Housing, Urban Development and Zoning - Regular Meeting

So we're going to go ahead and call today's Special Housing Urban Development and Zoning Committee meeting to order. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Cohn. Alderwoman Switzer. Present. Alderwoman. Alderwoman, Vice Chair Switzer. I'm sorry, Vice Chair Sonnier. Alderman Browning. Alderman Aldridge.

Present.

Chair Clark Hubbard. Here. We have four present. We have a quorum.

All right. With that, we'll don't have minutes to review because we're just carrying on. And we're going to continue to carry on, try our best to get this right, right? So what we're going to do is change the agenda around a little bit today because I apologize. I'm going to have to step out to go to a legislation and rules committee for about five, ten minutes and then come back. But I don't want to miss any of the public comments. So I'm asking. for us to switch the agenda around. We're going to start with public comment. Please make sure you signed up. After that, I'll recognize Alderwoman Swicer on her bill, and she has some speakers that will come up with her as well. You'll hear everyone in the room that signed up to speak. If you can raise your right hand for to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. And anyone online, if you signed up to speak or would like to speak, please raise your hand so you can be moved over. And again, Madam Clerk or Mr. Clerk are going to call your name when you stand up, say your name, your ward or your affiliation, and then you can proceed with your three minutes of testimony. Thank you.

Our first speaker in the room is Matt O'Leary. She had a question. Mr. O'Leary.

He's going to get them.

I'm sorry, what did you say? Joe DeLea.

Hey, Joe.

Test, test, test. Okay, thank you Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. My name is Joe DeLay, I'm a businessman in both wards four and six and I'm a proponent of reasonable data center oversight. I've attended all the meetings and it's become abundantly clear that there's some additional time needs to be studied and reviewed. But I understand and I hear that there will be a motion today to pass this out of committee. I was on a call today with Ameren and they indicated they provided the staff and several other persons with data showing that the bill in its current form is unattainable with respect to renewable energy credits. So I have to ask myself, why does the current language in the bill that the sole utility provider, Ameren, has indicated is unattainable remain in the bill? This would lead a reasonable person to believe that the true intent of the bill is to ban data. If that is the case, then you should make the board's intentions clear and tell everybody what Bill 49's intention is. As the president of the NAACP, Adolphus Pruitt, said yesterday that we should all work together to find a solution because AI is not going to mysteriously disappear. I would encourage all the members to understand what unbundled and bundled renewable energy credits clearly are and to consult with the Ameren representative to assess their capacity to provide them. Please do not pass something out of committee until you clearly understand this important point regarding renewable energy credits and currently in Bill 49 is unachievable. As Alderman Aldridge commented yesterday, We need to get this right, and we are a long way from that, given that our sole utility provider has indicated the current bill is faithfully flawed. Thus, I ask you not to pass Bill 49 out of committee today. Thank you.

Do I need to be sworn in? I do. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for the opportunity to testify again in front of this committee. I just wanted to report that after a lot of work over the last 24 hours, I represent the WASHAPS SID. We have come to a general agreement with the sponsor of the legislation and support Amendment 4 as well as I'm passing out a committee. I appreciate the effort led by Alderwoman Schweitzer as well as the rest of this committee. So I'm pleased to be able to testify and support. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Abby Guthrie online.

Hi, my name is Abigail Gunther and I live in Ward 7. I'm just here in favor of the regulations. I do think that community consent is important, so I think they could be stronger, but I think it's more important that we get regulations in place to begin with. And as far as the renewable energy credits, I just want to push back on that and kind of emphasize what Alderwoman Schweitzer said yesterday. which is, you know, the city wants to meet their sustainable climate goals. And if the renewable energy credits aren't available, then maybe that this kind of industry doesn't belong in our city. So thank you.

Next speaker, Lauren Fila.

Hi, I'm Lauren Phila. I live in Maplewood. I'm the co-chair of Socialist Green in Eastern Missouri. I won't reiterate what I said yesterday, but I do want to thank the work that Ann Schweitzer has done on the regulations so far, the amendment from Alderman Aldridge and the additional bill from Alderwoman Saunier. I know this isn't a question and answer session, but I'm going to ask a question and I'm hoping that all of you will answer it during the time that you have to comment because we've asked it many times. And that question is if you do believe that residents should be able to consent to a very risky facility being built near their neighborhoods. I don't want to hear the obfuscations that we heard from some of the committee members yesterday comparing data centers to the automotive industry. And this is historically unprecedented in terms of noise, sound, air pollution, energy use, and water use. So I want to hear from each person when the time is open for you to speak if you believe that residents have a right to consent to those risks and if you would be willing to fight for residents' right to consent to those risks. Either an amendment to these regulations We're into something separate at the Board of Alders, but it cannot wait until next session. It's urgent. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lewis Hamilton.

Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee, I'm Lewis Hamilton. I'm a resident of Ward 8. I've been involved in the discussions and back and forth at the Planning Commission with this board bill with respect to the interests of my client, the Globe Building downtown, which is a longtime existing data center. And we're concerned that the existing operators, primarily downtown, that have been in business for, in some cases, 25 years, and have operated lawfully and without any issues, that their interests not be interrupted by any new action by the city. It's taken some time to get to it, but I believe that the amendments that are to be offered today will satisfy the concerns of my client, The Globe, and perhaps the other existing operators downtown. So I'm here to speak in favor of this bill as shall be amended by the Board of Aldermen. Thank you.

Next speaker is Danny, Danny Kahn. Next speaker, Ryan Diebel online.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

My name is Ryan Diebel. I live in the county, but I work in Ward 10. I was at the meeting yesterday. I'm not going to repeat myself. I have this short comment. If nobody wants these data centers in St. Louis, they are hazardous to the health of people that live near them, and they are harmful to residents as a whole. They pollute our water, our air, and create a huge amount of noise. If you have been listening to the public, you should be well aware of that. There is huge public outrage against these things because we know what happens to the people that live near them. We don't want that for ourselves, and we don't want that for our friends and neighbors. If they must be built... which, again, they do not, and no one wants them except greedy developers and those who believe they can profit off of, they must be strictly regulated. If these cannot be built with regulations that ensure our health and our environment is protected, then they shouldn't be built at all. And I would ask you to pass for Bill 49.

That's it. Thank you. Henry Eubank.

Good afternoon.

My name is Henry Eubank. I'm the Director of Public Policy at Greater St. Louis, Inc. I want to start by thanking the Chairwoman and members of the committee for your diligent and hard work on this issue. It's really important. More so, I want to extend our gratitude to Miriam Keller and the rest of the planning staff for their diligent work for nearly a year on this framework. They've been under a lot of pressure. However, as the regulations stand today, there are a number of provisions we find problematic that will certainly discourage and effectively prohibit data center investment in the City of St. Louis, and they warrant reconsideration. You heard us speak about those yesterday, and you received written comment as well. Two of those provisions I want to focus on today act as a de facto ban on data center development in the city of St. Louis, the renewable energy requirements and the public impact agreement. Excuse me. Requiring 50% renewable energy pre-occupancy and 95% by year 10 exceeds the regional capacity in what is possible. With a 25% local renewable energy credit cap, compliance becomes prohibitively expensive and effectively blocks these projects. This particular regulation acts as a ban on major data center development in the city of St. Louis. There is no pathway to achieve the level of energy on the timeline you have set in this bill. I believe that y'all know this, and that is evidenced by members of the committee stating that if these projects cannot achieve these unrealistic renewable energy goals, that they are wrong for the city of St. Louis. I don't think economic development done responsibly is wrong for the city of St. Louis. While the city does not have goals on economic development or solving the financial woes plaguing city operations, enacting this renewable policy will certainly stifle the historic capital investment we're seeing occur around the country and around this state. We urge the committee to slow this process down and take the time needed to fully understand what is possible for renewable energy production. Again, as written, the unrealistic renewable energy requirement is blatant in its intention to ban major data center development in the city Just without being about the intent next the public impact agreement You know having this public impact agreement process run parallel to the Board of Public Service and the conditional use permit process is is helpful but ultimately, you know pitching approval of that PIA to the to two-thirds of the Board of Aldermen and In our view, kind of acts as another ban on these projects. You know, hypothetically, if you had alders and status in our development of all kind, that would make that be a pretty steep bar or steep hill to climb at the board. having that PIA get approved by the Board of Public Service where that conditional use permit is already gonna be running through might make a bit more sense. To close, sensible regulation will not be what stifles investment into the city. It's uncertainty around who is approving the project. The renewable standards are not attainable. PIA offers uncertainty to the process and offers the Board of Aldermen an opportunity to veto economic development opportunities in parts of the city they do not represent. Again, I want to urge the committee to slow down with this process, take some more time for some fact finding, especially around the renewable energy. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Tina Field online.

AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TINA AND I LIVE IN THE 9th WARD. FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND HUD'S COMMITTEE FOR THE WORK THEY HAVE PUT INTO THESE REGULATIONS, ESPECIALLY ALDERWOMEN SWITZER AND SONIERE. AS A CITY PLANNER AND FORMER ALDERWOMEN OF THE 17th WARD, I OPPOSE THE CURRENT PROPOSED DATA SETTING REGULATIONS FOR TWO PRIMARY REASONS. First, the legislation is being rushed. More time is needed to properly discuss and improve these regulations. The urgency to finalize them before the Board of Alder People's summer recess is a manufactured deadline, not a planning necessity. Rushing legislation because of legislative calendar is poor city planning, and it has contributed to many of the city's failed development decisions over the past several decades. I'm not suggesting this process should take another two years. I believe these regulations could and should be completed by the end of this year. But we should not approve half-finished legislation simply because summer recess is approaching. My primary request is simple. I ask that this board amend the legislation to give residents the right to consent whenever a data center is proposed in the city of St. Louis. This is the same request that I and many other residents made before the Planning Commission on May 18, 2026. We asked the commission to include a provision similar to the city's existing liquor license process, where residents most directly affected have the opportunity to approve or oppose a proposed business in their neighborhood. Unfortunately, that recommendation was not included in the legislation before you today. Too often, residents' voices are overlooked in major development decisions. For decades, the city has pursued one silver bullet project after another, only to watch many of them fail. Consider just a few examples. Paul McKee's North Regeneration Project. Tax incentives were given to him. His three-room hospital ran into financial trouble and failed. Joe Edwards' looped trolley to nowhere. How can a trolley that has no commuter function to bring people to their jobs be economically viable? It can't. And the looped trolley to nowhere failed. Green Street's Armory Entertainment Center, which was given a tip despite Green Street Phil Hall's developer owing millions of property taxes to the city. It failed. Each of these silver bullet projects promised transformational change. Each ultimately failed to deliver on those promises, while residents bore the consequences. As an Alderwoman, I voted against the Armory TIF, not because I knew about the developer's unpaid taxes, which I did not, but because I believe the legislation lacked meaningful accountability if the project failed. Unfortunately, those concerns proved well-founded. These projects all share one common lesson. Large development should not move forward without meaningful public accountability and community input. Giving us citizens the right to consent would strengthen that accountability. Give the citizens a vote and a voice and see their choices work. My second concern is equity. These proposed regulations. Mr. Field, that's your time. I WILL JUST FINISH. THESE PROPOSED DATA CENTERS ARE PRIMARILY ON THE NORTH SIDE. PLEASE GIVE US CITIZENS A MEANINGFUL VOICE IN SHAPING THE FUTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

HENRY ROBERTSON.

THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT AMERIN'S REASON IS WHY THE RENEWABLE ENERGY GOALS CAN'T BE MET. It might have something to do with the MRN themselves, because they can make more money building nuclear and natural gas generation than renewables. I heard something in the amendments last year that caught my attention. That was unbundled RECs. And I have a history of unbundled RECs. I was a lawyer at the Great Rivers Environmental Law Center. I represented environmental organizations at the PSC, trying to get the utilities to do more renewable energy efficiency. And I have a very negative opinion of unbundled wrecks. All electricity is like, so renewable energy certificates were invented to capture the environmental value of renewable energy. And so a company can buy renewable energy and get the wreck, and that's proof that they can show the world that they're meeting whatever environmental goals they have. Unbundled RECs, however, are not sold together with the electricity that they represent. They're just floating out there in the market, being bought and sold back and forth until somebody finally buys them for the purpose of using them. They can only be used once to prove that you are buying or using renewable energy, and then they have to be retired. They go to a registry that was created to keep track of those things. But they don't really prove much. As Ms. Russell said yesterday, you can buy one for a buck. So if we must go down the road of allowing unbundled RECs to be used, I would like to see that the data center be required by some mechanism to take the value of those RECs and reinvest it in new renewable energy. Otherwise, unbundled RECs count for nothing. Thank you.

Mary Ellen Parmenter?

Oh, yes. Hi, my name is Mary Ellen Parmenter. I'm a resident of the Fifth Ward, and I am testifying in favor of greater regulations of data centers in support of Bill 49. In particular, I think I've been to a number of the planning commission meetings, and I think one of the biggest things that is currently missing from the regulations is residents having a right to consent to data centers in their neighborhood. You know, we've seen with the Midtown Data Center that we don't have sufficient protections right now for when residents don't want to have the risks and the downsides of a data center in their immediate area. So I would advocate for that. I also want to push back on the argument that I've heard at every meeting I've attended, which is that AI is here to stay. We don't want to get left behind. Data centers are here to stay. And it's a weak argument. If you don't have real arguments for the benefits economically and community-wise for the data center you're building, then I think it just shows that they don't have the evidence that this will be a long-term economic benefit to build these high capacity data centers. So I would push back on that idea. And yeah, just urge the Board of Aldermen's to support regulations and to oppose high capacity data centers.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone who hasn't signed up yet, if you want to speak, please sign the signup sheet. And Nick Hartler, you're the next speaker.

Good afternoon. My name is Nick Hartzler with Steadfast City and a First Ward resident. I won't belabor too many points. I was told yesterday that I was a terrible speaker, so I hope to be better today. So I really just want to echo what Mr. Eubank said, specifically around the language, around the renewable energy credits. I hope you'll consider and adopt the language that Ameren has said is attainable and earnable for these projects. I think that's really what this all comes down to, is what, you know, what can be done reasonably within this. We support regulations. Regulations provide predictability throughout this process. Anyone to say that we don't support regulations is wrong, misrepresenting us. So I hope you'll consider that. And then just one kind of tangential point that I do bring up that I missed an opportunity yesterday during board bill 55 but in within board bill 55 it sets a definition for the data centers i hope on the floor you'll consider an amendment that states at a trigger clause that whenever board bill 49 is adopted the language in there becomes the definitions tied to that because zoning regulations are much more secure they can't be changed as easily WHERE OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO DEFINITIONS FLOATING OUT IN THE CITY CODE SO HOPE YOU'LL TAKE UP THAT THOUGHT THANK YOU MAHALA PITMAN ONLINE HELLO I AM A RESIDENT OF THE SECOND CAMERA ON PLEASE OH YEAH SORRY CAN YOU SEE ME YES

Excellent. My name is Mihaela Pittman. I am a resident of Second Ward. I support having regulations, firm regulations for data centers in St. Louis. I would like to thank Alderwoman Ann Schweitzer for your work on this bill. I agree that with our city's sustainability goals, anything less than 100% clean energy is inappropriate. And if that pathway is not achievable, then data center developments in our city are not achievable. There's widespread opposition to these projects. And if the residents say, no, if we have certain goals, we would like to achieve for our city. We're not required to bend our regulations to make it possible for someone to. because they want it against the will of the people. Notice that the very people trying to convince us that AI and data centers are inevitable are the same people who stand to benefit from these dangerous developments without feeling the impacts. That being said, I largely support these regulations, but I do feel strongly that there needs to be clear language that requires community consent. citizens have the right to consent to what is built in our city, because we are the ones impacted by the developments that are built here, not the out of state developers, we feel the impacts, we have a right to say what we want. And what we don't want what happened with the armory data Center project approval fractured a lot of trust with the Community and city leadership. So please show us that you care about our voices by putting it in writing. Require community oversight. Overall, I support this bill, but that community oversight is imperative. Thank you.

Our final speaker is Dee Chap online.

Hi, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our thoughts regarding this. I work in Ward 11 and will be directly impacted by this. I'm concerned about health and environmental, negative health and environmental effects from this. As somebody that grew up in North County and was all too aware of the health and environmental consequences of Coldwater Creek, this is something that we may not know the negative effects until years down the road, sometimes decades down the road, and want that to be considered. Additionally, the application for data centers only requires a third party professional environment or study. It does not adequately specifying credit credential, unlike the required economic impact report or the annual noise reporting. Similar regulations in Jefferson County mandate that the environmental engineer be chosen by the county as opposed to being chosen by the developers. I support the right to consent. I don't support this data center, but in the event that it does. I guess economic. development trumps quality of life. I do support these regulations. We currently have no monitoring in place for heat or noise level, and this interim bill only requires annual reporting of noise and heat. The self-reporting of heat is right for manipulation and misrepresentation. Right now, major data centers require a 600 feet setback from key areas. Developers and other pro data center proponents will push to narrow it down to 300 feet, and we need to ensure that protections are in place for homes, schools, and parks. The bill currently forbids a data center that solely relies on evaporative cooling, but without specifying an actual limit. A developer could easily do 99% evaporative and 1% dry cooling in COLA today. In the event that this does have to go through, I feel like the citizens need transparency. They need this data center needs to abide by strict regulations. And please consider the health and environmental impacts that this will have on the citizens surrounding this. Thank you.

That was our final speaker.

Thank you. Do you want to? Alderman Schweitzer, do you have any amendments that you want to bring forward, or would you like me to begin going through the committee for discussion?

I do have amendments, and I'd also like to speak to some of the things that were brought up in public comment.

OK, so go ahead and speak, and then we can go through your amendments, and then we'll go through the committee for discussion. And any others who are online, I will give you all the opportunity to speak as well.

OK. So I really appreciate the continued work of this committee. I do not take it lightly that this bill is taking up a lot of time from a lot of people, including those in the room who have come multiple times to speak. I want to address some of the public comments that were made, and then as well as I have a short presentation that the Missouri Coalition for the Environment will give on urban heat islands, which I think is a really important part of this conversation. I think I get more than three minutes. Yes, you do. So a few things to bring up. Earlier in June, the Health and Hospitals Board did meet, and that's staffed by people who work in the city health department and then is staffed by experts in health in the field. Someone who's been involved in this conversation pointed me to that conversation that they were having, and I think it was a really helpful thing to talk about. We're not just talking about environmental concerns like we think of when we think of sustainability, or we're not just talking about sustainability when we talk about environmental concerns. We are also talking about the effects that these environmental issues have on our health. as a people of the city of St. Louis. So a few things that the doctors on that board discussed and really gave voice to some of the reasons why these regulations are so important. One of those things are the noise and emissions from this use. and how that can disrupt sleep patterns and cause all sorts of other issues that people will deal with in their lives, as well as the light concerns, which we've done a pretty good job addressing in the bill. But only if the regulations are in effect do we actually have things in place to deal with those concerns. The heat impacts of data centers, these are things that can be felt for great distances from data centers, especially in the ones that we're considering in the major category. We already know that we have a heat issue in the city of St. Louis. The Missouri Coalition for the Environment is going to give some information on that current issue as it stands and then how it stands to be exacerbated by the approval of many more data centers in the city of St. Louis. I think it's really important for us to take that in. especially as we've seen heat and the temperatures just dramatically increase over time. And we are expecting it to continue to happen if we do nothing. But if we are adding this kind of use or proliferating this kind of use in the city of St. Louis, we should expect it to increase much more dramatically. So we need to have these strong regulations in place to address many of these things, health concerns, which I feel like I haven't done enough to explain. It's not just sustainability, but it's also how the environmental triggers here affect our health. We don't really know the long-term effects of this industry, especially the larger data, the larger energy users that are being entered in the standard and major definitions of data centers. And once we open the door, we're going to have that door open. These regulations really allow continuous operation. So that's something that's really important to make sure that we are thoughtful at this time. The comments made yesterday by Ms. Kittlaus representing the Locust Business District I think were others that really explained why these regulations on standard, especially on standard and major data centers are so important. They are negotiating for their business district with this building and this use that doesn't have to follow the regulations that are in front of us today. They're doing a good job being a good neighbor according to Ms. Kittlaus so far. But what if they wanted to say no to something? And then you're in an apartment building right nearby, and you've got this different generator testing schedules, or emissions, or cooling fans, or all of these things that our regulations here are striving to address. And because that data center was permitted before the executive order even existed, it wasn't something that was conditional. So they're really completely relying on the goodwill of the data center operator for working with them on things. Yeah, I want to push back a little bit on the comments that have been made about this being a ban with another name. So there are three categories of data centers outlined in this bill. The micro category does not have any of the renewable requirements that the standard and major data centers reach up to. So it is absolutely not a ban because the micro data centers would not have to conform with those pieces. That is just false, and I wish you would stop calling my colleagues and telling them that. So the micro data center piece is not something that is tied to the renewable requirements, so it's not something that even applies to it all. So let's stick with what's in the bill and what's true, just for the ease of conversation. For standard and major data centers having to follow renewable requirements, I will say it over and over and over again. We do not regulate Ameren. We do not regulate the industry that provides electricity. What we do have control over is meeting our comprehensive plan in the city of St. Louis, meeting our sustainability goals. and listening to the people we represent who hope that we're taking those things seriously, even to the point of saying that these regulations are too weak, that they should be stronger, that they're not good enough. So that is something that I'm hearing more often than almost anything else. We're hearing from people paid by this industry that they believe the renewable requirements are a ban, which is, again, not true because the micro data centers are not subject to them. And the standard and major data centers, we don't know yet how that will play out when one of those companies comes and applies under this chapter. they will have to show their megawattage use, how much they plan on using, and talk with the electric service provider about what they need to meet in the regulations. And if at that time the electric service provider says they can't do it, then that is the conversation that they're having with the electric service provider. What I think possible is that there will only be so many of these that can happen under these regulations and I think that's okay because I don't think the people of st. Louis want to see a proliferation of this industry that is unchecked so if to meet our sustainability goals the first few data centers that apply are able to meet these goals which I think they could and then perhaps the 10th or 15th or 20th data center that applies can't. But that's okay because we have these goals in place and we're trying to meet them. So I think that is really important. I understand that infinity data centers wouldn't be possible under these sustainability goals just with how much energy needs to be built. But I think it's also important to remember that Ameren is currently working on their integrated resource plan and an update to that. So they will be showing soon how they plan to meet the demands of this emerging industry. This is an industry that regardless of whether it's renewable power generation, nuclear, or natural gas, more power generation will need to be built across the grid in order to meet the demands of this industry. And so I think that that is something that needs to be part of the conversation as well, whether that's renewable, nuclear, or a gas that's not really up to us. What's up to us is being able to follow the provisions of our sustainability plan. That is all that is up to us. So I just think that that is really important and needs to be part of the conversation. With that, I would like to turn it over to Elise Schaefer to talk more about the heat island impacts. So that can be something that is on the record for our committee's consideration. Do you need to hook up your own computer? I certainly can. Can we hook up our computer? This isn't the right presentation.

Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. And thank you Alderman Schweitzer for inviting me to speak on this issue. Thank you again, Vice Chair Sonnier and members of the committee. I know you've heard a lot on this topic and I will try to be as brief as possible. For those who don't know me, my name is Elise Schaefer and I am here with Missouri Coalition for the Environment. We're a legislative advocacy organization fighting for environmental issues that impact people across the state of Missouri. And I feel very lucky to work specifically in the city of St. Louis as well as in Jefferson City. Madam Clerk, if we could go to the next slide. So the Alderwoman wanted me to address specifically the issue of the urban heat island in St. Louis, and this map shows you a snapshot from a few years ago illustrating what the urban heat island is, and it's, very simply put, the fact that the city is hotter than the surrounding areas. So this image shows you about a 10 degree temperature differential between the city of St. Louis and the surrounding rural areas. And if we can go to the next slide, we can talk about some of the reasons why that differential exists. There are sort of indirect impacts on why it's getting hotter overall, and I won't belabor the point on energy. I think Alderman Schweitzer has done a phenomenal job and previous presenters have done a phenomenal job. explaining that if we burn more fossil fuels, and we will have to in order to accommodate any data centers in the city of St. Louis, we will be increasing the overall temperature of the globe because we will be emitting fossil fuel emissions like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that will make the Earth hotter and harder for the Earth overall to cool down. Those are emissions that last hundreds of years. in the atmosphere. The direct impacts of data centers on the urban heat island, sorry, the direct causes of the urban heat island in the city are the actual fabric of our city. So the beautiful brick architecture, which is why I love St. Louis, the asphalt, the concrete, these things are more densely concentrated in the city than they are in surrounding areas, and they hold onto heat for longer. So they heat up quicker, they hold onto that heat longer, and then they're releasing that overnight, whereas surrounding areas have the chance to cool down, and then that is what we call the urban heat island. Additionally, our city is very old. The average age of a home, I believe, is over 100 years old in the city, and that means our buildings are not very efficient, which means you have to use more air conditioning. It means you're displacing more hot air inside, outside, and the city keeps getting hotter in a negative feedback loop. And if we could go to the next slide. I'm concerned about this because it's a public health issue. Heat is the deadliest weather event in the country. It kills more people than tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes. It is extremely serious, and if we are concerned about the health and well-being of residents of the city of St. Louis, we have to be concerned about heat, and we have to understand the impact that data centers will have on increasing temperatures in the city. And if we could go to the next slide, please. So, our heat island impacts, and I think we can go one more, due to data centers. I will preface this section by saying that data centers are extremely new, and therefore the research is . So I'm running specifically a couple specific papers. But I wanted to first talk about land surface temperature, because temperature is measured both on the land and in the air. And research has shown definitively that data centers are increasing the temperature by four degrees Fahrenheit on average, within 10 kilometers of a given data center. The setbacks in this bill that are being asked for are 300 feet for standard data centers and 600 feet for major data centers. They will not be good enough setbacks to avoid this impact on residential neighborhoods in the city of St. Louis, or for that matter, on any neighborhood in the city of St. Louis. And if we could go to the next slide. Looking at air temperature, this was a paper that was a specific case study in Mesa, Arizona, outside of Phoenix, looking at a data center that would fall into the current regulation standard category. And it was emitting the same amount of heat as approximately 40,000 households. And if we could go to the next slide. That paper also looked at and found an even wider range of heat impacts. So again, a four degree increase in temperatures around a data center and the impacts were felt within 1,600 feet. So again, much farther than the current regulations go are where these impacts are going to be felt. And if we could go to my next slide, just to kind of put a fine point on this whole issue. Here in St. Louis, we have seen the number of 100-degree days double over the past 30 years. And if we could go to my final slide, we will see that number, it's estimated, double in the next 30 years. So it's going to keep getting hotter. And as the Alderman said, that's if we don't invite data centers into our city. But if we do, that problem will surely be worse and the public health impacts will also surely be worse. I just strongly encourage the committee to consider these facts when you vote today. And my thanks again to the Alderman for inviting me to speak and for your time listening to this presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

We can go through the committee, and I think there are some others online now, too, if there are any specific questions for specifically you or the Alderwoman.

Great.

Thanks, Vice Chair.

No problem. Alderman Cohn? No?

Alderman? Alderwoman? I'm going to go through committee and then come to the rest of the others online. Alderman Browning?

Thank you, Ms. Schaffer. I really appreciate the presentation and the information. I think the people that are saying we don't need to pass these regulations now that we are both ignoring the timeline that we've been on, which is that we've had three planning commission meetings, at least three, and lots of public comment, and now this is the third committee meeting. I think we should pass these as soon as possible because we've already seen um something that could be described as a large or even hyperscale data center approved by our board of public service which i don't think i'm i don't think i'm surprising anybody when i say that i think they made the wrong decision there i expressed as much when they made that decision and we are now finding out the effects of these large data centers in our city and you know i I think we all wrestle with this as decision makers at our city, that the decisions we make today, how are they gonna look 20, 30 years from now? Because we can easily look back 20, 30 years ago and see the wrong decisions we've made and how it's affected our residents and our city. And this is one of those topics where I don't think I'm going to regret putting in place as strong of regulations as possible because as that information showed, the number of 100-degree days doubling and set to double again, I wonder how many people in this room know somebody who's died from heat. I do. I've had ward constituents die from heat. It's awful to hear that news. It's awful to have to talk to their family members and know they lost someone because they were sitting alone in their house and didn't have air conditioning, which if you knock doors in our city, you know there's a lot of places in our city that don't have air conditioning. So these are decisions that we're having to make that really do have very real effects on people in this city. And I understand how easy it is to get dollar signs in our eyes and think that we've found the next solution for the city, but if we're not making those decisions with respect to the most valuable asset our city has is our people, then I don't think that we're making, you know, we're not giving this the diligence it deserves. I guess my question for you, Ms. Schaffer, is that you come from this from an environmental perspective, and you're not hiding that. You're being very clear about your perspective on this, but knowing that all these things interact with each other? Is it your thought that microdata centers are the main threat here when it comes to rising temperatures? Or is there a distinction to be made between the size and the scale of these?

There's absolutely a distinction that should be made, and I think that that distinction is well addressed by the bill. One of the papers, and I'm happy to share both or either of those with any of the committee members who are interested or any of your colleagues, if this makes it to the full board. We're seeing those impacts, like I said, at that 30 megawatt threshold, so I think that that was very wisely chosen. The much smaller sites that can be contained simply don't put off as much heat and therefore should be regulated differently, absolutely.

Thank you, and I agree. I think that these regulations very thoughtfully understand the nuance to this issue and really try to split the difference while at the same time protecting the residents of the city. So I appreciate your time today.

Audubon Aldridge?

Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you for being here. I'll save my questions around the data center part later, but I appreciate the work that you do and thankful for the angle that you're coming at this with to try to figure out a solution. So I appreciate your leadership.

Thanks, Alderman.

I appreciated the presentation as well. I thought it was good information.

I think it's important to keep the impacts that this will have on people and their quality of life in context. And I think your presentation was helpful. So thank you.

I APOLOGIZE FOR MISSING THE PRESENTATION. I CANNOT WAIT TO GO BACK AND HEAR THE PRESENTATION. BUT BECAUSE I SEE YOU AND FOLLOW YOU AND KNOW HOW YOU PRESENT THE COMMUNITY, I KNOW WHATEVER IT IS, IT DEFINITELY CLEARED FROM MY COLLEAGUES' COMMENTS AND WAS IMPACTFUL. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

AND ALTERWOMAN BOYD?

YES, MA'AM. CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME?

YES, WE CAN.

Okay, thank you for your presentation in regards to environmental. But I guess my concern is, as being the chair of the Health and Human Development Committee, we've been talking about environmental issues for a while. So this heat is one piece of the environmental. So my question to you, ma'am, is, with you telling us about the heat. So the data centers that's already in existence, how are they impacting our environment? Because we have what, 12, 13 data centers. So what I'm hearing is you saying the data centers are bringing out this heat. So how are these data centers impacting the city as a whole?

Absolutely, thank you for the question, Alderwoman. They definitely are already contributing to the heat island that we're experiencing in the city. I believe the data centers that we have in the city right now are of much, much, much smaller scale, to Alderman Browning's question, than the ones that are most heavily regulated in this bill. So the worst impact would happen with the largest data centers. So the ones that are in that 510 megawatt range simply aren't putting out as much heat because they're not using as much energy and they're not using as much equipment as the larger facilities. And those are the ones that will put out more heat and exacerbate the problem.

And so As far as environment, I guess I'm concerned because nobody is looking at the environment as a whole. For example, COVID, that was environmental. Nobody saw the urgency to address that environment danger within our city. The tornado. Nobody saw the environmental issues in that part. So I guess what I'm saying is I understand her looking at after the fact because the cow is out. The gate is closed. I understand that. But I think people need to be careful because as a city, we have impacted our residents for a long time environmentally. And it just seems to me it's just certain things that they bring experts to talk about how it's impacting our citizens. Yeah, I do have citizens in my community that have been impacted with no error. But I also have residents in my community that have been impacted by cancer, by asthma, and the COVID, because our numbers are higher, infant immortality, because of environmental issues. And so it's not that I'm saying I'm totally want to agree with this bill, but I'm saying we need to be careful when we start putting this information out to put fear into our city when there's other things people are ignoring in certain communities and they don't get this attention as they're getting, as this is getting now. But thank you for bringing that up, and I appreciate it. But I just think we need to look as a city as a whole in regards to impacting our citizens. Thank you.

Well, and if I may, Chairwoman and Alderwoman, address some of those concerns. I don't think the cow's out of the pasture yet, and adding more greenhouse gas emissions with these standard and large data centers will only exacerbate most of environmental issues Alderwoman brought up, natural disasters like tornadoes included, asthma included. And I would encourage you to take all of those things into account when considering today. Thank you so much.

Thank you, and thank you for coming to give that presentation. I think it's really helpful and just helps the members of the board, members of the committee to really understand the impact of this year, especially as we start considering these larger standard and major data centers that we really just haven't seen yet in our city or seen yet operational. We do have a 27 megawatt facility currently being built that we will know more about as it turns on. I have a few amendments today. I know that they were spoken about briefly by some of the current data center operators and their representatives. There are three amendments. Two of them amend the bill itself, which just helps us so that when we refer to something in the amendment for the current operators that it is correctly written in the bill itself. So it's all sort of part of the same thing, even though it's broken into three pieces. I can go, I'd like to start with amendment number nine, which is the longest one. If that's possible, great. Thank you. So as has been said, we spent many, many hours going through the applicability requirements for this chapter. The new facility section has been updated The new facility language has been updated to make sure that full compliance is required for new data centers, but to specify that new data center occupants within existing data center buildings are addressed further on in the non-confirming use section. So we agreed on that. We agreed on the expansions for data centers. Well, it really doesn't apply to them. But this part of the chapter, any expansions of data centers that are conditionally approved under this chapter, if they expand, they need to comply with the chapter going forward. And that includes any changes in their size classification. So it doesn't change anything. Section C is where we start getting a lot of the changes. We were discussing the expansion or enlargement of a structure and then structural alterations. So there's an agreement that if the exterior, the physical building increases in size with various clauses about backup generators and screening and things like that not being part of that physical enlargement. that there would be full compliance but then with their structural alterations which do not enlarge the physical exterior footprint there are specifics written out for current non-conforming uses so it requires the full compliance with the noise and vibration control sections for the building system equipment design and screening that's solely applicable in relation to new equipment or new backup generators associated with the structural alteration The backup power systems, that is solely for any new backup generators associated with the structural alterations. And there was some discussion of, in general, we're asking, we're not asking, we're requiring the regulation for tier four generators. But with some of the currently operating data centers, operating tier two is part of their business model and what they have built in as what they do on site. And so there was discussion about that, but a compromise reached there. We have full compliance with electronic waste disposal requirements. The PUE, that is requirements in the bill with these current data center operators not planning for having those PUE thresholds. We have instead had a goal as 1.35 or better. and that they have to submit reports of the facility's peak PUE for the preceding year and annualized PUE by May 1st each year, if possible. One of the currently operating facilities is in a situation where they have data centers as tenants and don't necessarily receive all of that information from their tenants. So that makes it harder for them and nearly impossible to submit that information. Some of them have goals for renewable energy. So asking, even if they do or do not have goals, that they would be submitting the scope, schedule, and budget of the voluntary renewable energy uses and then specifies that they're currently operating the non-conforming data centers have no minimal renewable energy requirement again that goes back to you know they have this grandfathered use and have already had contracts in place and wanting to make that clear for them Then it goes into the reporting requirements and then that the when those reporting are requirements are triggered related to the structural alterations and that they would be resubmitting their renewable energy use in lieu or may submit that in lieu of the renewable energy requirements required for the facilities. Then it goes into if a new structure is constructed, which talk about those structural alterations and generators, new backup generators are not considered an enlargement, including rooftop dunnage, which is very important. That's like a support for generators on the roof, which is very important to one of the downtown operators. So, and then It also says that the building itself is the non-conforming use. And then conditional use permits approved prior to the effective date of this chapter shall remain valid and in accordance with their conditions. So that is what it does. And I think if desired, it may be appropriate to have one of the current operators speak again on their support of this. But as you heard, everyone agreed and is happy with the language where it landed.

All right, we'll go through the committee. Alderman Cohn? I want to make sure. Madam Clerk, is Alderman Cohn still on, or does he have the amendment?

He is on, Chair. Alderman Browning?

Thank You Alder one so this amendment is meant to address existing data centers in the city I mean it does specify some things for the new facilities and expansions and it's about the applicability so the majority of the time that we spent on this was the expansions of existing non-conforming structures and the existing non-conforming uses and previously approved structures

so if there's a current facility and it's going to expand i think that was a concern that was been brought up to many of us as we've been going through this process um these right these regulations in this amendment are meant to coordinate with those existing data centers and figure out a path forward to make sure that we're not making them completely non-compliant with these regulations, but at the same time making sure that if they do expand they're doing so in a way that protects the environment around them.

yeah so that's a great question so there's different language in this amendment that triggers certain levels of compliance if they add a floor to their building for example in an enlargement in that way then full compliance is is triggered with the regulations if they make a structural alteration there are requirements that are triggered as well those are laid out in subsection c or in section c rather so it is written in a way that makes it clear which work, if certain work happens, then what happens in terms of how they must comply.

And specifically thinking of the data center over on Locust, if they were to add like an exterior fuel tank, is that something that's addressed by one of these other amendments or is that addressed by this amendment that how that would have to be screened and built?

Right. So we do have a future amendment that talks about fuel storage masonry screening. We have it in our bill now for the fuel storage needs to have masonry screening. And that was a concern. But we wanted to make sure in the next amendment that it's standalone fuel storage that needs to have that masonry screening. that not generators that have fuel storage if that makes sense and that's a that's amendment number 10. um we went back and forth on that piece let me see i don't believe that we're counting that as an enlargement Yeah, we have people shaking their heads that we're not counting that as an enlargement.

So the addition of a fuel storage would not be considered an enlargement and would not trigger additional requirements?

I do not believe so. I'm trying to see if we have that specifically called out in here or where that would be.

Yeah, please. It would not be, or Caitlin Smith, policy advisor to the mayor, it would not be considered an enlargement, but if they have to make any structural alterations to the site to make that fuel storage work, then they would have to comply with everything that's under C. When you say structural, sorry that I'm being so specific about that, but it's a real world situation that's happening right now.

So I'm asking because this has a real effect on the neighbors and So what does that mean, a structural improvement? Because like the addition of a fuel tank, I would consider that to be a new structure, but is that under this bill defined as something that would trigger regulations that would require it to be screened?

Yeah, under Missouri revised statutes, we cannot, if like new equipment is not considered like an enlargement, which is why that was taken out. So we can't, If they're not changing the structure, we cannot add compliance standards. But if they do, they are. And for that specific fuel storage, that is part of the reason why the masonry wall is under there, and they already have agreed to put a masonry wall around that current fuel tank, and they're not planning to add another one.

Okay. All right. That's my question. Thank you. Yeah.

Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you all the women for bringing this forward and working with the existing data centers. I know that when we talk about On Locust and the 14th and plenty others in the 14th and 8th has been one of my key things and make sure as we're doing regulations that we also ensure that the ones that are here are still being protected. I know there may be a lot of feelings right now on data centers in general, but it's not like they're not currently here or haven't been here and don't want to find us in a situation where either it sounds like something was in state statute that we had to take out of the bill because it wouldn't have been in compliance, but don't want something where we're, in my opinion, I think my stance has been very clear, shutting down the existing data centers that currently have already been operating here. So I do appreciate your work. We're working with the data centers to get the language right. I think, as I stated before, there's a lot of stakeholders in this legislation for various reasons. If it's data centers, people may like it or not. If it's labor groups who build it, people may like it or not. And I think the most important group is the people that will be impacted by it. So I think you're juggling a lot, but I do appreciate this amendment and the work that you have done with the existing data centers to be able to make sure that the language is right as much as possible before this gets to the full floor. And I'll say the rest of my comments later, but I do support at least these two amendments.

All right. So do we want to go ahead and adopt?

Yes, please. I move to adopt amendment number nine to board bill 49 as amended in committee.

Second.

Roll call.

OK. So we have a motion to adopt Amendment Number 9 to Board Bill 49. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

Aye.

Alderwoman Switzer.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonnier. Aye. Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

Chair Clark-Hubbard. Aye. We have six aye votes. All right.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. Amendment number 10 follows along. So this is important because we're talking about, we refer to various sections of the bill in Amendment number 9. And one of the concerns that was brought up regarding the screening of the fuel storage versus screening of generators are just different requirements. The fuel storage has masonry screening, and the generators, we're working on In the next amendment, we're talking about more of those differentiation between the masonry needed for fuel storage and then the type of screen for generators and having that be clear throughout the bill, throughout whether you're a new or existing data center. So board bill, so amendment number 10 to board bill 49 as amended clarifies that it is standalone fuel storage that is subject to the sort of screening type. So... Happy to take any questions on that. This might be another one where someone from the mayor's office or staff helps me out because that is my understanding of it, and there might be more that I missed.

Everybody sounds good, so that's good. Perfect. Alderman Cowell?

No questions.

Alderman Browning?

Just a point of clarification here. It says beginning on page 14, line 5, and I don't know if I'm looking at the most recent version of the bill, and I think it's actually page... 15, line six.

Very good, Alderman. Might matter. While other questions are asked, could we please clarify? They already talked to the clerk about it. Okay, so as long as that's- So we feel good about it.

As long as that's okay, I have no questions.

Staff members are more on top of it than I am, as per usual. 15. Adam and Aldridge. Thanks.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Snidere. Okay.

I don't have any questions.

I'm just going to take a moment of privilege because I wasn't here for number nine and just thank you for the work that you did on working out this arrangement and getting clear with the operating data centers on things that are feasible and can go into place. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, with that, I'll accept the motion to adopt amendment number 10. So moved.

Second. Roll call.

It was moved by Vice Chair Sayeh and seconded by Alderman Browning that we adopt amendment 10 with a call for roll call by Alderman Cohn. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderwoman Switzer. Aye. Vice Chair Sonye? Aye. Alderman Browning?

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge?

Aye.

Chair Clark-Hubbard?

Aye.

We have six aye votes.

All right. Thank you.

So Amendment Number 11 is regarding that differentiates the types of screening for generators and fuel storage. And this allows the screening of the enclosure of a generator shall include sound attenuated or soundproof enclosures that are standard for the original equipment manufacturer. that apparently comes with when you're buying a generator. So it's a deal.

OK. Alderman Cohn? OK. Alderman Browning?

No questions. No questions.

Aldridge? No question. OK. I'll just circle back to Alderman Cohn just in case.

No questions.

OK.

I'll make a motion. We adopt amendment number 11 to board bill 49 as amended in committee. Second. Previous roll.

All right. It was moved by Alderman Aldridge, seconded by Vice Chair Sanjaya that we adopt amendment 11 with the call previous roll with no objection. You may now proceed with board bill 49 as amended.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I'm happy to answer questions on the bill or any specifics that people have now that we have it amended. I don't plan any further amendments on this bill. I know there have been a lot of conversation about the bill changing and, you know, amendments happening and that's pretty standard in our legislative process that we have amendments in committee and that sometimes they're substantive and that we need to get familiar with them and that happens, that's where that work happens in committee. This is the third committee hearing that this bill has had. The amendments that were made are made in the second committee hearing after people had some time to kind of digest the bill as it came out of planning. All the amendments that I've made so far, we've discussed and were flagged for the committee during that first hearing. That's something that was coming. The renewable energy amendment that was made yesterday, was it yesterday? Yesterday. That was an amendment that did slightly lessen the renewable requirements. It cut the renewable requirements in half for entry into the market. which I think is quite significant. And then also added language for the ability to have extra time at the five-year mark and specified how the unbundled and bundled RECs work. Some of that language And the definitions would create your definition changes. So we would know what bundled and unbundled recs would face and how that the project could most easily take what they are required to do in order to operate in the city of St. Louis and bring it to the electric service provider and see if that project would be able to have that. energy available. And besides that, the other big amendment was the one that we adopted today that did take a lot of time and negotiation to get to where we landed. And so again, I don't plan on making any further amendments to the bill. And this is the bill that's in front of us today that I'm hoping does pass at the Board of Aldermen. So I'm happy to take any questions now and hear from members of the committee on any concerns.

Adam McCone.

Yeah, I don't have any questions. I asked several questions yesterday, which I feel are still relatively unanswered, to be quite honest. You know, I'm understanding that there has been a considerable amount of time put in at the planning commission level with respect to the policies that we're discussing but this board bill was just introduced less than two weeks ago the planning department is not part of the legislative branch of government affording our colleagues the opportunity to have You know the same ample conversations that have been taken place at the planning commission level, which we do have 2 representatives on this committee that sit there on planning, I think, is important. And I think also having an opportunity to digest amendments with more than 24 h is certainly something that I've always tried to permit in my process as a legislator down here at the Board of Aldermen. You know i've continued to receive feedback and questions around some of the changes that were made even yesterday that people haven't had the opportunity to really digest you know we had six or eight amendments before us yesterday and then another three today. That I think are worthy of continued discussion, I think that you know everyone i've talked to certainly on the committee. is very much in favor of having regulations and trying to address community concerns, advocacy concerns, environmental concerns, following the law as it's defined within planning and zoning and other state statutes that might be related. I have concerns around how some of this legislation also probably includes things that are already built into the building code that you know how are we going to change the building code and this ordinance moving forward if we need to change it moving forward um you know when we're adopting changes to zoning it's a little bit more intensive in terms of the process that it has to go through and so um you know i certainly would appreciate more time to be able to have these conversations i've had conversations with the president's office i've had conversations with members of this committee um it seems like everyone is willing to accommodate and work through these you know concerns and uh you know even to the point where you're especially scheduling additional meetings um including this one this afternoon on you know very much short notice, basically the 24-hour requirement that we need to post meetings. So I certainly would appreciate having additional time to have those conversations. It seems like everyone keeps coming to the table and wanting to continue to have these conversations, but they're very rushed. They're not very thoughtful. I mean, even in the presentation of amendments raised today, the sponsor of the amendments had to rely upon a person from the mayor's office. And when I spoke with the mayor's office earlier this afternoon, they didn't take a position on the amendments or the bill one way or the other. And so I'm a little perplexed as to how we have mayoral staff handing out amendments, drafting amendments, et cetera, but we're not getting clarification as to whether or not the mayor's office is supportive of those same amendments. It's just absolutely perplexing to me that we're not taking the time to actually have those deliberative conversations as part of the legislative process. I understand I've been on the planning commission for the better part of my 17 years down here, and I understand how these processes work. But the Planning Department and the Planning Commission are not part of our legislative process. And so affording our colleagues the same opportunity that the two members of the Planning Commission that are ex-officio members because they're part of the Board of Aldermen, giving our colleagues the same opportunity, I'm not saying it has to take as long, but this is literally... less than two weeks at this point. And it's very frustrating that we are not taking the time to connect with various entities colleagues even the city counselor's office I haven't even had the opportunity to have a conversation with the city counselor's office about some of these amendments either um so it's you know very haphazard um in my opinion when you have you know 11 amendments that are proposed within a 48-hour period and you know I mean yesterday's meeting was just Sight to behold and so I I would kindly ask that we give this some more time If not, you know, I will have to unfortunately vote present on this even though I very much support regulations for Data centers. I just think you know, we need to make sure that we're doing it correctly and addressing as many concerns as we possibly can. The committee is where that work is supposed to happen. It's not supposed to happen on the floor before perfection. That's a really poor way to do that because you can't have folks from the various departments that have to administer these rules and regulations or the city counselor's office can't testify and provide their perspective either. There's so many different things that we should be doing to check off appropriate boxes to make sure that we're you know passing legislation that's going to pass muster i mean this body continues to do this you know another example was short-term rentals we're still in a kind of holding pattern two years later after short-term rentals because we didn't pass the correct legislation um and it's being tied up in courts and i don't think that that's fair to our constituents i don't think it's fair to the city i don't think it's fair um to city departments, and I would kindly ask for more time and consideration to have those discussions and make sure that we're legislating appropriately. Thank you.

I'll address some of those when it gets to me. Alderman Browning.

I'll let you address that, Chairwoman. I was wondering if I could ask some questions of the planning staff, Miriam or I think. First, let me start by saying I am so grateful to have you working for our city, I think. If you read Executive Order 92, which was issued in September of 2025, it directed our planning staff to develop thoughtful frameworks for incorporating data centers. And I think that's exactly what you've done with these regulations, and it has taken an enormous amount of work. And so I want to just acknowledge that first to say that I really appreciate the thoughtfulness that has gone into this because you are trying to walk a very narrow. But everything I can read in this bill seems to be done to protect the people of this city. with the idea that this industry is something that is necessary in some ways, in some places it can be beneficial and understanding that, but putting people first. And that's really how I try to handle the job as well. So I really appreciate that approach. My question for you has been a hot topic, which is the idea of consent, of community consent, and allowing people to use a platen petition-type process to... Allow or deny a data center in their specific area I know that that was looked at as part of this process and I know I've asked you this question before but as one reasons we're gonna be voting on this today if you could let us know Just exactly what went into those conversations and in the conclusion that was come to I

Yeah, we did research it to the best of our ability. I think number one, I am 100% sympathetic to the public's desire to have a tool like that. something we see communities across the country calling for there isn't yet a city that's adopted that as part of their zoning regulations in our research it appears that this type of public consent or signature provision when incorporated into zoning is kind of narrowly upheld by courts felt like a risky thing it may be I think it is something we should look at in the other provisions of our code and land use regulation that apply to that, maybe in particular platen petition. And so I think between the protections built into the standards and just that it felt like a gray area and something that, again, didn't feel strong. I also appreciate that some members of the public that have been advocating for it have put forward a very detailed and very thoughtful suggested approach. And I think that that was very, again, detailed and thoughtful, and especially one that would have not placed a great deal of administrative burden on the city. They clearly heard that concern as well, which is a concern and challenge with even our existing plan petition process. Sorry, that was a little bit of a long answer, but the other... way that the recommended regulations sought to address that concern, which I know the body has discussed, is requiring that Board of Aldermen approval for the public impact agreement as a way to add a layer of democratic consideration of elected officials and the city's legislative body for any major data center. I think those are significant decisions for the city. IN TERMS OF THEIR LAND USE IMPACT AND OTHERWISE. SO I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE LOGIC OF ADDING THAT REQUIREMENT INTO THE PROCESS. UNDERSTANDING THAT IT DOES ADD SOME COMPLEXITY TO THE PROCESS BUT IT SEEMED LIKE A WAY TO STRIKE A BALANCE BECAUSE WE HEARD THIS CONCERN AND REQUEST FROM SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.

City Council Chambers, Thank you, so this public impact agreement assessment it. It's meant to provide that layer of community consent in that any major data center is going to require one of these public impact agreements, and it will be an enforceable agreement by law that will have to be approved by both the Board of Public Service, a majority, and then a super majority of the Board of Aldermen, which is a high threshold. And I believe it says that public comment is also included in that, that is required for both the Board of Public Service and for the Board of Aldermen. And so that means that if it comes to us in the form of a resolution, we will have to send it to a committee so that we can have that public comment. Is that how you understand that's written as well?

I don't have the language before me. I would have to double check to see if it's just in the conditional use process that public comment on, also at the board. Okay, so yeah, the sponsor has verified that, yes, both during the conditional use hearing, comment shall be taken and at the board.

Okay, so I know that's not exactly what some people are asking for, but it's also, again, these regulations are going to be a little bit of what people want and then a little bit of what people don't want on every side. But I do think that public engagement opportunity with both the Board of Public Service and the Board of Aldermen, so people will be able to come and yell at us as much as they want. But at the same time, I think there's a level of public commitment there to say that as a representative elected by the public, we are going to be in a position that we have to answer to voters. We are always in that position when we're making these decisions down here. And so there is an element of public consent in that, that if your alder approves and votes to approve a data center that you're really opposed to, you can always vote not to have that alder anymore. I know it's not a direct democracy, but there's many things, especially when it comes to zoning, that are not a direct democracy because of how zoning works. So I appreciate that, and I appreciate you taking the time to address that because I know that's been a concern of the public. I don't have any more questions. I'll just... take the last of my comment to uh address that um one i do think we should pass this today at a committee and i do think we should move this before we go on break at the board of alderman i do not think that's an arbitrary deadline i think that is recognizing the urgency that this requires We already have a major data center that's been approved that will undoubtedly have negative effects for our city and That happened because regulations weren't in place and so we have to be responsible as something now I'll also say that I think What these regulations do is address legitimate concerns around data centers and They're saying that if they're built in our city, they're built on our terms, and that they must be done according to our regulations and our rules, which, as I've said before, are thoughtfully designed to protect our most valuable asset, our people. So I am supportive of this today. I really appreciate the efforts by everyone who's worked on this bill, all the staff involved. I know it's been a huge lift, and especially Alderman Schweitzer, who I know has been having all these conversations with people, trying to make sure that we really do have everyone at the table. And I appreciate everyone who's come to the table as we've tried to get this right.

Alderman Aldrich.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I think there's a Rihanna song, and it goes like, how about a round of applause? And then it goes, standing ovation. That song is dedicated to the planning department for all the hard work that you guys have done on this. This has not been, well, not the whole song, just that section of the song, to be clear. have done so much great work on trying to figure out how to make regulations work, I think, in the city of St. Louis, have done way more work on this than we've probably done on other pieces of legislation and I think that speaks to with this new developing data centers that are coming that is so much nuance to it but we must like act now so I do appreciate the work that planning and zoning and miriam and the whole team has done as well as uh you alderman switzer and alderman sanye and i want to be clear that sits on uh the planning commission um as members of the board as well as grimindia who's a staff of the president office not the whole office sits there but a staff member so i'm very thankful for uh the work that you all have done and i've I want to commend Alderman Swicer. One of my concerns that I brought forward was making sure that the current data centers that are here, not so much are being protected, but that we're creating new rules that they're at least able to fit into that progress or that process so and I know you've been getting a bunch of phone calls from not just existing ones but from a lot of people and I do appreciate the work that you have done on that and the conversations that you've had at least with me and I've had with you to be educated on the nuance of all this data center stuff and definitely understand that we need regulations. I definitely, I don't believe anybody on this committee, at least after talking to everybody, is not against regulations. That being said, I do also agree to some sentiments of Alderman Cohn, and I know I've had, or have had conversations with you, Alderman Schweitzer, at least if If we can get this amendment, at least for me personally, the amendment with the existing data centers, that I could see myself being in support of the bill, which I'm already in support of. But that was a concern that you brought forward, or a concern I brought forward to you. Yesterday, when the amendment came for the recs, I did vote present on that because I think that is still an outstanding, at least for myself, and still outstanding of what exactly does that mean. It seems like you and Alderman Sonnier had meetings with like Ameren trying to figure out that language to see how like that renewable energy could work and it doesn't seem like I guess the language that maybe you all have with Ameren is the same language would you yeah if you could speak to that

OK, so we met with Ameren and some of the different stakeholders in the bill last week. After that meeting, they provided some definitions, which we took verbatim, for bundled and unbundled RECs. They also provided a guidance that they had a belief that they could meet the 10-year goal if it was a combination of bundled and unbundled RECs. And the unbundled RECs, as previously stated, are without any retirement of credits, which means that it's sort of, well, you have the definition in front of you probably, but It's just a much less actual renewable energy credit. It's very different than a bundled rec in that way. That is not good enough for what we need to do in the city of St. Louis when it comes to meeting our sustainability plan. So while I appreciate the definition they sent over and the information that they provided, we do not, we will not, we have never regulated Ameren or any utility besides our water division. That's the only utility that we have any control over. What we do have control over in this case is land users in this zoning board bill. So what zoning needs to consider is adopted plans of the city of St. Louis, including our comprehensive plan, including our sustainability plan, so that if a standard or a major data center wants to come into the city of St. Louis, they are meeting the goals that we've set, the plans that we've adopted. And so that's what this zoning bill strives to do. At no point did I say Ameren signed off on this. This is what Ameren wants to see happen. That's not even something that I would have ever said because that's not what happened, one. And two, we don't regulate Ameren. We can't tell Ameren what to do. They can do whatever they want. They can build whatever they want subject to the Public Service Commission. That is who they have to, that is their responsibility. that's huge that tells them what they can and cannot do um you know i think that when we see data center bans in other parts of the state i would think this is a lot friendlier and a lot less of a ban than a ban and i think that's really important um and If people choose to think that that's not good enough, then that's on them. I'm looking out for the future of my child and the future of the city of St. Louis and our adopted sustainability plan, and I hope that others choose to do the same.

Yeah. Earlier you mentioned that if five data centers can be able to... If five data centers are able to, I guess, follow the recs, okay, but if the other five can't, then maybe they shouldn't be here. Did you... Could you kind of elaborate?

If this board bill becomes law, we've set up an application process where a potential data center wants to come into the city of St. Louis. They have to submit various documents, plans, show what they're going to do and various requirements. They would have to submit the scope and the plan for how they would meet the renewable energy requirements as outlined. And so in doing that, they would need to communicate with their electric service provider. In our case, obviously, that's Ameren. We have a monopoly in the city of St. Louis and in the region. And so they would have to meet with them and say, you know, this is how big a facility we want to build. We're qualified as a standard data center. We want to do X number of megawatts. Ameren would say to them whether or not they can meet that requirement. and how long it will take them to do it. That's how I assume that conversation would go. That is their relationship as a customer anyway. They have to go and say, this amount of megawatts, can you provide it? As we've talked about many, many, many times for many, many, many months, this industry is going to require a large amount of new energy production. That new energy production will be nuclear, renewable, natural gas, but it will be new energy production. So right now, a utility that we do not regulate or have any control over is trying to figure out how they're going to meet the demands of their customers. This is yet another demand of their customer if the customer wants to do business in the city of St. Louis. We regulate industries, we regulate different things in the city of St. Louis all the time to meet various plans or goals or historic districts or what have you. This is a zoning piece of regulation, so it strives to address adopted plans by the city of St. Louis, things that have moved through the Planning Commission, things that have moved through the Board of Aldermen, and have been adopted. And I know I sound like a broken record, but a sustainability goal is nothing if not followed up by the actual policy. Those policy decisions are where we have to decide whether we actually care about what we say we care about. And I understand that there's a lot of different things to care about in this issue, and I've tried to be you know, open minded to all of that. And I do care about all those things as well. But there's always going to be a reason to not meet a sustainability goal if someone's going to say, but taxes, but jobs, but development, there's always going to be that reason. But I hope that we can all agree in here that climate change is real and the decisions of elected bodies and the people of the world are how we are at this point now. So if we don't start making more brave steps to actually meet those goals and to actually do something about it. I mean, I don't know. I don't think they think climate change is real, but that's on them. So that is not my concern, though. It's definitely real, definitely happening. We definitely need to be concerned. And if, you know, our jobs here is to do something about it, so.

Yeah, well, I believe in climate change, and I definitely think it's real. And I've personally seen you behind the scenes working on this legislation, and I know you've put a lot into it. You have also, I think, from probably where you want the bill to be, have really adjusted a lot and got in a place where it is not ideal as a sponsor, like where it started. But... I guess my fear of why I would not be opposed to having more time on this is if there are still folks on this committee that have questions, as is advanced through the board, what I don't want is it to get to the Board of Aldermen and we don't either have the support, and I'll be straight up, or it looks like for the channel two, four, and five, or the people that won't be happy if it don't get passed that we couldn't pass, regulations at the board, which I don't think we're that far from being able to do it. Clearly, there's already going to be special meetings call. I think you're down to have special meetings. It's not like the president is down to have special meetings. Clearly, this committee is down to have special meetings because we met as of today quickly to make sure we get some of this adopted. And I don't want this to... Yes, there's an urgency of getting it done and yes as an urgency that we need to add regulations I don't believe a few more. I don't even think we need like a few more meetings, but a Slowdown on the process and this is something that I said in the very first meeting to you is that I do think this is moving quickly not quickly where we shouldn't be doing something but as the legislative process is going quickly where hopefully we get it done and we don't get to the floor and it become where it don't get passed and I don't think anybody wants that and I wouldn't hope the goal is to say well we tried in committee and we got it to the floor and we tried like

I think what people would like me to do is to continue to weaken the renewable energy requirement so that no one else has to make that amendment. And if people want, I'm not, I'm not people forward.

I'm not people. What I would like is I think there's clearly other folks outside of this committee, which it will go to the floor. They'll have the opportunity, but I don't, I don't, I don't think the pathway is there yet because there has been so many nuance. Literally, as of like yesterday, we did adopt like eight amendments. And then we came in here and we adopted some more amendments. And I know you don't plan to suspend the rules tomorrow to fast track it. But I do think with more conversations, it could be. I believe, a pathway to be able to get it done on the floor, which I don't see now, especially with some of the amendments that did come. And I don't want the goal to be that we don't get it done at the full board. And that is just my opinion. I know we may disagree. I know we have been talking about this before. several days and I really do appreciate the open dialogue and conversation. I just don't want it to get to the floor and it become I'll be straight up like a circus. Not necessarily because of the work that you've done or the work that planning has done but just because of some of the nuance of all of this and ignorance. Ignorance in a way that people don't understand and not educated on it. I've been getting educated on during this process literally because of these last few hearings and I think there's going to be a lot of that on the floor to try to get it done before summer break and I would ask for you to you know hold the bill so that we can work out as much as possible in committee before it does go to the floor other members also may have those same concerns

What do you feel still needs to be worked out?

Well, me personally, I would love to have, that's why I voted present on the amendment. I don't feel comfortable on the renewal energy one.

Do you prefer the stronger language?

I prefer me and you having a conversation and figuring out like exactly and maybe even MCE that has been doing this work or as you've been having meetings with other experts or like you had the meeting today at the mayor's office with that group or when you and Alderman Sonnier had a meeting with Ameren. you know, as trying to pull it all together, I would love to get a little bit better understanding on the recs, something that I think I just mentioned yesterday, and that's why I voted present. So being able to get that... That, at least for me, would be helpful. Maybe you can get it to him before the floor. I just wouldn't be voting it out today with knowing that is a concern for me with not having that information.

It is in the definitions. The bundled and unbundled RECs are in the definitions that we amended yesterday.

Would you be willing to have a conversation like you've been having with others offline so that I can get an understanding of what the RECs are and how they are used and how this would implement in the bill when you are trying to do this with not existing data centers, I guess new data centers? Or do you just want me to read the bill and then get my answer that way?

No, I definitely want to have the conversation. We've talked about this many times. But if the work happens in committee, then I think we should talk about it in committee.

Yeah, I think the work happens in committee. I think the work has been happening on the phone calls and meetings that you've been having. If you want to have a working group where we can talk about it right now, I'm totally fine with doing that. But I'm telling you as of today, and my answer is not going to change, that I'll be a president. It's not that I'm not for regulations, but I do have concerns with that rec part. Just like you called me yesterday, or you called me last week on the bill. I think that's a conversation, as you've been having off record with all these different groups, or I see you in your office, or you see me in my office, easy conversation that could be had. And I think we can get past that and hopefully move it to the floor and be able to get it across the finish line.

Yeah, I think, you know, I appreciate that. I think that I'm definitely someone who always counts votes. I like to know where I stand on an issue. I like to know where the bill that as it's moving is. I feel pretty comfortable with where the votes are on the floor right now. I think that there are efforts from people to say that this is a ban, which I hope that I've explained it's not. And I think that there are efforts to undermine our city sustainability plan by saying that somehow that it bans data centers and that therefore it is not

I want to take out the side noise. I'm not talking about what people are saying. I'm talking about what the alderman of the 14th is saying. I know there's been phone calls going back and forth. I'm not talking about who's called you or who's called me or who's called other alders. I raised this concern yesterday of just not being aware of it. How does this work? And what I'm asking is to be able to talk with my colleague about it to get educated so that I'm comfortable with that part of the bill to be able to move forward on it. That's what I'm saying.

Okay. Well, so it's on the record for anyone listening. The definition for bundled renewable energy credits that's in the bill, that means renewable energy credits that a customer received from a 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 the MISO service region and retired on behalf of the facility. An unbundled renewable energy credit means RECs that a customer received from a renewable energy generating facility where the attribute is provided without the accompanying renewable energy generation. However, the attribute must be from a renewable energy generating facility located within the utility service territory of the state of Missouri or MISO and retired on behalf of the facility. So the big change there is there is with actual renewable energy generation within bundled, without, from unbundled. And if these definitions weren't clear enough, Elise Schaefer is here and can speak a little bit more.

How long have you been knowing about RECS, Alda Woman?

A long time. This conversation has been.

But you learned about it being a member of the planning commission that you said?

No, I'm pretty familiar with energy use in general. Alderman, Elise, would you?

No, I don't need Elise to come up. I'm talking to you, Alderman. I think you're missing the point of you're not helping your case, I think, in my opinion, at least with me. But I appreciate the work that Elise is doing. I'm not trying to include, again, I think I just said I think you're missing a point. I'll be a present. I do no disrespect to Elise. I got her number. I can easily reach out to her, and I have your number, and hopefully you'll reach out since I got a concern on your bill, but I'll be a present today, and I'm done. Thank you.

Vice Chair Sanyo?

You know, Alderman Schweitzer, I know that you're not in an easy position. I know that I feel like this has been probably even more of a difficult and nuanced conversation than around the series of shelter bills and unhoused bills that I've done and five of them. And this, I think, has been like just even more rigorous than that. I think that I'm very aligned with all the women Schweitzer. I think that's very clear. I do hear colleagues who are saying, you know, you guys have been on a planning commission. You've had access to this information for some time. You've been a part of processes. I know that there's been meetings to have conversations with several alders and several offerings for conversations as well. And I just want to be honest with my point of hesitancy. And I only speak for myself and for the Seventh Ward. I do not trust the city of St. Louis when it comes to data centers. And I wish that we could be honest about why that's the case. I think that if we were having a conversation about pausing this bill, but there wasn't a major data center that had already been approved, then I think that there would be a lot more appetite for that. But to be clear, as an alderwoman, I have to be able to speak to my residents and tell them about the processes in place. And there is a major data center that was approved by the city of St. Louis that the Board of Aldermen was given notice of at 9.15 a.m., and then at 1.45 p.m., a hearing happened. And so many of my residents do not trust anybody within city government around these data centers. I am doing the best I can to keep them abreast, to keep them educated. I think that with my public actions, I have perhaps earned some of that trust, but... It is a very difficult needle to thread. And I think it's important that we all acknowledge just why that gap and why the distrust is there. I think data centers in itself is one of the most controversial issues across the country. But then when the city of St. Louis had an opportunity to at least create a process that was actually transparent, that was actually inclusive, I don't think that we did that. Because we're having this conversation while a major data center is approved. Had there been, to me, proper respect to the Planning Commission to say, We will hold on approving this until you guys get your recommendations in place. And I think you would have a lot more time for this conversation. But that didn't happen. And that's not the case. And that's not where we are. And so in that regard, I think that that is some of all the women Schweitzer and I's frustration on this matter is that we really did beg and ask, can you please wait and hold on this? Can you let the planning commission complete their work so that we could avoid a situation like this? I really do not want to see a board bill If it is to make it out of committee and we've got two presidents, I don't know what that looks like on the floor, but to be honest, at a time where public trust for government is at the lowest, if there is a situation where this board fails to pass regulation, take a vote on them, the headline will say the Board of Aldermen, regardless of the positions that we individually take. I know the headlines are great. The Board of Aldermen failed to pass regulations for data centers and the public's distrust of us is going to increase even more. I just feel like that is all very important to put on record and to put into context. I do deeply, I will say I know that Alderman Schweitzer is usually, I think she's been quoted on the mic several times saying, I really appreciate when we're able to have conversation and we're able to work this out. And I think that there has been many offerings of meetings, many offerings of conversations. I understand that folks are saying, well, I didn't get the chance, planning commission's own conversation. Yes, and respectfully, as an alder person, you can email Miriam Keller at any moment and tell her that you want to meet and you want to talk about things. You can email any staff member of the planning commission, and they will likely email you back and say, thank you for reaching out to me, alderman. When can we set that up? You know, some of it is kind of proactively on us as alders. If it's a conversation that's happening, get an email. I know I have, across the city to kind of take that up. And at the same time, I think where we are in this moment, my goal this entire process has been to get some regulations in place. And I'm really nervous and unsettled in my heart right now because I don't know that we're in a place where if folks are not comfortable right now, we're going to get there on the floor. And I think if we get on the floor and it doesn't pass, it is going to just further sink and hurt relationships with the public. So I'm not really, you know, I'm clearly a co-sponsor of the bill. I'm supportive of the bill. I do think a lot of work has gone in to get us to somewhere that is plausible. I do think that saying that no type of renewable energy requirement is feasible is, you know, to be honest, I think that's just much more aimed at the interests of folks who want to build these facilities. And I think that it neglects the part about human impact and how it impacts the people of the city of St. Louis. And I think we have tried. We have asked. I have still asked right now. If this is not feasible, what is feasible? Does somebody have an amendment that they want to bring forward so we could talk about a number that's feasible? Because I think Alderman Schweitzer has done it, and I think her amendment yesterday was an attempt to bring us to a point that was a little bit closer. So if that doesn't work, at what point... all of us really kind of dig in deeper and get an amendment. If there's an ask for time, for more time, I would love to know, you know, and I know that can be a discussion with the chairwoman and a discussion with the President and Board of Aldermen, what does that time look like? Because are we saying that the timeline is, you know, when we come back? Are we open to having special meetings? You know, I just, I think there's just a lot of distrust and a lot of lack of clarity on kind of next steps. But at the same time, my core interest is making sure that we get regulations, and I am concerned that where we are right now, it doesn't seem like, I'm not sure where the numbers will be on the floor, but I just think we have to start to be really honest about, again, the way that the approval of the major data center works, because a lot of my colleagues, to be honest, have not commented on that matter at all, and that is a part of where the discussion is from. And I think we have to be honest if we're asking for more time, what does that look like? Can we get Can we give a timeline? There's a planning commission meeting that has to happen. This has to go to planning, so do folks want to meet again after planning, which is this month? I just really want us to figure out what it looks like to get there, and I think we can get there. I think we're really close. I think people are open to the conversation, but I'm not interested in a continual kicking of the can and a continual delay without specific feedback on what the next steps are, and I think A lot of specifics have come from the Alderwoman. A lot of specifics have come from the Planning Commission. If folks need more time to get comfortable, I understand that this is a nuanced conversation. And so my ask to just my colleagues would be like, if there's an additional timeline, what does that timeline look like? Are we committed back? We're supposed to go down July 10th. Are we committed to having special meetings? Are we committed to meeting right after the planning commission? What does that look like? I think that the older woman for all of her work, I think she deserves clear timelines. Really, I think that the people of the city of St. Louis deserve some clear timelines if that is the decision that we're going to make here. And yeah, that is just the heart of it. And so, yes, thank you again to everyone for participating in this conversation. All the women, you know, I'm very supportive of you. I'm a co-sponsor of the bill for a reason. I plan to vote for this bill, but I also do want to make sure we are being mindful of where we are, where we're going to be on the floor, because I can only speak for myself, but I am going to go back to my community after we have our meeting. And I know that if I go back to my community after we have the meeting and we have failed to pass regulations, my constituents will be very unhappy, rightfully so. So I'm just very concerned about where we are and would like some more specificity with some of the acts here. But again, I am supportive. And if there is a vote called, I will vote for it. And I do understand the ask for more time. If the ask is for more time, I think that we should get a clear timeline. And I would love to know that we are all committed to figuring this out and doing what we can to get this right, which might mean delaying our summer break that we go down for. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll speak to some of that. For when this bill goes back to Planning Commission, it needs to go back before third reading. So it goes, you know, it could go back before perfection or it could go back now, but if there's any changes made to perfection, it would have to go back again. The idea is that it goes back to planning commission just once. I don't know whether there'll be changes at perfection or if we were to hold further committee meetings, whether there would be changes suggested then. I'm certainly... I don't want to say happy with the bill, where it is, but I feel that the bill has made many compromises, and I have personally made many compromises for what I would have liked to see in order to get to the number of votes that we need to have to pass the bill. That's how it works down here. We have to get to eight. So that is something that is always part of legislation, something you have to deal with. In communicating with members of the committee, I know at least two, possibly four members of this committee are interested in having another committee hearing. And that is something that we could do and continue to have in committee. I'm aware that if we have another committee meeting, I don't know that I'm not going to hear the same things from the same people, saying that they haven't had enough time, that there's a new goalpost that's set. That is something that could happen. And the president of the Board of Aldermen has committed to holding additional meetings as this moves out of committee. While I didn't plan to suspend the rules tomorrow to move to perfection, just to allow that further week and a half of time before we move the bill to perfection to talk again with all of you and all the members of the Board of Aldermen that we would have perfection next Friday if this was moved out of committee today. And then we would have to have had a special meeting the following week or a week after that, depending on when the Planning Commission can get their meeting scheduled. We are sort of dependent on when the Planning Commission can meet. They have 45 days. Once we make a request for them to hear the bill, when the amendments, the sponsor, I'd have to make a request to the Planning Commission. I'd have to provide in writing why all of the amendments were made. and then they would have the ability to vote up or down. So that does delay the process in terms of when third reading would be. I think the Planning Commission would be very interested in moving it quickly. Our board, this body, passed a resolution that said we wanted to move quickly to get regulations in place. So I believe I am acting at the direction of our board to move quickly. The Planning Commission didn't pass this out until the middle of June, and I introduced it at the very next opportunity without having to suspend the rules. So, you know, we've been trying to move quickly. True, but also have had a lot of time on this in the background. You know, I will say that the public is crying out for these regulations to be in place. and you know those are the people we represent and the people that we're supposed to be listening to but as I've said a million times if I always keep saying it I know I need to count to eight ideally have more votes than that on the floor and I think that on a bill this complicated this nuanced and with this many stakeholders who are wanting it to be a weaker bill. I think that sometimes there are going to be people who are just trying to find reasons to vote against it in order to appease those stakeholders. So I'm not trying to provide reasons to do that, but I am trying to represent my constituents. So if this committee would like to meet again this coming Tuesday and have further discussion, that works for me. schedule. I would love to have a commitment that people would vote to suspend the rules to have perfection on Friday so that it doesn't actually change our ability to deliver for the people we represent and get regulations in place along the same timeline. So that is where I'm at with it. Adam Brown.

Thank you. Not to delay things further, I just asked for it to come back to me because I'd like to add myself as co-sponsor to this bill. And I'll add I'm not in favor of having another committee meeting. I mean, I'll be here if we do, but I'm not in favor of that.

I need your vote, so please show up.

Yeah.

yeah I will I'll be here as long as it takes and as many times as it takes but just a reminder for everybody we just went through a really hard process with the RAM settlement bill and we found compromise that was a lot of stakeholders to meet there too and we found compromise and we're on the verge of actually passing something and I'm really proud of the board for doing that I will remind everyone that if you feel like you're taking a compromise with this bill, you're not the only one. There are those of us who wish these were stronger. So we've gotta find something that eight votes can agree on so that we can deliver for the people of this city. And I think this board is capable of that because they've seen us do it recently. And I'd like to see us do it again.

Thank you all. So Ms. Weiser, is your call?

Yeah, I am... I hope that we're all working in good faith here. If next week people still say they need more time, I think that, I don't even know what to say to that. That'll be a situation in which the people need to answer to their own constituents. I'm certainly answering to mine.

So are you asking if you want to hold it into committee?

Yes, and if anyone on the committee has questions that they feel are unanswered, please submit them to me as soon as possible, ideally by the end of the day tomorrow, so that no one is saying that they have questions that are unanswered.

So, Madam Clerk, we're going to hold 49 as amended in committee again until next Tuesday's HUD committee at 11 a.m.

Thank you all for your time. And I appreciate the conversation and discussion. I will be calling you.

And do you have any resolutions for review, Madam Clerk? We have none. Any additional committee decisions?

We have none.

Any additional written testimony?

We have seven written testimony for today's meeting.

Okay. Any announcements? All members were present, so with that, I'll accept the motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second. It was moved by Vice Chair Sanjaya and seconded by Alderman Aldridge that we adjourn. Everyone have a blessed day.