions on here about how just an assumption of fact that when data centers are brought online, that they automatically increase residential rates. Alderman Schweitzer, you referenced earlier, the Missouri Consumers Council, which when I looked at their most recent post that they've had, they said it's not that they will increase But there are other reports out there that do show that bringing online data centers can reduce costs. The chart that was shown that Alderman Cohn kind of questioned about how when we consider how certain different size data centers compared to other industries. That same report, which is from a South Carolina utility, goes on to say that these projects can offer tremendous benefits to co-ops and their members. We know from experience that adding a data center to our system can reduce the fixed cost burden on everyday co-op members. Our job is to help our co-ops achieve those benefits while protecting their members from risk. I can find a number of other reports that show onboarding data centers can reduce costs overall. So it's, you know, in one case we're referencing a report that says it may risk that others are showing that it can. So we just need to look at those facts and kind of take that into consideration. It's not a guarantee. So thank you again for your time. I told you I'd be brief. So I appreciate your thoughts and consideration on this.

Ryan Dybul.

Okay. Hi, my name is Ryan Dybul. I live in a county, but I work in a 10th ward. I'm also an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. The building of data centers in St. Louis benefits no one but the ultra wealthy and hurts the working class. Black and brown communities in St. Louis will take the brunt of the damage much like they did the tornado that hit St. Louis May 16th. The damage of which is long lasting and there has been little in the way of recovery. These data centers will result in the raising of rates on electricity and water that are already projected to increase by over 40% Not only that, they will pollute our water supply, our air, increase temperatures from an urban heat ion effect, and increase noise pollution significantly. People who live next to these data centers experience frequent migraines due to the noise. Data centers will siphon jobs out of St. Louis and replace them with AI before a projected financial crisis worse in 2008. The deranged US-Israeli war on Iran continues, costing billions in taxpayers' money, raising gas prices and exacerbating the cost of living. The US continues to fund Israel's genocide in Palestine, and there is no reason to believe that these hyperscale data centers won't be used for war. There is no reason to believe that they won't be used by police and ICE to surveil and terrorize us and our friends and neighbors. There still has been no transparency from the developers of who the end users of these data centers will be. These data centers are widely unpopular. Anyone with even a surface-level knowledge of what these things are and what they do know for a fact they will be hurt by them. Hyperscale data centers, like the one the Board of Public Service approved to be built in the Army, can and should be regulated out of existence. Do right by the people. Do everything in your power to shut these data centers down. You have no other choice.

Christian Simpson.

OK. My name is Kristen Simpson. I'm a nurse practitioner. I'm here with a focus on community protection. And I want to just take some time talking about that. I fully recognize that there are 12 existing data centers. And as a health care professional, I understand the purpose of those for health care system. So my focus is just making sure that we are honing in on policy creation with the communities that are most impacted in mind. So I am a family nurse practitioner, nearly 20 years of experience in health care, public health, and leadership. I was born and raised in Ward, in St. Louis, and owned property in Ward 13 and practiced in Ward 10. Thank you for your intentionality with time creating the city's first Board Bill 49. However, I do think there's opportunities for regulations to be more explicit. As we consider these proposals, I also want to ask that we recognize the broader context in which these decisions are being made. St. Louis is still recovering from the devastating tornado that changed neighborhoods across our city. Over the past year, I have had the privilege of working alongside trusted community partners supporting families through that recovery. and I have seen firsthand how essential public trust and meaningful community engagement are. As residents rebuild their homes and their lives, decisions that may affect the health of their neighborhood deserve thoughtful planning and genuine public partnership. We cannot overlook the concerns being raised by residents when those concerns center on the safety and quality of life of the communities they call home. As a healthcare provider, my responsibility is to prevent illness whenever possible, rather than respond after harm has already been created. The same principles should guide public policy. Monitoring is valuable, but monitoring does not prevent exposure. Once a facility is operating, many environmental and public health impacts become far more difficult and more costly to address. For that reason, I encourage the city to require a comprehensive health impact assessment for major data center developments before approval. Health impact assessments are evidence-based tools that evaluate how a proposed project may affect the health of surrounding communities. They consider cumulative environmental exposures, anticipated noise, air quality, water use, heat generation, transportation impacts, and the effects on vulnerable populations. Looking at each project in isolation is not enough when some neighborhoods are already carrying a disproportionate environmental burden. I also encourage the city to strengthen several provisions as these regulations continue to evolve. Setback requirements should be better reflect emerging practices by increasing the distance between data centers, homes, schools, parks, healthcare facilities, and other sensitive land use. Distance remains one of the most effective ways to reduce continuous exposure to noise and other environmental Nighttime noise protection should include enforceable limits and no more than 50 decibels at nearby properties. Mandating acoustic enclosures for mechanical equipment and continuous public noise monitoring. Compliance should be measured by protecting residents' quality of life, not by comparing operations to an already elevated baseline. Air quality protection should include continuous public monitoring and strict limitations on diesel generator use outside of emergency situations. Water conservation measures should prioritize closed-loop and air-cooled systems, groundwater protection, and sustainable water management. Thank you, ma'am.

Your time is up.

OK. I'll send the rest of it to y'all because it's incredible.

Or you can finish that thought too, ma'am.

Thank you. Hazardous material and electrotronic waste should be managed using certified practices with transparent public reporting. And I'll say that again, transparent public reporting. Renewable energy requirements should include clear implementation timelines that reduce reliance on fossil fuel-based generation. And I'll just say this last line and I'll send the rest to y'all later. Transparency is equally important. I encourage the city to establish a publicly accessible dashboard of environmental impacts where residents can view and monitor data compliance reports and enforcement action in real time because public trust strengthens what information was readily available and easy to understand. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and I hope that you take these considerations into policy.

Thank you.

Elise Schaefer.

Hello, committee members. My name is Elise Schaefer. I'm from Missouri Coalition for the Environment and President 6. You've seen me already in the last week, so I won't belabor the points that I made then and sent in writing, but these regulations represent the bare minimum of environmental protections against the worst harms data centers stand to do. And those who see data centers as a panacea for the city's many woes should be excited to support regulations that will provide consistency, and benefit to the community for these projects that they insist are exactly what the city needs. I'd also like to mention that solar energy is the cheapest and fastest to deploy source of new energy on the market and there will be a lot needed in order to supply data centers and any diesel generators or natural gas generation to supply data centers anywhere in the state will crisis of environmental racism That is the asthma epidemic in St. Louis today. So thank you so much for your time. I hope vote for board bill 49.

Online panelists, Ben West, you need to be sworn in.

Can you raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. West.

Thank you, my name is Ben West I'm a computer engineer living in the eighth word, I wish to thank the committee for providing providing this opportunity to speak on board bill 49. This bill goes to considerable lengths to define safe guidelines for hyperscale data centers but significant gaps remain. I have also written comments with citations application requirements only mandate and environmental impact study from a third party professional while requiring a credential professional for the economic study. Jefferson County recently passed regulations even requiring the applicant pay for an environmental engineer chosen by the county. Board Bill 49 sets a dangerously low bar for assessing the environmental effects of facilities that are widely known for substantial emissions. I will demonstrate with the proposed Market Street data center as an example. The Market Street facility will exhaust an estimated 100 megawatts of waste heat at full load. Its permit application suggests part of its cooling plant will be built right at the property line on market. Before I continue, I must also highlight the lack of accurate information about this facility is also part of the problem. It makes environmental impact impossible to assess impartially. A credentialed and unambiguously impartial study with publicized results would not have this problem. The dry cooling system proposed for the Market Street facility may be exhausting heat at 2000 watts per square meter or more, blowing up to 130 degree heated air aloft right next to the sidewalk. There is no way for these emissions to dissipate before crossing a property line mere feet away. A new study from ASU now reports waste heat measured up to 500 meters away from this scale of data center. These emissions would add to the existing 10 degree urban heat island, which SEMA already warns us about. Indeed, just yesterday, it measured 100 degrees in the Goodwill parking lot when the downtown airport recorded 90 degrees. Heat-related deaths are increasing nationwide, so ratcheting up the heat island effect will have predictable, grave consequences. These consequences are what a credentialed and unambiguously impartial environmental study would make known. Board Bill 49 also only mandates annual reporting of heat and noise emissions and with the heat simply self-reported. These extremely lax requirements provide the city no meaningful opportunity to learn of potentially hazardous conditions in a timely manner. Data center operators will be continuously aware of their facility's heat output since it relates directly to power consumption. Please update the section so that operators report noise and heat monthly and with heat emissions vetted by appropriate professionals. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Drew Falvey.

Hello. My name is Drew. I am from the Ninth Ward. First and foremost, I'll say I am in opposition. I don't think that we should have data centers. I don't think that we should have regulations. I feel like if we do put regulations in place, it will only affect the ecosystem, and it will affect people around it that live around it. I live within a 25-mile radius from the proposed site of a data center, and as a person who is hard of hearing and has a disability, I feel like it affects me as well. Loud noises tend to hurt my ears, and I tend to get headaches and migraines from loud noises. And honestly, I feel like, if anything, it should be recognized that there are people who have hearing loss and will suffer from more of the noises. Thank you.

Matt O'Leary.

Good afternoon. Thanks for allowing me to testify. I am testifying on behalf of the Washington Avenue Community Improvement District. I'm the Executive Director. I testified last week and wanted to update you on some things that have happened since then. A lot of progress has been made related to the issue of non-conforming uses in existing data centers. Alderwoman Schweitzer invited a lot of the stakeholders to a very important meeting last Thursday. made a lot of progress the parties worked extensively over the weekend and amendments were exchanged yesterday alderman schweitzer also invited the various coalition partners as well as city staff to a meeting today at 10 o'clock and significant progress was again made we are on the right path good faith is being showed by both sides and we appreciate that from city staff as well as alderwoman schweitzer and the hud's committee but we're not quite there frankly we made a lot of changes to amendment four today and i don't even fully understand what's in there um just because it was handed to me by caitlyn about 20 minutes ago and i've been listening to this we need a little bit more time in order to get across the finish line make sure we know what's actually in the amendment so i'm asking this hud's committee to give us a little bit more time and hold on amendment 4 as well as board book 49 so we can complete the process and get to a mutually agreeable deal thank you for your efforts online panelists melinda long

And before I swear Ms. Long in, I just want to reference that like Ms. Kristen who gave those amazing comments that some things that we haven't even heard before. Thank you. There is opportunity if you don't finish your comments to email them in when they're emailed in to the clerk. Then not only are they shared with the entire HUD's committee, but then they're in a drive for the entire board for us all to work on as we continue in this process. And that is boaclerk at stlouis-mo.gov. So B-O-A-C-L-E-R-K at... stlouis-mo.gov. Please email them to the clerk or email them to one of us and ask us to email them to the clerk. That way we ensure that all of our colleagues are privy to them. Thank you. Ms. Long? Yes. You swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, panel, for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you again regarding the data centers. Of course, the panel, you are aware that I am against any type of data centers. I'm just going to break it down to you. Data centers are the prelude to AI, which also leads to the ability for big manufacturing companies to To build cars to build other types of machinery, but I will tell you this panel let's break it down to you data centers and not buy food and not buy clothes and not buy a house and not a property taxes. can't purchase anything. The mayor speaks all the time. She speaks continually about how she does not want to see any additional people to leave St. Louis. But the fact that you guys are continuing to speak about the data centers without Talking to the citizens, the registered voters as a whole, is a violation of your operations, period. On the St. Louis City website, there is a pyramid on the website. And at the top of that tier, who is at the top of the tier? No ma'am, no panel. It is not the mayor. The person, the individual, single and or plural, the individual who is at the top of that pier is the citizen. Again, it is on the St. Louis City government website. So if you guys, the panel, is following that pier, then if you were following that pier, then you will listen to not just Melinda Long, but you would have listened to any and every one of those individuals who came before me, who spoke against the data centers, one who had sat before you, and all the other panels related to the data center. Any other issue, any issue that will affect the citizens, registered voters, property owners who pay utility bills, who pay you the water bill. No, no, sir. We do not want meters. We do not need meters on our homes for the water bill. But most importantly, your panel, you are setting yourselves up for a class action. Because again, all we have to do is look at your website. The website says at the top of that pier, At the top of that pyramid, it says the citizens first. That's why I continue to state to you, if you want to do these data centers, You had to bring it to the people. Put it on the ballot. At least do that. But none of you guys are doing that. I understand we have about 300 plus thousand residents within the city of St. Louis. Let's break it down to half of that of those individuals who are registered voters. Have you paneled? Just look at yourself. Reflect. Have you actually sat and talked to That many people regarding these data centers, no ma'am, no sir, no panel, no you have not. So I encourage you to just stop this data center altogether. St. Louis City need not be the dumping ground for types of businesses that all of our neighboring municipalities don't want. Vestas doesn't want it, St. Charles doesn't want it, St. Peter's doesn't want it. So many communities do not wait. I mean, we don't even have to go into the number of miles from a data center. There are thousands of reports that state that anyone who lives within a 1.6 mile radius of a data center, they have a high probability of developing cancer.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay.

But again, again, you are setting your follow, follow, follow, the pyramid guideline that's on the St. Louis City's website. The citizens are first before the mayor and with his or her executive orders before this older person who is introducing This board bill, because bottom line, before it's even come out of your office, your panel, it will already be obsolete. It's like a calculator. It's like a computer. Once you purchase the computer, it's already obsolete. Thank you very much. You have a good day. Thank you for letting me speak today. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Long. By you being a former Alderwoman, I know you fully understand this, and I just want to put this out for people that may be watching. I know all of us in here understand it, and the people that have engaged in this process up until this point understand it. But just in case somebody might chime in on this live. and pick up on a clip. Want to make sure that people understand this. Board Bill 49 does not approve or disapprove any specific data center. It is only creating a platform and a pathway to regulations to for the very protections that you're talking about, Ms. Long, on the top of that pyramid. And we do, many of us have received countless phone calls. We see all the emails. Even if we don't respond to every one, we read them. They're in our inboxes and in our... And so again, the time that's been taken here and will continue to be taken has been reflected today is doing just that, making sure that we are listening. And again, not to approve or disapprove or start the process, development process on any specific data center. This is just a pathway to regulations for those very protections. So thank you, Ms. Long, for uplifting that.

Roslyn Addison. Justin Eidelberg. Gwen Cockshell. I'm sorry. Sorry about that.

It's OK. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you, committee members. I'm Justin Nidelberg. I'm a 10th Ward resident, and I'm also a civic infrastructure executive and a 77th District energy liaison. And I need some clarification from the planning department specifically, because when I left here last Tuesday, I went to a planning department's meeting at the Omega Center on Goodfellow. And it was about the ammunition center site as well as the USDA rural site in development. I brought pictures and things of that nature. It talks about industrial, right? And we're going to talk about industrial this, industrial that, what we can't have. Let's bring up the economic justice development plan that you all like to talk about when it serves you all for whatever reason. Why do we have to be Limited, north of Del Mar, right? Nobody talks about sustainability in bi-tech housing, but there's a whole lot of talk about renewable energy for a data center that doesn't even have enough space on its grounds, right? I don't know where all the woman boy is at, but one of the things that I heard echoed from the elders was how do we get economic opportunities on these sites? The planning commission on these documents, I don't mind. Email them. I got some extra copies. This mug talks about advanced manufacturing, business corridors. Now, that goes against everything that y'all try to do in this quasi data center ban thing. Policy, right? And that's not fair to us. Where was the conversation about environmental impacts on Cortex? Nobody talked about that. They were happy this happened. But we got opportunities north of Del Mar bringing opportunity-rich career opportunities to young people who would love $100,000 career opportunities that could come from a data center, right? We're not going to get that right now because the policy that you all are trying to make around these regulations is also going to probably bring the Public Service Commission and the governor here because some of the other legislations that you all have already passed about, large load, infrastructure policies, you all are in threat of going against some of the other policies that some of your other committees have already approved. What are you all going to do when Josh Hollingham come here and say, we're not giving any federal funding to the north side because of this policy that stops economic growth in a place that we all care about, right? And I'm not just saying this from the north side, because deep south, they have industrial spaces that can be utilized just as well, right? How do we make this be a mutual, or as y'all like to call it, equitable benefit from this? You don't have to take my word. The United Nations and the Vatican sent me an email for my expertise to help them make their economic and AI policy. So all I'm going to say is, when can we do something that's of equitable benefit, not just to the data centers, but also from an economic and environmental lens that does not have to make us make the news and put our communities at a big disservice. This is all I have to say. I greatly appreciate y'all nice folks. Y'all have a great day.

Thank you. We're going to go to online panelists. Nadia Dalakaha, so if I mispronounce your name, you have to be sworn in.

If you can raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Yes, I do.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Hi, my name is Nadia Deletka. I live in Ward 10, Zip 63112. I'm a professional analytical chemist with experience working in municipal drinking water. In fact, I originally moved to St. Louis to work for the city's water department. And as a professional in this field, I just want to express my deep concern about the laissez-faire approach this proposed bill takes in regards to regulating data centers. As a member of this community, I'd argue that calling this approach laissez-faire is too kind. Rather, it's more akin to naive and grossly negligent. This is not the first data center to be opened, we have many examples to draw conclusions and learn from across the nation. Despite the notoriously secret native secretive nature of data centers and the developers. There have been plenty of peer reviewed papers published by experts that cover every blunder and oversight and consequence of data centers opening and being a massive drain on city resources. In Ashburn, Virginia, the DuPont-Favreau Data Center utilizes recycled gray water for cooling towers. In California, data centers have utilized technologies that do not rely on evaporating water to reject heat at all, rather utilizing a compressorless system, which improves both water and energy efficiency. These data centers have had to develop these means because California's government officials have put strict building energy efficiency standards into law. But is St. Louis following this example and protecting the city's people, environment, and resources? No. The proposed regulation is bare bones at best. There are those who stand to benefit from the granting of this permit that aim to convince you that the Armory Data Center will be a boon for our city. to line their pockets. This is our chance to protect our city before damage is done. These data centers collect and store mountains of data, and in a cruel twist of irony, they hold all of the information about their resource consumption close to their chest. We must demand transparency. As people have stated, Jefferson County mandates a credentialed environmental engineer to complete professional third-party environmental studies. But we do not. The proposed bill recognizes that a reliance on evaporative cooling would be wholly wasteful and a strain on the city's resources. But we do not enforceably limit the practice. Countless cities have required an official monitoring of the complete environmental impact of these data centers through means such as noise and heat levels. But we do not. Rather, we are meant to believe these developers will be self-reporting accurately. I repeat, these corporate interests want to abuse our optimism to line their pockets. Our potable water is valuable. The data shows a 15 megawatt data center uses as much water as three average-sized hospitals.

Thank you, ma'am. You have three minutes.

Bear in mind, most of these figures only track direct water usage, neglecting the many millions of gallons of water used in electricity generation. When you talk about consumption, do not let water escape the conversation. These data centers demand so much from us. It's time we start making demands back. Thank you for your time.

Next up is the panelists from online, Chelsea and Myrna Vossmeyer. Please be sworn in.

Chelsea.

Hi, older woman, older lady. Good to see you.

Sorry to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Likewise. Please proceed.

Absolutely, I do. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Chelsea Myrna Vosmeyer. I'm a property owner in the 1st and the 7th boards, and I am here in support of Board Bill 49. I've been listening to this hearing this afternoon, and I have a few observations. First, I find it incredibly ironic that some of the people who have testified before me were folks who were so vocal about supporting, for example, the platen petition process when we were discussing zoning regulations around transitional housing and shelter facilities. And those specific objections were related to not wanting to remove housing. the community's voice in those conversations and wanting to maintain that petition because taking it away takes away the voice of the neighborhood. But when the tables have been turned and the community is asking for regulations like those set forth in Board Bill 49, all of a sudden that's asking too much. I just find that kind of funny now because I can promise you data centers have a much larger impact on the surrounding community than a small transitional facility. We always hear that important legislation like this, that it's always rushed and that there's never enough time for people to look over the bills, but... This legislation has been in the process and before the planning committee for months, literally months. It's been a really long time that it's been in the works. It's not rushed. You've just not been paying attention. We need these regulations right now because in Congress, in the Missouri General Assembly, and even at this board, our elected officials have shown themselves to be too afraid to ban hyperscale facilities like that proposed at the Armory site, the 200 watt mega facility. megawatt data center um and what that means is without regulation these corporations who we don't even know right now are some of the you know some of the ones that are in the works we don't even know who they are but they're free to pillage our communities and make these wealthy landowners and wealthy california companies these wealthy out-of-state companies even wealthier When we look at other cities that have data centers like Memphis, like Georgia and Louisiana, all over the South, we don't have to question whether or not electric bills go up. We don't have to question whether or not water supply goes down or watering utilities go, those costs go up. People are telling us right now that this is happening. St. Louis is not unique in that we are going to suddenly avoid having these expenses, but you know, because the data center has promised that they will cover infrastructure costs. Consumers shouldn't expect anything. Time after time after time, that has been proven false. And like, I don't know how many more communities need to speak up across the country to talk about the increased cost of their utilities for us to finally understand that. Talking about water from the previous speaker, the West is on fire right now because we didn't get enough snowpack. And that means that our aquifers and our water systems are going to be depleted. And we have no regulations in place right now that dictate how much a data center can consume in the city of St. Louis. Water is not an infinite supply. Freshwater is not infinite. We do have a time frame on how long that resource will be able to last. And so I'm asking you to please pass this bill. Please adopt the amendments that are coming through to strengthen it. You are here to protect the people of St. Louis, not those who profit off of it. Thanks, y'all.

Victoria Chapman.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Victoria Cheatham, and I'm here representing Renew Missouri. We are an energy policy nonprofit advocacy group, and we work very closely with the legislature and the Public Service Commission and utility companies on energy policy in the state. And so my comments are coming from the perspective of what, on the clean energy requirements that are in the proposed bill. So Renew Missouri is in full support of this proposed regulation and represents a very excellent compromise between the realities of today's utility and energy markets and the capabilities of our local utility, Renew Missouri, and the sustainability goals established in St. Louis City. The ordinance strikes an appropriate balance in allowing data center development and encouraging investment in energy and ensuring that large new energy users contribute to clean energy resources needed to serve their demand. I'd like to point and address a concern that some have brought up, and this is the permitting that is allowed at 25% their anticipated electricity demand. Renew Missouri believes that this is a reasonable and necessary requirement. Data centers are expected to be among the largest drivers of electricity demand growth in the coming years, and it is appropriate that they contribute to the development of these energy resources needed to serve that demand. Importantly, the ordinance does not require facilities to achieve 100 percent renewable from day one. There is a ramp up period and instead the 25% requirement establishes a practical baseline that ensures developers have a meaningful commitment to clean energy from the outset. This requirement also helps reduce the likelihood that costs of serving large loads are shifted onto residents and small businesses. Historically, large load users have placed a significant role in financing new energy infrastructure, and their participation can help accelerate the deployment of resources needed to maintain a reliable electric system while accommodating this increased demand. Similarly, the proposed ramp-up period to 50% renewable energy within five years is a very reasonable expectation. The ordinance provides significant flexibility for compliance, including the ability to use bundled and during this transition period, allowing developers to secure long-term clean energy resources. I'd also like to note that Ameren built a 400 megawatts worth of solar within three years. So this is a very reasonable timeline. Finally, the timeline for achieving the 100% clean energy for 10 years reflects the practical realities of utility planning and energy infrastructure. Developing new generation does take time, but this 10-year goal is very reasonable. I'd like to note that Ameren and their IRP, which is their integrated resource plan, has these goals that Alicia Russell had pointed out, and they already are planning to invest in clean energy. There's also the existence of the large load tariffs, which offer clean energy riders for these developers. Thank you.

Gwyn Coxo.

Hi, my name is Gwendolyn Cox. I live in the 10th Ward, and I was supposed to come up here and show you the water, what the water looks like. I live at 400 yards from Mark Zuckerberg's massive data center. And this is how the water actually looks. And this is in Georgia water. This water is coming from a tub in Texas. And I'm going to put it so you all can see it. I agree with 49, because I think some of you aldermen are leaning towards passing something, going for these data centers, regardless of what we say. But if we don't have the right to consent, what are we talking about? Like we said before, you can't open a bar, you can't open a lounge without getting consent from the people. And I'd just like to say to Mr. Cohn, when he talked about all the hospitals that close in our community, Well, we used to have 850,000 people in the city of St. Louis. But of course, things were going to close. But the other things we don't have is we don't have grocery stores. We don't have. We don't have. We live in food deserts. You close our schools. And you did a lot of stuff on the city of Northside. Right now, after the storm, we have like 6,000 people that you can say now that they are homeless. I met a couple yesterday in EMOS, and they said that they, I don't know if they're paying for it or the city's paying for it, $3,900 one month. They've been there for a year. You do the math, 4,000 times 12. So it's a lot going on. And I have to say this. It's a building that was built in 1904. The population was 600,000. It was when the world's first came to the city of St. Louis. They built that building, Ms. Hubbard, right across the street from the Delmar Devine. That apartment building was built for the workers that worked. for the world's fair. That's when everything was fine, everything, we was working together. Then when the 70s hit, when most of us had two family homes on the north side, it was still 580,000. Now, with the team four which i think is being implemented all over this city it's like this i see you off going against each other now i didn't approve of a board autumn again split because i knew this was going to happen but i just want to close by saying that um our democracy is under attack and that although we don't you you all when y'all be doing those little things We are still watching online to see how you all are voting. And I know how you voted too. So I'm not gonna say it, but I know how you voted at the state level. So that's all I wanted to say and power to the people.

Kat Logan Smith.

Good afternoon, I think. Good afternoon. I'm Kat Logan Smith. I live in the 7th Ward. I have lived in St. Louis since 1995, and I had my child here. And my child is now grown up and is wondering when we're going to make this city what it should be and could be. And they really want to stay here and have a family and raise kids. But they're really concerned about whether it's going to be a safe and welcoming place for them to be. And so I'm here. to say, I like these regulations. I like the work that went into them. I like the heart that went into them. I like the science that went into them. I do want to echo the need to make sure that we have certified people verifying all the materials in here, noise studies, sound studies, air studies, all that, because if we want to employ people, let's employ people. Get some professional engineer requirements. independent certified professional engineers license certified folks instead of some vague approver or a vague verifier. What else do I have? There are some flaws in these regulations, but they're not enough to stop it as soon as we get consent. because consent is the core of it and a lot of folks have been working on this for a long time and for those people that have been putting blood, sweat and tears in this and not getting a dime for it, with no hope of getting a dime for it and no intention or desire to get a dime for it, they just want their communities to be able to say no. That's all, that's all they want. Because if you're gonna be bearing the risk of air pollution, asthma, health costs, discomfort, increased utility bills, you ought to be at least having the right to say no. And if they can come to the community and say, hey, you can put up with all that and we'll make it worth your while in here now, and really convince neighborhoods that that's true, fine. But until we get the real right to say no, we don't have the right to say yes. And so a default yes with conditions is not power. It's not democracy and it's not fair. So we need a right to consent. People need a right to say no. And if it's good enough for liquor stores and it's good enough for homeless shelters, Think data centers are the least of the biggest more important concern because the impacts of these things are huge and they're gonna add to our burden, and they're gonna undermine our investments. We've invested in parks, we've invested in health sciences, we've invested in healthy communities, we've invested in residential, we've invested in education, and we've invested in the Missouri Botanical Garden and ecosystems, and undermining that with facilities and other investments that aren't gonna pay back is kind of foolish, so that's all.

Adolphus Pruitt.

Excuse me, I'm a little upset. Got here early, signed up early, and getting called late, late for a very important meeting. I was supposed to be at 1. Then I'm sitting here listening to some stuff, a lot of foolishness, some other stuff, folks talking about what's going to hurt black and brown people. I'm the president of the St. Louis NAACP. I know what's going to happen with black and brown people out more than some of these other folks talking and stuff. Yes, really. I'm getting, you know, it's a little ironic. So let's be clear. I heard somebody mention something about AI. Let me tell you, AI is the civil rights issue of the future for black and brown people. We're not in it. It is here. It is not going away. It's going to dictate what the world economy is going to look like in the future. And the people that I represent are not in it, don't have access to it, and they need it so they don't be disenfranchised going forward. And somebody has to pay for it. The opera is gone. Ram's money is gone. The city is somewhat broke. The only place it can come from is the folks who are going to make AI possible in the first place, and that is the data center. And I believe we should be looking at data centers from the standpoint, yes, they should be regulated, everything should be regulated, but it should be done reasonably and smart. There's no way in the world you can sit up here and say we can't both exist, that we can't find a way to regulate and have data centers exist. and have the people I represent benefit from that and have the schools benefit from it. We talk about electricity and water. We did the research. There are industries in this city today that use way more water than any data center ever will and electric power. The city knows this. You sell them the water. So to sit up here and say that for some reason that data centers use more water and more energy than everybody else in the city and these plants and stuff, it's a lie. Now, if you don't want them, be truthful and just say you don't want them. But don't feel the people that I represent here is with some of this crap. You know, then I heard a person talking about the sustainability. Oh, my God. The thing was, hey, by the square foot, they use more energy. So if I took a 30 megawatt data center and took the panels and spread them out over a million square feet using more space than I need, now all of a sudden they fall into this good category as relates to cost per square foot. Because I use a smaller footprint for energy, and somebody use a footprint 10 times mine and use the same amount of energy, they're OK, because they spread it across more square feet. That's a game. We call that three-core molly. We want sensible, reasonable. regulations of data centers and people talking about liquor license consent, consent, consent. I agree. Let the property owners who had to live adjacent to the data centers decide whether they want them or not, just as we do with liquor stores. I don't need a regulation that prevents the citizens on one neighborhood for saying, hey, I can live with this, but you're going to tell them they can't have it and they're ready for it. I'm for regulations. We need data centers. They're going to be here whether we want them or not. And I'm definitely for AI and the fact that AI needs to be in the hands of black and brown people. I just left Nairobi. Nairobi, Kenya, is the largest user of chat GPT in the world. Everybody I got over there looks like me. And they're sitting in there, they're using AI, and they're coming up with all sort of fantastic things to solve the problems that are impacting black and brown people in the continent of Africa every day. People as young as 18, 22. We had a girl, young lady at 18, working on a program to deal with sickle cell. Had a guy, 24, came up with a world war for black women who were dying from maternal deaths.

Thank you, sir. You're three minutes is up.

Yeah, I know, I had to wait two hours to get three minutes. I'm sorry, Madam Chairman, but the shining sheet we had for some reason was turned over and it wasn't turning with the rest of them. That's why I went over there to check, so I'm upset about it, but hey, I will contact you all individually. I hope we can have a reasonable conversation about it, and I hope we can get rid of some of this clutter There are people throwing out here and putting in the minds of people, especially the people I represent, because they call and they say, hey, we don't get it because some of this stuff just doesn't make sense. And I told them, don't make sense to me. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Lauren Filler.

Hi. My name is Lauren Fila. I live in Maplewood. I'm the co-chair of the Eco-Socialist Green Party of Eastern Missouri, which represents the city of St. Louis. I don't think I need to reiterate that hyperscale data centers are extremely dangerous to people. They're dangerous to the environment. They're undoubtedly unlike any other type of development that the city has ever seen. And I'm here to be real about that. Data centers are not the only way for a city to make money. They're not inevitable. Basically, I appreciate the regulations so far, but there are some amendments that need to be made. We want a megawatt cap in all zoning areas. We want residents to have a say in the process, and we don't want it to be easier to open a data center in St. Louis than a homeless shelter. We should be listening to experts, and we should be listening to people that are directly impacted, that have been impacted, and their experiences. Harvard epidemiologists have said that hyperscale data centers will harm the most vulnerable residents first and will eventually harm everyone in the cities that they're in. Kayshaun Parson, who lives near the Memphis data center, has said quite clearly over and over, you do not want a data center in your city. Our own zoning department said in a recent meeting that when they were talking to other cities that have data centers What they heard back was that those cities were saying they weren't protected enough, that they felt like the regulations were not enough, so they were going back and trying to add to them. So I know everyone wants to pass something, but I urge you to do some amendments to make sure that what we pass is not leaving the city scrambling to repair the damage later, that it's strong enough to protect residents. St. Louis has a legacy of trying to correct mistakes after the damage is already done, and that correction is never enough. I do need to, again, pull up the map here of where the data centers would be allowed in this gray area and compare it to this red area, which is the city's highest asthma rates. Those are the areas that overlap, and I do want Alderman Cohen and Alderman Boyd to take a look at that. Thank you. Because I'd like to see the same amount of concern for you about residents and if they have the ability to breathe, as you showed when you were talking about residents' jobs and comparing it to the automotive industry. So I also want to know why the city creates these maps. Why do we do this? Spending the time to show how much people are suffering if we don't use it to inform the policy and the laws that are here. I've heard you talk about the tours that are done in the small-scale data centers. Our fight is not with them. What we're calling the major data centers, those are the hyperscale AI ones. They can use as much power as whole cities. The Armory Goodwill Data Center, that one building would use as much power as half of all the residences in the city. So if you add just one or two of those, you could easily have two or three buildings that use twice as much power as the city. That requirement, we don't have the grid for that. Because of that, it's perfectly reasonable that when you write regulations, you say something like something with this much energy use doesn't belong in the city. For that reason, I support what Alderwoman Ann Schweitzer has recommended, which is that regulations cap at 30 megawatts in all zoning districts. I urge the committee to support that. If we can't get a megawatt cap, we want a mechanism that gives residents... that are directly impacted an opportunity to say no. Not just an opportunity to be heard and then ignored, an actual mechanism that lets people say, I understand this and I consent to it, or I don't want it. We proposed a possible mechanism. I don't care if you use that. I don't care if you use something else. But keeping resident consent out of the process when it comes to something this unprecedentedly risky is not acceptable. I look forward to hearing an amendment from this committee for the megawatt cap, for resident consent. I want to hear something that will pass the full Board of Alders because you're our lawmakers. That's your job to deliver that for us. Thank you.

Online participant, Danny Kahn.

Mr. Kahn, can you raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Sure can.

Thank you. Please proceed. Oh, I'm sorry, Mrs. Kahn. I'm sorry.

Hello, I'm Danny Khan from Ward 2. I would like to reiterate, as I have before, that I am concerned about all data center development at this time in history in this mode of ownership development, particularly the end use and the end user. I would like a quick note of clarity about how to remove NDAs. Is that something that the full BOA can do? Which committees can handle that? I know zoning couldn't legally do so, so I want to have that answered if someone can clarify that today. because I would like to work on that if next BOA season or if that's something that gets amended at the last minute. Either way, I want to tackle that eventually. I support the bills 48 and 49 with the understanding that there is more work to do. I also advocate for a platen petition process for data centers, but I want to be clear that I do not think that this strengthens the process for homeless shelters. I do not want this process for homeless shelters. I think that creating a consent amendment would actually raise awareness to this platen petition process as we have demonstrated. So, pass the consent amendment and next session, I would love to work with you all on making it easier to get more unhoused shelters as well. We've seen my banners, you know, I'm good, you know, I'm great at spreading awareness and can help you carry the water as we, the eco socialist Green Party have shown that we will not back down from fights that don't have the votes. As far as data centers go, I don't believe that they will deliver on their promises. These regulations are a standard that they will have to innovate around. Let's not be guinea pigs. Let's not let Silicon Valley or the deep state into our backyards. Let's not poison our community for mythical revenue. If it truly is a good deal to develop data centers, it can only be a better, safer, more ethical deal later on with strict enforceable regulations and community consent. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jessica Yang.

Hello, my name is Jessica Yang. I'm a concerned resident of the Seventh Ward, and I'm a children's book editor. That means I spend a lot of time thinking about how we build a better future for the kids, whether that's through literacy or protecting the environment. This is why I'm asking you all to say no to data centers in our city. I appreciate that there are regulations being considered, but they are just not strong enough, and St. Louis residents should get a real say in what's happening. Allowing major hyperscale data centers, in theory, may sound like an exciting, flashy idea, but in practice, it is an environmental risk. Like, okay, there's a heat wave happening right now. Have you all stepped outside today? It is really hot and global warming is so real. The city should be investing in our communities and in reducing our climate impact for future generations, not investing in water and the air and raising folks' electricity bills. The impact of data centers is not a mystery, as other folks have said. People in other places with data centers have spoken out about what it's like living near one, the dirty water, the skyrocketing electricity bills, the constant noise pollution. Data centers are not popular, and that's for a good reason. You know who data centers are popular with? Tech CEOs and billionaires, the people who stand to profit and don't have to deal with the fallout. But here's the thing. Multiple tech executives from NVIDIA and OpenAI have been quoted admitting that it costs more to use AI than to employ human workers. Microsoft has started canceling its usage of Claude. There's been multiple reports on how bad generative AI is, and that's the kind of AI that's gobbling up all that power, how bad gen AI is at turning a profit. All the Gen-AI money is in this Ouroboros of tech companies investing in each other, and that money is not leaving the Ouroboros of exploitation to nourish real human community. So when everything is artificially inflated, that bubble is going to pop eventually. And when that AI bubble pops, do you really want St. Louis residents to be left holding the bag?

Edith Taylor. Aspen Gilliam. Ann McCullough.

My name's Anne McCullough. I first wanted to acknowledge the privilege it is to even be able to be up here during this time and speak with you all. Thanks for this opportunity. I'm a resident of the 13th Ward. I live in the Riverview neighborhood of St. Louis. I drive Hall Street and Riverview at least twice a day. I smell and see the pollution that continues to fill that area. And I have over 15 years of experience in community development here in St. Louis and Seattle, Washington. I'm here today to ask this committee, Board of Aldermen, and the mayor to please prioritize the health and well-being of the city's residents and our environment. I understand the city is struggling, our infrastructure is out of date, and we are experiencing population loss. Respectfully, Alderman Cohn and Boyd, data centers are not going to save the city. Alderman Browning, you mentioned North Riverfront as well as our city's priority of sustainability. I took part in the city's resident planning committee for the most recent sustainability plan. Do you know how many strategies or action items out of the hundreds in the 2013 sustainability plan were implemented? Four. This city does not prioritize the health and well-being of its residents or of our environment. That's a fact. Alderman Browning, you mentioned North Riverfront as if no one lives right next to that industrial area. Do those people's health and wellbeing not matter to you? In 2024, I took part in community meetings and communications regarding the impact of the incinerator across the river and the environmental justice for our area. Just within three miles of East St. Louis, We have, sorry. Over 201 air pollutants. We have over 96 industries discharging water into our rivers. We have three Superfund sites. We have 11 hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facilities. And that's just within three miles of East St. Louis. That doesn't even encompass all the industry along the North Riverfront. So to say that our environment and focus on sustainability has increased over the years is a complete farce. I have lived in St. Louis for most of my life. I have lived in both South and North St. Louis neighborhoods, and I've studied the history of urban planning in St. Louis. One thing I can say for sure, this city has a longstanding and continued racist and discriminative planning practices and environmental racism against North St. Louis and its residents. Over the past five years, the city has undergone extensive neighborhood planning efforts. I'm curious, Alderman, how many residents expressed a need or desire for a data center in their neighborhood? How many asked for an increase in energy bills and more competition for our most valuable resource, our rivers?

Thank you, ma'am. It's your time.

In closing, data centers will not save our city. Please prioritize the health and well-being of all city residents and our environment in any action you take for and against new and AI data centers in St. Louis. Thank you.

Patrick Echocamp.

Hello. Good afternoon. Patrick Echolkamp, attorney with Hush Blackwell here on behalf of Neutrality Data Centers. I'm here specifically speaking about some of the amendments I think will be forthcoming. We have, there's been a coalition of existing data centers that have made a lot of progress, working with all the women's whites there, Sonia, and all the other people on the committee, the planning commission, city councilor's office. We've made a ton of progress. We've worked very well together, so today I'm just asking you if we could slow this down and make sure that we get this right. I think we've heard a lot of people say today that this is important and that we need to get it right, and we agree wholeheartedly. Sensible regulations make sense, and I'm just asking you to slow down and let's get this right so that we only have to do it once. So that's a request that we slow this down, particularly as it relates to, I think, Amendment 4 relating to existing data centers. So thank you for your time.

Mufasa Khan.

Hi, my name is Nafaza Khan. I live in the county, but as a hospital physician, I treat people from all around the region, including St. Louis City. A lot of the testimonies already have covered a lot of what I'm about to say, but I'd like to say it anyway. I wanted to highlight something I heard earlier this morning. I heard one alderman express concern about a declining population in St. Louis, and he was implying that this decline in population is because of declining industry. a strange correlation that he didn't bother to back up with any information regardless I just think it's so interesting being worried about a declining population because you know what would cause a significant decline in our population? An uninhabitable earth. This isn't alarmist or hysterical or emotional fear mongering. It is fact. We cannot live if the earth does not live. You're worried about a population decline? Excellent, because we're worried about an extermination. There's no way to talk about extermination without talking about the fact that some communities will be exterminated first. Some of our brothers and sisters are more vulnerable to an increasingly uninhabitable earth than others. Black and brown working communities are the first to be impacted by an uninhabitable earth.

Just as true as it was 15 minutes ago.

These communities need, as Alderman Sogne said, regulations that will guarantee their protection so they're not just hoping and praying that our corporate elite kings will graciously allow us to live. I'm asking for self-determination. We're about to celebrate 250 years without a king next weekend. I'd love to actually have some self-determination to celebrate. They keep trying to paint their profit as a universal good. Their profit is not a universal good. And it won't even be good for them when they run out of fresh earth to move their suburbs to. Thank you for your time.

Edith Taylor, come back.

Hi, I'm Eda Taylor. I live in Ward 7. And I really appreciate everyone who came here with a whole lot of data and, like, prepared speeches. I'm not that person. I want to say, like, if this is the bill we have to pass to keep mega data centers from doing the things that they are doing to other communities, which is just destroying them, okay, but, like, I think that we should do more to regulate stuff. I hate this like, oh, it's inevitable. They're going to make so much money. I'm like, that's market speculation, not based on data. Data is saying that data centers are not actually profitable. Data is saying that they're harmful to communities. Market speculation is saying they're going to make us money. We closed 20 schools this week, and we're talking there. Trying to say what's going to bring money into the schools, I'm like, at what cost? Also, you know, it won't be soon enough. The other thing I always hear about things being inevitable is, like, I read, like, a lot of sci-fi. I have since I was a kid. And, like, I remember, like, the Isaac Asimov, like, talking about nuclear generators in a nutshell to personalize, you know, power shields and all this space travel and cool stuff. And I'm like, but it didn't happen. And nuclear power, while pretty cool and when it works, it works, is so dangerous and destructive. Of course we don't have nuclear generators in nutshells that we're wearing on our waist. And this is where I'm like, it's a bit of a slippery slope argument, but... I've heard some really crappy arguments today. So saying, oh, it's inevitable, we're just going to deal with the consequences later and all that is insane. We've seen the consequences of deciding that something's inevitable. Uranium teeth. Just deciding, well, we just got to go with this because what everyone's doing is such a silly argument to make for anything. And our policy needs to regulate beyond reasonable doubt. Like we need to move forward making sure that everyone like has to do their due diligence that you know on the companies that want to build to prove to us while we also provide regulation and oversight independent of those companies to make sure that things are still happening the way they should. I don't think any mega data center belongs in the city. I think that the requirements about green power and all that stuff like. It might take that much, you know, a whole lot of acreage to do solar panels, but who's saying that the solar panels have to be on the data center building? They could be on nearby parking lots, shading parking and helping the, you know, reduce the heat. Island effective cities like they could be getting solar panel while, you know, shading cars and stuff like. Anyway, I'll just conclude by saying, like, there are better solutions. Then just saying, well, our hands are tied.

Sean, was it Foose?

Sean Faust, First Ward. I'm here today on behalf of the St. Louis Building and Construction Trades. I have a letter I hopefully reached all you guys here from our business managers. We had a meeting this morning of our executive board, and all managers present did sign off on this. We continue to maintain the position that we believe the city can adopt a balanced framework that protects neighborhoods while still allowing responsible projects... data center projects to move forward. We oppose the current form of Board Bill 49. I have heard that there may be amendments voted on today. These amendments have not been reviewed by anyone in our community. These have been worked up in the last 24 hours. I urge the consideration of stakeholders before moving forward with such haste. We would like this to be done correctly as well. And this is all moving very quickly. This bill was introduced less than two weeks ago. There are amendments that we have not seen yet. I've heard all but one of the eight amendments being proposed will be voted on today. I urge your consideration of a slower approach to this. Thank you. And I'll leave this for the Clerk. Carrie McCullen.

Hello, Madam Chair, HUD's Committee, members of the public. Carrie McCullen, Ward 2. Tom Oldenburg is my alder. I also just so happen to be a member of the Eco-Socialist Green Party. Hi, Nick, with Steelfast City. I am mostly in favor of the bare minimum data center regulations and the proposed board bills, although we need to go further. St. Louis' Board of Health and Hospitals had a presentation on data centers a couple weeks ago, and it was just posted to the city's YouTube channel last week. while the doctors affirmed why the city is interested in data centers' money. They also raised important questions about data centers and their potential health impacts. They discussed the 24-7 round-the-clock noise pollution that has neurological impacts that disrupts sleep patterns, leads to kidney disease, and increased risks of cardiovascular disease. The unfilterable fine particulate matter from diesel generators will affect the lungs. The heat impacts of data centers can be felt up to six miles away, increasing hospitalizations for our most vulnerable, young infants, people with disabilities, and older adults. These are all negative health impacts. Data centers, especially the hyperscale major MAGA data centers, offer zero positive health impacts, only negative. The inevitable long-term health and environmental impacts far exceed the short-term economic impacts. And unfortunately, since this new breed of data centers are so new, there is not enough information available about how bad these things will be. Data centers in general are not new. We know that. In St. Louis, we have 12 already. But what is coming down the pipeline with hyperscale major MAGA data are unprecedented. The speculative bubble will burst. It's not a matter of if, but a matter of when. Bribes disguised as community benefit agreements are crumbs and are not even binding. I hope all the Alders who are not here today are paying attention because the public is paying attention to you and how you will vote on this, especially the even-numbered Ward Alders who are up for reelection next year. Alders Oldenburg, Narayan, Velazquez, Cox Antwi, Clark Hubbard, Tyus, Aldridge, President Green, please don't take your voters for granted. None of you won by a landslide. Mayor Kara Spencer and odd number Alders, I hope you're paying attention too. You may not have an election next year, but you can be recalled at any time. Please add a resident consent amendment to the regulations. If the data centers are so great for St. Louis, the developers should have no problem getting resident consent. No way without our say. Thank you.

Henry Robertson.

Hi, I'm Henry Robertson, 9th Ward. Despite my blanket objection to all large data, We want to congratulate the Planning Commission on such a thorough and well-considered bill. One thing I noticed from the application in the Armory case was that a lot of questions went unanswered because there was no known end user. And this is a problem nationwide with the lack of transparency and also the problem of speculation because big tech companies are putting out feelers all over the country and a lot of these projects are not going to end up getting built. And the biggest question to me that was unanswered for the armory is the renewable energy plan. said that we can't have a plan for renewable energy until we have a user. And I noticed from the bill that they plan on having these renewable energy requirements met by large load programs authorized by Ameren and the Public Service Commission. So I visited their websites yesterday and there's no such thing. What they both say is, if you want renewable energy for your data center, build it yourself, which is great. Beyonce, bring your own new clean energy, you want to say. But not all data centers are going to do that. And to rely on RECs, renewable energy credits, Usually those are from solar and wind facilities that are already in operation. What we need is additionality. RECs ought to represent new additions of renewable energy, not existing ones. And there are ways to do this that are not acknowledged in the bill, like power purchase agreements. get in on the ground floor when they're about to build some renewable energy, some solar wind or project, sign up for it. There are virtual power purchase agreements that do exactly that. Before the thing is built, companies sign a contract known as a virtual power purchase agreement. They're paying to have it built. And even if they don't, even if they're not local, they're contributing to the addition of new renewable energy somewhere. And it's hard to wrap your head around the amount of new power generation that's going to be required by data centers in this country. Tens, hundreds, maybe thousands of gigawatts of new energy, and most of that is expected to be met by natural gas, which is a fossil fuel, which means that to leave it to natural gas will be a climate disaster. And that's important to me. Thank you.

Lewis Hamilton. As the last speaker, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, my name is Lewis Hamilton. I'm a resident of the 8th Ward, and I'm here to speak in favor of the process as opposed to a final outcome. We've been working hard. with the planning staff for the last six or seven months to come up with reasonable regulations for existing data centers. And with Alderman Schweitzer for the last week or so, been working on some alternative wording, which I think we're getting there, but not quite there yet. But I just wanted to compliment everybody on the process.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. And thank you to the members of the public who came to speak today. One of the things that came up many times during our last committee meeting is that there was no one in the room who was, that there were a lot of people in the room who were paid to represent data center developers or data centers themselves, but people in the room weren't paid to represent the people. And I would like to push back on that. That's our job. It's our job as aldermen to represent the people. And I don't know about every single one of you, but I've heard from so many people who live in my ward and so many people who live across the city that these regulations don't go far enough. I've heard from people that they go too far, but I've heard from far fewer people that they go too far. And I've heard mostly that from people who are paid to build these. or profit from them. And I do take that into consideration when I'm thinking about my job as a representative of the people, people who aren't paid to be here, the people who aren't paid to have an opinion on this. And I get that we need development in our city, and I get that. Some people have accused me of not being a fan of data centers and that I'm doing something under the cloak of darkness. And I feel like I've been doing this in pretty broad daylight with the conversations that I'm trying to have with everyone about this use. This is something that has been in front of the Planning Commission for months and months and months. It's been in front of the Board of Aldermen as a topic for discussion for months and months and months. And I think that I've made my position on the concerns around this use very clear. I do understand that there are some people who are ranking things like jobs and tax incentives or tax benefits of higher importance than things around the environment and the sustainability of this use. And I get that. That's their perspective. But that is why this bill does try to find a balance there. It is not a bill that bans data centers. It is a bill that finds a pathway forward taking into So many of those considerations. I get that not everyone's happy. I didn't think I heard from anyone in this room who's completely happy with the regulations and I would count myself as not completely happy with where the bill is as we speak. We do have some amendments in front of us that I think get to some of those things that I would like to go through. If I could start with what I have listed as amendment number two. unless there are any questions from the committee before we move this direction.

Let me make sure. Autumn McCone, are you online, and do you have the amendments? Before we get started, is Autumn McCone online?

OK.

I want to make sure he is, so we're following and tracking all the same thing. He shook his head no. OK. Can we make sure Autumn and Cone, so we can move together on them? Autumn and Ms. Schweitzer, these are the ones that were just handed out to us, the newer ones?

Yes, the ones in front of us today were on the drive as well.

OK.

So amendment number, what's listed as a number, amendment number two in the drive in front of us today is regarding the definitions of bundled renewable energy credits and unbundled renewable energy credits. This is something that if Alicia Russell is still here, if you could speak to those and why we have them defined this way.

She's still here if you want to reference her.

Thank you. Ms. Russell can speak to how these work, and then later on we'll have more information about a proposal to amend the renewable standards within the bill.

Thank you. The definitions have changed to be separated, so we have local, bundled, can I actually say that? Thank you. Thank you so much. So there's versus the original definition that kind of put everything together. The new definition is bundled renewable energy credits or RECs means that RECs are that a customer received from renewable generating facility where the attribute is provided with the actual renewable generation from a renewable facility located within the utility service territory. the state of Missouri, or MISO, which is our regional electrical transmission line, and retired on behalf of the facility. And then the other definition that is amended is there is also unbundled renewable energy credits, which essentially means the same thing, except that these RECs that a customer receives from a renewable generating facility, where the attribute is provided without the accompanying renewable energy generator. And again, those could be from the utility territory, the state of Missouri, or MISO, and also retired on behalf of the facility.

Thank you. And we were fortunate to meet with Ann Marin earlier this week and go through some of the renewable requirements. And in order for the utility service provider to help us kind of make sure we're saying the right things, that we're all using the same language, this is language that they recommended for the definitions.

OK. I want to make sure because I know he didn't have them at first, that he had them.

He hasn't responded yet, Chairman. Okay. He's online now, though.

I've been online. Yes. I have all the amendments.

Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to confirm.

Okay, with that, I would move to adopt amendment number two to Board Bill 49. Second.

It was moved by Audubon Ms. Weiser and seconded by Vice Chair Sanjaya that we adopt amendment number two. All in favor?

Aye.

Please proceed.

Thank you. Amendment number three simply adds those definitions to the list of things that are defined. So with that, I move to adopt amendment number three.

Second. It was moved by Alderman Schweitzer, seconded by Vice Chair Sanye, that we adopt Amendment Number 3. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Thank you. Amendment number four is regarding the renewable requirements for standard and major data centers. This is something that I'd like to discuss today and vote on if the committee is ready to do so. This is something that when looking through what's currently there, you can see what is requiring a 50% upon operation, a minimum, and then it has a lot of different information, and then it says no more than 50% of this requirement may be refilled through local recs. with changing some of the definitions and working to understand better the utility market and how that it might be possible for a data center to begin operation under a requirement like this. We did work with Renew Missouri to see if we could change some of the language and they are here to speak on what is being proposed for the bill today. If Ms. Cheatham could come up, please.

Hello again. Did you just want me to speak on what we changed and kind of summarize? OK. So on the first point, we wrote that the occupancy permit before it's issued, the facility or the developer needs to demonstrate they operate with a minimum of 25% of their consumption. And this can be done through the Ameren's renewable energy programs or the large load tariffs that the PSC has approved. Those also include clean energy riders, which we can go into more detail. I have a list of those as well. And then also on-site or behind the meter generation would be, you know, solar on their, you know, adjacent, if they have adjacent property or on their roof. This also includes participating in the virtual power plant programs as well as the bundled recs, which were just defined previously. And then the next point is the pathway of 50% by year five. From the first iteration of these ordinances, We felt that simplifying into a year five requirement and a year 10 requirement would be a reasonable ask. And considering the market to this day and future projections, we felt that this was reasonable and in our conversations with Ameren. So it pretty much defines as saying you have to maintain that 50% annual electricity consumption. And then only with the same list of PSC programs that they can enter in. And then after it says only 25% of this requirement can be fulfilled through the unbundled REC requirement. So in this we see introduced that a developer can enter the market and purchase unbundled RECs through the MISO territory. We felt that this was important to add because we talked with Ameren and they were concerned about meeting those initial energy requirements within that timeframe. And so when they're purchasing on the energy market, that eases some of that constraint. And we firmly believe that there is enough recs on the market to fulfill that requirement. We also added in an annual compliance progress report to demonstrate where these developers are at in securing or contracting their renewable energy requirements. And then we also thought it was important to add a one-time waiver that the facility can ask for basically an extension if they are unable to meet this requirement. And this is more of like an act of God type situation. There are times if there's extremely serious supply constraints and they can't build certain generation. So we felt that that was something that was important to add. It's not just to be abused. You get to year four and you don't have a plan in place, then that would be something that would be up to the committee to decide whether they approve of their justification.

Okay.

Do you want to keep going?

Yeah, and then year 10, facilities shall achieve and maintain 100% of the clean energy requirement by year 10, and this was something when we spoke with Ameren that was within their capability of they were not against that, which was something that we thought was very promising. And then up to that, up to 25% of this can be fulfilled through unbundled RECs and the RECs, and then, let's see. And then the next point is the penalty, which was already in the bill.

Thank you for giving that explanation. So as was stated, the penalty was already part of the bill and this does make it a little bit more achievable upfront for a data center to come in and meet that 25% threshold instead of 50% and that's 50% in five years with some ability to use RECs outside of the, sorry, use unbundled RECs as defined. So I believe this is a amendment that makes this easier to meet for data centers. And I think it is a compromise.

Okay, does anyone have any questions on amendment number four? Alderman Cohn?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd also just like to note with the past two amendments, you didn't ask for conversation or for votes from anyone who might be opposed. Not sure if there were, but we need to make sure that we're following our own process and rules here. um so i'm just curious older woman um can you share a little bit more about the wrecks and you know how much they cost you know how many are available on the market um you know and uh miss russell even mentioned that you can obtain them through her i'm curious exactly what that means but um yeah do you have any of those figures available

Ms. Russell can speak better to this than I can, but the cost does vary pretty significantly for the cost of a rec. And Ms. Russell can speak more to the availability.

Yes, thank you. So the market changes a lot. You know, the market can mean just what Ameren has available through their programs and their renewable energy that they generate, but then the market crosses all the way. We're defining a rec as far as the MISO region, which goes from, like, southern Canada, all the way down into eastern Missouri, parts of Illinois, and then down into Louisiana. So that energy is traded constantly on the market. It's my understanding that unbundled RECs are significantly cheaper than bundled RECs because they're not fully tied to that energy generation. Unbundled RECs can be as low as like a dollar per se. And then bundled RECs could be, my last understanding was maybe around $50. And the cost is per megawatt hour. So it's not based off their full megawattage capacity or demand ask from Ameren. It's based off how much power they're using per hour. And you cannot get RECs through me. I don't know. I don't know.

I'm sorry, I must have misheard that then. So I'm curious, though, what happens in the event that, let's say, there's an applicant that applies, they get approved, and then the utilities don't have the ability or availability, I should say, of RECs in that particular year. but the facilities have been approved.

Right. So that's why the, like, zero, five, and 10-year timeline is so important. It allows for that flexibility in the market and the ability to use unbundled recs. We also ask that applicants for new facilities provide their plan, scope, and budget for how they will achieve those requirements. And then in addition to that, an additional buffer is that, like, one-time waiver. Like, if there really was a constraint in the market and it's impossible, they can apply for that one-time waiver.

But what happens if it's not available in the market multiple times and there's a one-time waiver?

There is a fee compliance schedule, a fee schedule.

But is that really the fault of the...

Facility or is that the fault of the folks who are generating electricity and the wrecks That's why at the beginning in the application they have to be able to provide how they're planning on meeting of these all of these requirements and I would assume that would take some conversations as They would be a customer of an electric service provider They would have to speak to the electric service provider and we don't regulate the electric service provider care But we can regulate the day they use

Tori from , sorry, would like to add something to that.

Okay.

I just wanted to add that regardless, Ameren is going to have to provide electricity to any data center coming in and, you know, We have to ask, is it going to be natural gas? Is it going to be solar? And keep in mind, they will have to supply it no matter what. So natural gas, it takes longer. There are more supply constraints with natural gas as opposed to solar. So when we're talking about the question of whether Ameren actually does or does not have the capacity, they will need more to supply it.

So to that point, I think the questions that you're asking would be appropriate for any type of energy that they would have to provide increased needs, which they're saying they can do.

Well, I'm more concerned with our obligations as the city. So we're asking people to do this and then we're saying we're going to penalize them or fine them, but that's not based off of, you know, the city's capacity to do that. It's based off of Amron's capacity to provide that. But we're, we're approving their use potentially. Right.

And we're only able to regulate that land use. So when they provide the information about how they'll meet these regulations, we're holding them to that through our own, through our regulations here.

Tori would like to ask regulating the land use but we're also regulating how they're using electricity in terms of where they derive electricity and if they can't derive it sustainably then they buy the you know wrecks so we're requiring them to do that and my my concern or my question is if there's not enough wrecks available and we've already approved it they're a functioning you know facility here in the city, then how, what, so they're just going to get fined because of something that's not within their control, it's Ameren's control?

They are being held to the plan and scope that they put forward when they begin operation to meet these goals.

Which is largely reliant upon a third party being Ameren, since they're a utility monopoly.

We cannot regulate Ameren. We can only regulate the land user.

I'm familiar with that, but we're putting an amendment in the bill that would require them to buy these recs, and the rec is being administered through a third party, not through the city.

No, the bill already requires what was recommended by the Planning Commission already requires RECs and has different standards set for ad occupancy and ad tenures. We're making it a little bit clearer how that would work and actually reducing the requirement for ad entry. We're not especially, we're not doing any amendment here that that puts RECs in the bill when it wasn't before. It's currently in the bill.

Was this recommended by planning staff or was it approved by the planning commission?

The tenure requirement and the penalty was both from the planning staff.

OK.

And if I may, you know, all renewable energy is tied to a REC. That's how they track the megawatt hours and use and everything like that. But that is just one option. There are ways for a data center to comply. We try to be as flexible within that. And then also in our conversations with Ameren, they were like... Yeah, renewable energy in this pathway at 10 years, we can do that. And so because of the high energy demand, not only for data centers, but anything in the growth of Amherst territory, they're going to need to provide more energy. And this is encouraging renewable energy so we can be in compliance with our sustainability and climate goals within that plan, which also calls for regulations on large energy use.

And I'm all for that. I've always been a fan and an advocate for renewable energy. I just want to make sure that when we're regulating businesses in the city of St. Louis that we're doing so in a manner that we're able to actually monitor and not potentially put the city in a situation where we get challenged to the point where we can't stand up to litigation in court over that challenge as well. Have any further questions? Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman.

Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Alderman. So it sounds like some of this language is already in the bill. So would this REC and renewable energy situation pertain to the current data centers, or would this be for any new data centers moving forward?

This is for any new data centers that come forward. We are having conversations with the current data centers about which part if any of this requirement that they are capable of meeting.

Okay. And I guess just following along the conversation with Alderman Cohn, so if they can't meet the rec the first time, if I heard you right, you said there would be a one-time waiver because for whatever reason, maybe the market's not there for it. But if the market then is not there for it again, I think what the Alderman was saying is, you know, I guess what was the thought of a one-time not... why not maybe language if it's not there for the market that they can apply for the waiver so that they don't get penalized, not, I guess, on their behalf, but on behalf of probably the consumer or the market? Does that make sense to you?

Right, and I think this comes back to how we look at our sustainability goals in the city of St. Louis. Is our policy going to be that we kind of hope and pray for it, or are we going to actually put it in action? And I prefer the latter. This is making sure that we have strong teeth if there is not compliance with the timeline that we've set for five, you know, at five years.

And I mean, I think, I'm sorry.

That's okay.

I mean, I think people, I don't think nobody up here is against, you know, against the sustainability plan that's in place. But, you know, things happen like crashes in the housing market and all these other stuff. And I guess when it comes to, and I'm still learning all this. So, coming more of like truly a question of if these aren't available, why like penalize people, regardless if we have a, you know, a plan, why not offer another waiver? I'm just curious of how did we land with a waiver the first time, but not waivers a second or third time if those recs aren't there for them to be able to

Right, because if they're not able to meet this, they would not be meeting the requirements of the operation. So it's not just a forever waiver to not meet the requirements of operating. I do want to point out, this isn't for amending, but in the bill, it does direct the planning staff and planning commission to come back to review these regulations after two years. So no one would have hit, as soon as these pass, hopefully pass, no one would have hit that five-year mark. So if we're noticing something completely different in the market, it's something that could be looked at. But this is to protect us now, and I understand that this is something where there are only so many, there's only so much renewable energy bill, there's only so much renewable energy available, and I do think that we need to be, we need to, if we're going to allow more data centers to operate, especially, this only applies to the standard and large load data center, or sorry, standard and major data centers, We need to make sure that the ones that are coming in are able to meet this. It might be that this doesn't mean we can have infinity new data centers in the city of St. Louis. It may mean that they're not able to put together a plan to meet this. But we have to get those applications in once these regulations go into effect.

I guess how this affects, I know you said right now it doesn't affect existing ones, but as we travel down that path of existing and who knows what the language, I think we'll get there at some point of how existing ones eventually fit into now having to comply with this ordinance if it's a structural change or whatever the language land on. If they didn't have the existing ones have to comply with this ordinance, they would then have to comply with the Renewable Energy Section 2, correct?

And we're working through that to make sure that we find something that makes sense for everyone.

Okay. And this is just only for the new ones?

For any data centers approved under this chapter, if this passes.

Okay. Is this, last question, is this something like, and I guess maybe this is a planning question, but, you know, planning, but like the ones who've been doing all the research, is this something that is common that, like, with all the regulations that we're seeing, other cities is also doing kind of this renewable energy requirement, RECs for data centers? Yes.

Yes, we've seen other cities implement these efforts, and this closely follows the Lancaster, Pennsylvania example of having different requirements that ramp up over a 10-year time in addition.

Gotcha. Okay. Well, okay. All for right now.

Thank you.

I'll call on Alderman Browning and also Mr. Clerk. Can you ensure that Alderman Boyd can at least, she was, okay. Thank you.

I don't have any questions on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm sorry. I saw you, thought I saw you put your hand up. Vice Chair Simeon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess this is more commentary. I just want to point out that the amendment that's in front of us is actually technically weakening or making it more flexible to meet the renewable energy requirement, and that this specific language was given to us by AMRA. Myself and all the women Schweitzer, several folks were able to have conversations, and one of the things that they specifically said is that they wanted there to be some flexibility in terms of bundled or unbundled for renewable energy so that there would be an option where if there wasn't enough energy available in the market, there would be another option. Of course, that would require the developer to build it themselves, but I would say in my personal opinion, if you're not able to meet certain renewable energy standards, and I want to be mindful again for everybody in the public even to understand what RECs are that they are renewable energy certificates and they are necessary often to differentiate and to verify how much renewable energy is actually being used and by whom and so without those certificates you you often cannot reveal that information but I would go even further and say that you know perhaps if there's not certain energy available you should not build certain things because the point of renewable energy is to combat for the what you are putting into the environment what you are putting into the air and pollution as a result of these things. I don't know if we're all living on the same planet, but climate change is a really real thing. There are tons of natural disaster catastrophes that are happening. Perhaps these are not solely due to data centers, right? But the things that we are building on our planet and our earth impact these facilities that use beyond their scap, go beyond it. And so I would just say in response to to add to the conversation that has happened. I think that providing a flexibility in terms of saying, you know, lowering it and allowing a more flexible pathway to meet that goal is a green light and was asked for by Amron specifically in terms of the conversation because we wanted to make sure that we were, I think the goal was to be feasible was there. But I will also say that perhaps if the energy is not available, I don't know that the answer would be, well, let's not make them pay for it because residents have to pay for whether or not they have air to breathe. Perhaps it would be, maybe it's not the time for a data center to this scale that is gonna have this impact on the environment if you don't have this energy available in the market. Thank you.

All right, so I don't want Ms. Slicer Some of the things I heard from Alderman Cohn and Alderman Aldridge, I have some questions that I know can't get answered right now, but I know you have several amendments you're working through. Can we table this one, or if not, I know it's your call. I understood who you and Sonia have talked to, but I think there's an open-ended question that was flagged that we can't get the answer in this room today for obvious reasons. but May, not today, right now. So as we work through these other several amendments you have, can we table that one and come back to it?

Sure, we can come back to that at the end of the amendments. So amendment number five is getting to the specific piece around the professional engineer. So it amends the board bill after the words prepared by a third party you strike out the following words and figures professional environmental engineer and insert the following words and figures credentialed professional engineer selected by the city of St. Louis. This is regarding some of the environmental reviewing that happens, making sure that they're credentialed and by the city.

I want to make sure that Alderman Cohn knows that we're asking for comments now. We can go ahead. We're on amendment number five. So I did call for comments on amendment number five. I'll accept the motion.

So moved.

Second.

It was moved by Vice Chair Sanye and seconded by Alderman Browning that we accept amendment number five. All in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

OK. Amendment number six, this is regarding the on-site, this is strengthening regulations for on-site fuel storage and refueling by requiring submission of a fuel plan and certain screening requirements as brought up by Ms. Kittlaus representing the Locust Business District regarding that was something that was not part of the regulations in terms of One, there was screening as part of the regulations for the generators, but they have requested re-screening so that they would not be subject to vandalism or issues. And also regarding the concrete pad for spill containment. Yep, that's it.

Any questions or comments on amendment number six? Alderman Cohn.

Alderwoman, I'm just curious, you know, every building is going to be different, obviously, but is it common for these storage facilities to be outside or, I mean, depending upon the building, I would imagine that they could potentially be located

inside a facility as well yes and that would be i think fine in this situation go ahead

I think the amendment came up because of large diesel tanks for onsite fuel storage, which is outside of the building. So mainly just saying that storage tank has to be on engineered concrete versus just on asphalt, which is combustible, and then limiting fueling from not happening in the public right-of-way. So just some added protections there.

But is this requiring that it is outside of a building, or is this just providing the option for requirements if it is outside of a building?

The option if it is outside of the building.

Okay. So let's say like it's a, you know, large facility, old warehouse or something to that extent, and they decide to put a, you know, fuel tank in the, you know, I'm just making things up a little bit, but in the basement of a building, this would not prohibit that from happening?

I don't think it would prohibit that, but it does clarify in the language that they have to have their refueling plan and then have that structured base for the storage tank. So it's just being more explicit for safety reasons.

OK. All right. Thank you.

Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. A lot of my questions, some of these I know sound redundant. Sorry, I couldn't be in all the spaces or rooms where conversations was happening. But would this, you probably hear me a lot, this would also, would this be required also for like, so existing ones, they would need to change, I guess, the concrete pad and stuff like that if they don't have that currently, all the women?

It would be for structural changes. So we're still looking through the exact text of that amendment, but we'll make sure that this is part of the conversation as well.

So that would, the structural changes one that is being kind of worked on for existing ones, knowing that this would, I guess, well, let me back it up. This currently, does this pertains to existing ones?

This would be for new data centers that are permitted by this chapter. We're working through the amendment for current grandfather non-conforming uses, whatever word you want to say. And so that will be part of the discussion. It just needs to pass today to have it be amended in the bill to have that discussion.

Okay. If for the existing or non-conformative, I'll just keep saying existing, so at least we're here. Sounds good. Yeah, I'm going to be figuring out if the existing ones would need to also abide by this.

Yeah, I'll make a note right here.

Thank you. No more questions, Madam Chair.

Any other questions?

Okay. Okay. I move to adopt amendment number six to board bill 49 as amended.

Second.

It was moved by Alderman Swicer and seconded by Alderman Browning that we adopt amendment number six. All in favor?

Aye. Okay. Thank you. Amendment number seven is regarding the definition of maximum power demand. Right now, we have it set as a single contract with an electric service provider. But this is something that, again, was some feedback from a conversation with Ameren, that it should instead be a single point of interconnection with this electric service provider. So not a contract, but a single point of interconnection. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions, but it is changing the definition of maximum power demand to be clearer for where the maximum power demand is being measured or how.

Any questions, Alderman Cohn, on Amendment Number 7 or anyone in the room? Okay. Okay. All right. I'll accept the motion on Amendment Number 7.

So moved.

Second. It was moved by Alderman Aldrich and seconded by Vice Chair Saanjie that we adopt Amendment Number 7. All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. Amendment Number 8. is putting in some more information for the application requirements, adding additional acceptable forms of documentation. We want to make sure that when an application is coming in, that the city is able to get the amount of energy that will be used, amount of, and this just adds then if, some acceptable forms of documentation to show that it doesn't substantively change the requirement.

Any questions? Okay, no one responded to questions on Amendment 8, so accept the motion. Amendment 8 moved.

Second.

It was moved by Vice Chair Saye and seconded by Alderman Aldridge. Shall we adopt Amendment Number 8? All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Thank you. So returning to amendment number four. Yeah.

I'm still holding on a response from Ms. Smith on something. So I know we're going to have some additional conversation.

She has verified with me that the city councilor's office has reviewed this language and is supportive of it or, well. I'm sure they don't offer specific feedback on the regulations in that way, but that is something that they have read and agree with as a possibility. She'll respond to you as well, I'm sure.

Okay. Thank you.

Yep. With that, I would move to adopt amendment number four to board bill 49 as amended.

Second.

It was moved by Alderman Spicer, seconded by Alderman Browning that we adopt amendment number four. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

All right. Present. Present.

I assume.

All right. That's the final amendment, right?

I just want you to say that it's been adopted, just for the record. Oh, bless your heart. OK. Thank you. Oh, bless your heart. OK.

It was adopted.

Thank you. Okay, and those are the amendments I have for today. I do appreciate the flexibility of the committee to agree to have another hearing tomorrow afternoon to discuss again further, continue the conversation with the currently existing data centers and their applicability requirements. But I believe there's another amendment that may be brought up today.

All right.

Does anyone have any?

OK. Is it up here? Do we all have it on the drive? OK, you recognize.

you madam chair members of the committee uh so amendment number one i'm really trying to get into the the spirit of you know trying to figure out i think the a little bit around the consent that we've heard from of people wanting to have a little bit more input this wouldn't necessarily i guess drive like the resident input but so currently the bill they already have to do an impact study uh agreement that talks about the safety and quality of everything of these data centers. So what this would do is it would basically, when they go through BPS, it would be a simple majority. But as they go through the board, it's already in the bill, there has to be a resolution. Instead of being a simple majority, it just takes a little bit more collaboration from the board of a super majority, which would be 10 votes from the board of all men prior to granting the building permit. So with that, I would open up to any questions.

All right, do we have questions, comments on amendment number nine? One?

One. Yeah, I was one. The chair, she just, she wanted to get all the hard ones out the way. Mine was the easiest, maybe.

Adam and Brownie.

Thank you, Alderman. I appreciate you bringing this amendment. And I think we can, when we get back to questions for the rest of the bill, we can point this out. But there's been some question around whether there can be some sort of consent requirement for communities. There's been comparisons to platen petition for liquor stores and unhoused shelters. And just to reflect what I've heard back, there's a legal question about the enforceability of that. And this seems to be taking another crack at it from a different angle. And I appreciate you being creative and trying to think about how else we can try to make sure we're protecting the communities we represent. So my question is, does this apply to all data centers or is it just those that require the public impact agreement?

This would be the ones, and thank you for giving me the credit. I do want to give, honestly, more of the credit to some of the groups that's been working on this, and my LA that has been working with them on this language. I definitely get the point of consent. I'm going to stay consistent. I don't believe in platen petition. It needs to be gone. It's outdated. That's why I voted for the Alderman 07 bill to remove it and I wouldn't want us to be strengthening it. And I know Miriam also said it's something that's an outdated thing. So, you know, if it ain't good for the goose, it ain't good for the gander. And I think this is a way, honestly, like I say, due to the community finding another way that would that would try to get around that process for residents. Also, I think like all the women from the first set of residents that reach out to they alder and say, hey, I'm down the pipeline, but this would be only ones that have to agree to the public impact agreement.

Thank you. That answers my question. I have no more questions. Thank you.

I don't want to slice them. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Alderman, in the amendment, it says that it is a supermajority vote from the affirmative of the Board of Aldermen. By supermajority, do you just mean nine votes or do you mean two-thirds vote? And can we specify which one of those?

yeah so it should have been i thought we probably sent the updated one in the drive where we actually specify the number of being uh ten so most of the time at the board of aldermen like if this board or board bill moves they gotta go to planning um certain votes require um a super majority of the board which is or two-thirds um which is ten but um if you want

So would you like it to say as well as be approved as a resolution and by two-thirds vote?

Yeah, two-thirds vote instead of supermajority.

Is that a friendly amendment?

I would take it, yeah. A friendly amendment to the amendment instead of saying supermajority, and I work with the clerks where it says two-thirds vote in the affirmative.

Thank you. That's the only question I have. I just want to make sure that that's clear how many people have to vote in the affirmative.

I appreciate the detail to Clarity Alderman.

And is it, I apologize, is it present or overall? So is it 10 votes or?

Even when it's, even in our rules, even if you're not present, it's two-thirds of the Board of Aldermen. So it would be 10.

Okay. Thank you. That's, thank you. Thank you for Clarity. Thank you.

But if you like, since we are going to be meeting tomorrow, I can clean it up. So instead of doing all the friendly stuff, we can get the language correct.

I'm fine with it as long as it says two-thirds. So thank you, Alderman.

Okay.

All right. Any other questions or comments on Amendment 1? All right.

I make a motion that we adopt Amendment 1. Second.

It was moved by Vice Chair Sanye and seconded by Alderman Schweitzer that we adopt Amendment 1. All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, thank you everyone for the discussion today and I know we have more on the agenda so I won't belabor the point any further and we will bring this back up tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.

Thank you. All right, Alderman Aldridge, you are recognized on Bill 50.

It's on hold until tomorrow.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me make sure I'm clear. Thank you for asking that, because there might be people watching that didn't catch what we did either. So what we're doing, because there are some additional amendments, Alderman Schweitzer is holding it until a meeting that we have now called tomorrow for 3.30 PM. Same setup. for Board Bill 49. So if you're watching and following, we did not do a final vote on Board Bill 49. It will be heard again in Hood's committee tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. Thank you, all of you.

Thank you for that clarity, Madam Chair. So Board Bill 50 is the food truck regulation bill. That is the third time this has been in front of the Board of Aldermen, and I think we got it, in my opinion, perfect. ultimately what this uh board bill does is and i know you guys have heard the spiel what we're trying to do here is cut red tape when it comes to food trucks operating in the city of st louis it does not touch the licensing's element where food trucks get certain licenses but it does touch the regulation of how they can operate This is a very similar bill that this Board of Aldermen actually passed a few months ago, and every alder voted for, but we did make some key changes. And I sent the red line version to everybody. So I'm not going to go through everything. Some is just some cleanup language. But I do want to highlight, I think, something that was extremely important to make sure that we got it right while we held the bill during the last session. So in partnership and working with the Cardinals, last year we had, as we was cleaning up, I think I've stated this before, the food truck bill has over probably 16 different ordinance that touches Chapter 8. There was a mistake made on my end where as we was just cleaning it up, we accidentally left out. section and that section is a key section that protects the cart nose to be able to allow the type of food truck and sidewalk vendors in their area so that would start on page I don't have them numbered on mines one two three four or where you will see language one that we're adding in where say down south downtown project area we're just staying true to what the ordinance say and we're adding redevelopment and then we also are on section a this was a language that was from a previous view that protects the cardinals that make sure that areas around their property have the protection for the cardinals to be able to allow sidewalk and food truck vendors The only other major change, and there is an amendment that we will need to adopt due to accidentally taking out a street, only other major change that is in the bill is towards the end. One of the concerns that we heard from residents is just putting a little bit more teeth around the ability to be able to kind of shut down these food truck zones if they become problematic. So we end up including language that gives the street department, the street department currently already, the entity that have, they regulate our food trucks and sidewalks to be able to give them the ability to to revoke, to be able to revoke their permit if they do not have, if there is certain concerns that was brought forward to them. And also added some language that the health department wanted to see that had their name in there that actually wasn't part of their duty. So that is the committee sub that I am talking about that is in front of people. And if okay, Madam Clerk, I would move to be able to adopt the committee sub to board bill 50.

Second. So it was moved by Alderman Aldridge, seconded by myself, Clark Hubbard, that we adopt the committee sub for Board Bill 50. So now before us, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Now before us, we have the committee sub, Board Bill 50 committee sub. Alderman Cohn, are you?

I guess as he gets his camera on, Madam Chair, before we talk about the full bill, there is one amendment that I would like to adopt to Board Bill 50, committee substitute as amended in committee. If I could.

Absolutely, go ahead.

So this amendment is on, I do not have it in front of me. I think it's all in front of you all on what page it's on, but it deals with the vending districts and it deals with the downtown West commercial vending district. this creates several districts throughout the city what this amendment does is actually insert back the right location for the downtown west commercial vending district that is at the intersection of olive between or on olive between the intersection of north 23rd street and jefferson avenue and the public right-of-way along pine So in the committee sub, somehow they got switched. So we're just putting back the correct street for the downtown West Commercial District, which is North 23rd Street and going to Jefferson going west. So with that, I would open up to any questions for the amendment. And if not, we'd move to adopt it and talk on the bill.

Any questions on amendment number one to board bill 50 committee sub? Seeing none, move that we adopt Amendment Number 1 to Board Bill 50, Committee Sub.

Second.

It was moved by Alderman Clark Hubbard, seconded by Alderman Aldridge, that we adopt Amendment Number 1 to Board Bill 50, Committee Sub. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

All right. So now before us, we have Board Bill 50, Committee Sub is adopted.

All right. And before we talk about the bill, I know there's one person here from the

Is he your speaker or are we opening up, you want to open up for public comment?

He'll be one of my speakers because he worked on the legislation with me.

Okay, let's do him first and then we'll do public comment.

Yes, ma'am.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, I'm still Lou Hamilton. I haven't changed since then. I'm here to speak in favor of Board Bill 50. I'm speaking on behalf of the St. Louis Cardinals. Mike Whittle, the general counsel, has been involved in the discussions with Alderman... Aldridge, excuse me, Alderman Aldridge, in the construction of this and the changes have gone on. Mike is out of town, can't make it, asked me to come and represent. The Cardinals position that we're fine with this. The Alderman has spent the time to go through the language and we're not involved in the food truck issue. We were mostly concerned with how changes in the various ordinances dealing with food trucks might affect the integrity of the redevelopment area around the stadium. That's been resolved. The Cardinals are fine with it now and We're here to speak in favor of his bill. That work? That work. OK.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, is there any public comment in the room or online for Board Bill 50? Committee sub is amended.

Roslyn Addison?

She left, they're saying. She left, ma'am?

Okay, thank you. No other comment.

Okay, all right. We had the call for public comment with none signed in the room, so we will move forward now for you to speak on Board Bill 50 Committee Sub as amended.

Yep, before I close out, I'll open up to any questions from committee members.

Absolutely. Alderman Cohn?

No questions.

Alderman, I'm sorry, Alderwoman Schweitzer.

No questions, thank you.

Alderman Browning.

No questions.

Vice Chair Saillet.

No questions.

And I don't have any questions, so you're welcome to close.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee. I also want to thank, this has been many people at the table to try to get this right. That's what happens when our code is so outdated and there's so many ordinance that pertains to the code that actually don't actually make sense or actually in no use at all. But I do want to thank so many people over the last few years that's been at the table from different neighborhood organizations from downtown to the Central West End, the Food Truck Association, which supports the bill, the Restaurant Association, which supports the bill. So glad now to have the Cardinal support on it. We've also worked with MLS and the Blues as some of these areas will be around their location. So glad to have their support. And a huge thank you to Matt, my L.A., who's been a help with this, as well as Janika Hayden from the president office that has tackled this monster of ordinance with me. I feel like we're going to get it done this year, and I'm just thankful for the co-sponsorships that are on it and everyone who have made this possible to try to get it done for the third and final time. And with that, I would ask for a due pass recommendation. on Board Bill 50, Committee Substitute as amended in committee.

I'll accept the motion for Board Bill 50, Committee Sub as amended.

So moved. Second.

It was moved by Vice Chair Sanye and seconded by Alderman Browning that we pass Board Bill 50, Committee Sub as amended with a do pass recommendation. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. I'm sorry, Mr. Clerk.

Alderman Cohn? Aye. Alderwoman Switzer?

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonye? Aye. Alderman Browning?

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich? Aye. Chairman Clark-Hubbard?

Aye.

Five aye votes. Motion passed.

All right. Alderwoman Switzer, I'm sorry, Alderwoman Sonye, you are now- Sorry, six aye votes. Alderman Sanye, you are now recognized on Board Bill 55.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I am glad to say that my bill is a lot simpler and shorter than the other bill, but they are certainly tied together. So I do have a very, very quick presentation. I think I've just been trained that way due to academics. I'm just a presentation girly. And it helps because then when people ask me questions, I can email them the presentation a lot of times to answer.

Why don't you do that?

So Board Bill 55, at its core, is a bill that prohibits city tax incentives for data centers. That is the goal of the bill. That is the primary purpose of the bill. That is really exactly what it is for. Obviously, we're having ongoing conversations around data centers. And the big selling point is that this is going to bring so much revenue to the city and be, you know, an economic boost. And so, obviously, if that's going to be the case, then it makes sense for us not to incentivize or subsidize data centers on a local level.

All right.

Yeah.

Let me see.

Technical difficulties.

Yeah. I'm going to go and get that. Stop sharing. I'm going to get the PDF, yeah.

Yeah, the actual file itself.

Share it.

Should I just continue, or do you all think you're going to be momentarily to be able to play it up?

I'm not sharing it yet, no. Yeah.

Would you mind proceeding? I saw it was only a two-page PowerPoint presentation. I don't think I could cover that much that we can't have a discussion about. Okay.

Yes, so this board bill creates a new section, section 3.160.040, that is titled Prohibition of Tax Incentives for Data Centers. It would bar the city or any decision-making body from approving, granting, or accepting applications for tax incentive on any data center. It applies regardless of the zoning status or the jobs created, and it means no TIF. So there is specific language that makes sure that states that this would apply to not like TIFs and tax abatements, but also Chapter 353s, LCRA, Chapter 100 bonds, enhanced enterprise zones, pilots, anything of that nature that it would not count there. And yeah, again, I think the point is pretty clear that, you know, subsidies that support development might otherwise counter-interact with the public impact agreements or other real community benefits. And then there's a specific section of the bill that talks about that, you know, it does not affect state incentives. So this is city only. Obviously, there are state tax incentives, some things that have kind of been talked about, some things that are still in discussion, and perhaps even at the federal level. And so it just makes it clear this is only a city application. And then this bill adopts the definitions of data centers that is in Board Bill 49. And so the next slide just has the definitions restated there for all of us to be on the same page. But Board Bill 49 establishes data centers and then classifies them according to major micro and standard definitions. And so that would be in the bill. And then I think what's also important to mention is that these would be the definitions that are used to figure out they apply. Obviously, there may be buildings that may have a data center within them, but a data center is not necessarily the principal use. And so this bill would apply to things where the principal use is there. And there's specific language in there that refers to Board Bill 49's definition in order for SLDC to make those determinations. And that really is my full presentation.

All right. We'll open it up for questions, because is there any public comment in the room for? Oh, OK. Well, do you want to do questions first, or you want to do public comment?

I guess we can do public comment first.

OK. Anyone signed up in the room or online to speak on Board Bill 55, if you can raise your hand, swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? All right, please proceed.

Elise Schaefer.

Good afternoon, everyone. Elise Schaefer, Ward 6, Missouri Coalition for the Environment. Tax incentives should be going toward public goods, and especially when this is a completely unregulated until hopefully very soon use, we shouldn't be giving tax incentives to data centers. Thank you.

Is it Drew Falvey? Henry Robertson? Jerry Connolly, online panelists, you're up.

Hello, can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Very good. Chair Clark Hubbard, members of the committee, thanks for bringing forward this board bill. I very much support the intent of the bill and wanted to make a recommendation to strengthen the bill, and namely that would be to ensure that all possible government entities within the city of St. Louis that might have the ability to levy special taxes also be included in this. So the first of these would be the Port Authority. Currently, the Port Authority doesn't extend to the whole of the city, but there are definitely parts of the riverfront industrial corridor that are within the port boundaries and potentially the port boundaries could be expanded at some point in the future. So I want to make sure that the Port Authority is included as a body and then also political subdivisions, so taxing districts of all sorts, including the Clean Energy Development Board, and that has a financing entity. So it's not maybe viewed as it's not the same kind of incentive as uh tax abatement and sales tax exemptions but it certainly affords the developer access to capital at lower than market rates and you know we've seen recently with uh green street and the armory building specifically um at least about a year ago they were delinquent on their pace assessments which when they get a pace loan that the payments are made at the same time as the taxes And I don't know whether they've caught up with that, but I don't feel the Clean Energy Development Board incentives should be going towards data centers. So those are my suggestions for improving the bill. Thanks for the opportunity to speak today.

Luana Fila.

Hi, my name is Lauren Phila. I live in Maplewood, and I'm representing the Ecosocialist Green Party of Eastern Missouri, which represents St. Louis. I wanted to appreciate Alderwoman Saunier for this bill, and I'm in support of banning data center incentives. And I just wanted to appreciate that it does include the 353 redevelopment corps because when you look at the Armory Goodwill data center, when that data center was going to be built in the Armory parking lot, the St. Louis Midtown Redevelopment Corp would have authority over those incentives. And then when it moved slightly over into the Goodwill, that is a different authority. So it's really important that this applies to any and all possible Development board so yeah, thank you for that and I echo Jerry's Mention to just make sure that's as strong as possible And just reiterate that we shouldn't be rewarding data centers with tax breaks I do think there's a lot of talk about hypothetical money that could come in from data centers We're not talking enough about the cost to residents from data centers We know that data centers without a doubt cost residents money they cause electric bills across the state to rise, so low-income families, St. Louis public schools, students and families would be paying more for electricity as we're building more data centers. But meanwhile, the tax money is really hypothetical. Experts are warning that we're in a data center bubble, and even if we did get this tax money, I don't think that I'm seeing enough proof that it would go to benefit necessary city services. I'm in support of the bill and I just want to make sure that it applies to any and all redevelopment boards and development boards.

Thanks Miss Smith Again I'm Kat Logan Smith with the seventh Ward and I'm here to my elder woman, for bringing this bill. Thank you. And also to support it. I think it's a great idea not to give money to data centers, and I don't want my tax dollars going to data centers. I want my tax dollars going to after school programs, the Office of Violence Prevention. I think we've testified to this before. And I want us to keep in mind, because there's a lot of hype and speculation about data centers out there, I want us to realize the moment that we are in And it isn't that we're stepping on the verge of a new dawn of fabulousness because of data centers. We are stepping on the verge of the unknown and the powers that are controlling it are leaning towards surveillance, war, violence and control, and that is not a direction I want our money to go ever, ever. So I'm in support of this bill. I'm against incentives for data centers, and I'm glad that it's also being written to be very comprehensive. So thank you, Jerry, for bringing that other loophole up. Thank you.

This is the last presenter. Is it Sana Bafia?

I'd like to echo what has said. I'm in support of the bill. I am very concerned when it comes to data centers in St. Louis. And I think that having local tax incentives for data centers would only be a detriment to St. Louis. This isn't something that the people over here want. And certainly, it's not something that people want their tax dollars going towards. Thank you.

So last comment.

All right, we'll move through Alderman Cohn. Alderman Swyser.

Thank you. Can you address the ability for other taxing districts to grant tax abatements? Is that a concern of yours or do you feel like it's addressed in the bill?

Yes. So I want to read specifically from the bill to help provide some context of the language that is in the bill. There is some specific language that says The term tax incentives as currently defined under the chapter shall be put in place with the following language. Tax incentives mean any tax incentive, tax abatement, tax exemption, tax credit, payment in lieu of taxes, or financing benefits administered, approved, authorized, or granted by the city or any decision-making body. including, without limitation, tax increment financing under the Real Property Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act, and then I state the state statute for that. Real property tax abatement under the Urban Redevelopment Corporation's law, which is Chapter 323, and I reference the state statute for that. Tax abatement granted through the Land Clearance and Redevelopment Authority. And then I state the state statute for that. Tax abatement granted through the Planned Industrial Expansion Authority. And I state the statute for that. Real or personal property tax abatement associated with the issuance of industrial development bonds under. And then I state the state statute for that. But for Mr. Connolly, who's watching, that's Chapter 10. local tax benefits under the enhanced enterprise zone program, and I state the statute for that, and any successor, substitute, or comparable tax incentive hereafter authorized by Missouri law and administered by the city or decision-making body. And so I do think it's very comprehensive. I stood before this committee maybe about two years ago for, ta-da, the Tax Accountability and Development Act, and that bill, this mirrors language that, because I had conversations counselor from our end and a city counselor who represents SLDC. Because SLDC is a quasi-governmental body, there were legal questions around whether or not we could technically directly reference it within the legislation. And so instead, I've referenced any decision-making body, which again, we found that to be very successful with TADA, The SODC has completely complied and respected that completely. They even adopted a resolution for it. But then also I think those state statutes, I did reference that because a lot of the bonds or things that any of the decision-making bodies would be giving out are incentivized and enabled through state legislation and state statutes. So I think that it does comprehensively capture all of those things.

Thank you. I appreciate that and I appreciate your thoroughness there. Thank you. Thank you.

Alderman Browning.

Thank you, Alderwoman. I appreciate you bringing this bill. We had a good discussion about it yesterday, and I think that it makes sense the way that people are pitching these is that they're going to make tons of money. And so I can see them as being ways to subsidize other developments if they're micro or other smaller ones. But I don't really think that we should be incentivizing the use itself. And so I appreciate you bringing this, and I will be in support.

Madam Clerk, or Mr. Clerk, can you please ask?

Okay. Thank you. So noted. Perfect. All right. Vice Chair Sanya, you're welcome to close.

Well, I would just thank you all for your support. I've had the chance to talk to you all about this. I feel very lucky. All the women... easier in comparison to the ones we're having about the whole comprehensive list of regulations. And I would honestly also want to uplift, like, the Teachers Union has been supportive. I've had great conversations. Even many of the folks who, where we're still trying to figure out how to thread that needle with the regulations, whether folks are in opposition to certain things, almost every group and every affinity agrees that, you know, local tax incentives should not be used to do these. Instead, the opposite should go. If they're going to have them, they should be adding to the city's coffers and not taking away from them.

Thank you.

I think we can take a vote, but I do just want to be transparent with the committee that I plan to move this bill along with Board Bill 49. If something happens in tomorrow where it doesn't move or it's paused, the definitions that are set in Board Bill 49 or the way this bill relies upon, I will have to keep it through. So if we should pass this and if that bill is not ready to go before the floor, then I will place it on the informal calendar until Board Bill 49 has been worked out.

Thank you. With that, I'll accept a motion for Board Bill 55. Second.

Yes, sir. Alderman Cohn.

It was a little blurry, but I think I can hear you now.

If the intent is to move it today, it moves out of... Hello?

Yes, we can hear you now.

Hello? So if the intent is to move this with the other board bill, we should not be taking a vote on this because then it would be moving it out of committee. As soon as we take the vote on it, we're making a do pass recommendation and passing it out of committee. So...

Correct.

You'd have to hold it on the floor.

Yeah. And that's what I will do. If board bill 49 is not moved out tomorrow, then I will place it on the informal calendar, but we've just been here for so long. Tomorrow there'll be additional conversation. So I'd rather just have that one thing on our, and get this out the way. This is, we have, it seems unanimous agreement.

Just wanted to be clear.

Alderman Browning, I'm sorry, Alderman Aldridge made the motion. Alderman Swicer, Alderwoman Swicer seconded with a call for previous role with no objection. Congratulations. Board Bill 55 is passed. The do pass recommendation.

Thank you.

I do want to note publicly that we did receive notice that there were some people that were not able to participate. via Zoom today. So just know that tomorrow we will be taking up Board Bill 49. You know, anytime there's a committee hearing at HUD's, I always allow for public comments. So to the ones that were not allowed to speak, speak or be moved over or recognized by their hands we will not only address that but also please participate if you need to um not i'm sorry if you can't participate tomorrow then please send your written comments again to the board clerk so that all of us can see them so that meeting will be tomorrow at 3 30 p.m here as well as online here in the kennedy room in city hall as well as online Any resolutions for review?

There were none.

Any additional committee discussions?

There were none.

Any written testimony?

There were 16 as of this morning.

For, did they reference what board bill?

49, board bill 49.

Okay. Any additional announcements? All members were present this morning, so with that, I'll, I'm sorry, this afternoon now. So with that, I'll accept the motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

It was moved by.

Objection.

It was moved by Alderman Aldridge, seconded by Vice Chair Saini with a call for previous by Alderman Schweitzer with no objection. We are adjourned. Everyone have a blessed day.