I don't know how to copy the case.

Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to the Metropolitan Economic Development Committee.

My name is Bob Ossley, uh chairperson.

And I'd ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with uh counselor Kegill.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Chair, uh Derek Cahill, District 23.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Michael Paul Hart, representing District 20.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, Brian Mowery, District 25.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair Nick Roberts, District 4.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair Brian Delini, District 2.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Ron Gibson, District 8.

Thank you, Chairman O'slee, Andy Nielsen, District 14.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

John Barth, representing Council District 7.

Thank you, Chairman Osley.

Kristen Jones representing District 18.

Thank you, Chairman Ossilly, Le Roy Robinson, representing District 1.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Maggie Lewis, District 5.

All right, very good.

We have two items on our agenda this evening.

The first being proposal number uh 237, which requests that the Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development eliminates parking minimums within the city of Indianapolis in Marion County.

And I believe Councilor Brown.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Councillor Jesse Brown, District 13, uh member of this committee, but also presenting this proposal.

Uh it is a general resolution to abolish parking minimums.

I know the vast majority of the people in the room are not here to talk about this, and so I'm trying to speed through pretty quickly, uh, but of course want as much time for questions as uh needed.

So here's a zoomed-in uh photo of Indianapolis just showing surface parking.

It's mostly the downtown, it goes a little east because I'm biased.

This is more of my district.

Uh it's actually 27% of our urban core is right now taken up by surface parking, which uh surface parking provides about the least amount of tax revenue.

It's probably the worst for our stormwater system, and it causes all sorts of problems.

Um right now, anybody who has uh driven around to find parking spot and then seen that actually this parking reserve for a different business than the one you're trying to frequent right now, uh, has seen just a microcosm of the frustration with all of this parking, but none of it seeming to be available.

Um right now, developers are required to provide off-street parking or request a variance for pretty much anything they want to build in Marion County.

And when you request a variance, that means getting an architecture, a lawyer, or at least a planning professional to help you.

It increases your cost, it increases the timeline for developments.

This is one of many reasons why we're not building enough affordable housing, why businesses are harder to start up, uh, and so on and so forth.

Again, this is a more zoomed-in version of closer to the mile square.

Um, and again, that that number, um, 27% of the central city is off-street parking.

We're at about 51 out of 100.

One would be ideal according to a couple different advocacy um organizations.

So just to put this into perspective, um, all of the cities you see on this map have some version of citywide parking minimum abolition.

So this would not be the first um city to be removing all parking minimums.

In fact, not even the first in Indiana since South Band beat us to the punch.

This provides a number of different benefits.

It's good for neighbors because when you have fewer street parking lots, you have better walkability.

You can get to more businesses without needing your car.

Uh that's true for your kids as well, if they're not yet driving age, and it's uh a lot more likely that you'll ride a bike if there's something close by and you don't get super sweaty by the time you arrive at the business.

It's good for developers for reasons I mentioned.

It lowers the cost of development, it makes faster timelines to complete projects, there's less red tape, less bureaucracy, and then maybe most importantly for this committee, it's good for the economic development of our city.

Uh higher density would mean lower infrastructure maintenance costs, because we don't have to go all the way to the edge of the county.

Uh that means more property tax revenue per square mile.

That means more money to spend on improving the quality of life for our constituents rather than on you know paying consultants to approve variances.

We would get less flooding, better stormwater control if we had denser parking solutions rather than just a few spots attached to every single business.

And uh we would also have lower heat, because right now urban areas are a heat island due to how much heat radiates up from all the surface parking.

So a couple questions I got from constituents when I was proposing this.

Um is you know, am I asking to ban all parking for new developments?

And the answer is obviously not.

Um vast majority of people drive in the city.

I still drive, even though you know I'm a hippie who's always riding my bike or the bus.

This would just stop the city from getting involved in the transaction between the developer and the bank, right?

So if a bank thinks that you are not going to actually be able to get your clients in the door without a certain amount of parking, your your lender will likely require a certain amount of parking.

That's how it works for developers right now.

All we're doing is saying, as long as you can find somebody willing to give you the money, you've got your business model, you want to build it, we're not gonna hold you back on account of not enough surface parking, not enough off-street parking.

Another question was okay, but what happens if you know we get a bunch of new businesses, none of them have surface parking spots, and so now nobody can fit, you know, like the business wants to do a lot more business, but it can't get customers in the door because there's not enough parking.

Well, that's what the free market's for.

So now that means the parking is at a premium, people want parking, and a developer can build a parking garage or a condensed parking lot, which is a lot more efficient than again separate two or three spaces for each different business.

Um when we subsidize parking by taking a free resource, quote unquote free, the same way as a socialist, I want free health care, means it's already paid for socially, and we're just giving it away by by pushing people onto the streets or um incentivizing it in this kind of backwards way.

So this is something that again, other cities have done years ago.

I've been trying to push this for several years, and wanted the council to take some political leadership uh by considering this proposal.

My original intent was to create a proposal to update the zoning maps uh or the uh zoning amendment and send it to the MDC to have a public hearing on and vote on.

Um, but instead, uh the instructions I received were that the council cannot legally do that, and instead the MDC has to be the one to initiate this process.

So this is similar to a special resolution in terms of it that does not have the weight of law.

This would just be a way for counselors to indicate what we want to happen and then pass it to the MDC to take that next step.

So I mentioned this to the chair.

I know again, we're mostly here to talk about a different issue, which is also uh a top one for me.

And so, however much debate or discussion we want on this today, I would welcome that and could answer questions.

Um, but either way, these would be the next steps.

Uh we would either amend this.

Originally, my proposal was gonna be for the compact context area and near uh rapid transit lines, which basically means all of my district and a little bit extra.

Um, but I thought it would be rude to come here and talk to you all about something that would affect mostly my district and a couple others.

And so wanted to bring this to the uh this committee to discuss and debate uh whether that's tonight or whether we end up moving much of the debate to a later time.

So that's my full presentation, Mr.

Chair, and I would welcome questions or direction from you.

Uh thank you very much, uh counselor.

Want to hear from um members of the committee.

Uh councilor Hart.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just got a couple of questions.

Um Councillor Brown shared some dialogue that he had uh with the city, and in it it alluded that uh there was some ongoing research with DMD or MDC regarding the subject.

I'm just curious there's um any information around what they're currently planning, and if this is uh necessary in a way to say, you know, they're already looking at it.

Do we need to do this if they're already looking at it?

Yeah, thank you, Counselor.

Um quick answer to that is yes, it was in the Indianapolis Business Journal, actually, that uh the city is planning on paying um some six-figure amount to consultants to study whether we have an appropriate amount of car parking.

Uh what I'm hearing from my constituents is that we don't need that study, and that we'd rather spend the taxpayer dollars on something that impacts people's lives.

And at least in in my district, I feel pretty comfortable that there's very broad support for just removing the parking minimums without needing to pay someone first.

So, Mr.

Chair.

So, one of the things that I find interesting about this is um Marion County, super diverse, right?

We've got the city core, and then we've got the county as a whole.

And so when I look at, I'll take three townships as an example.

I'll take center township, which today with the mile square already has no minimums on it.

Uh, and then I compare that to, say, Decatur Township, which is very rural, maybe population, I think of 40,000 roughly in that area.

And take a warren township, which has your commercial districts, suburbs, and things of that nature.

All three completely different landscapes, all completely different user types where we you have transportation types as user types.

Um I heard you, I think I heard you say in your your comment that um your real intent or maybe your intentions are for near rapid transit lines and the use of like condensed core, I think was the term that used something similar along those lines.

Um so in addition to the mile square, we also have no minimums on transit-oriented development lines or overlays.

So where we have those, this would apply, which is actually interesting because that comes into like say a district twenty uh on the east side because we have the blue line that has a TOD in which this is already applicable where there are no minimums on that.

Um so with I think the intent here, which is get it towards those areas that are already aggregate of of high population densities, which is essentially downtown and on rapid transit lines, it sounds like that's already achieved through what we have today.

Maybe there sounds like a little bit more area that you're looking for with expansive around the mile square when we talk about the aggregate.

Um but I think to to put a blanket over all of Marion County and say that it has to have no minimums across is is too broad in the sense for my taste.

I think we've got a pretty healthy balance at the moment.

Um the other thing that I'd be interested in and seeing and knowing is that when we saw some of the data points, the data points they showed maybe some cities, but how many of those cities are city counties, right?

Indianapolis is very unique, it's 400 square miles, very diverse, very different than a lot of other cities, um, as well as the data that you had there showed data in your district, but it doesn't show data countywide, which may not um actually articulate the need for uh no parking minimum.

So, you know, with those those positions in place today, I'm I'm unable to support this.

Um interested in continuing the conversations if there's some um areas that are maybe more towards the aggregate core, but for uh completely across Marion County, I don't think it's applicable today.

Please very brief response.

Thank you, Councilor Hart for that.

Um it's uh not actually accurate that there are no parking minimums in the mile square or on TOD.

Uh and in fact, this was brought up recently because people trying to build affordable housing um in those areas still were required to um have parking minimums.

There are uh what am I trying to say?

You can reduce the number of required parking spots, especially in those areas by building things like EV chargers or uh bike racks, but you don't get down to zero without a variance no matter what.

So um, and I guess you know, like I I don't want to try to say what's applicable for your constituents, you're you're the expert there.

Um, but for my perspective, in an area that's very car-centric and not well served by transit, that's where developers and the banks would have the best idea of how much parking is needed, and I don't think government needs to get involved in that free market transaction personally.

Very good.

Good.

Council Roberts.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I just wanted to give kudos to you for doing this, Counselor Brown.

Um, I know this thing you and I have talked about kind of on and off the last couple of years, um, especially some other advocates too.

Um I just wanted to kind of also um uh uh get out some misconceptions about this.

This is very common.

Um and also I will make a small correction.

I personally prefer the word parking mandates rather than parking minimums, because I think parking minimums comes off like it's a you know reasonable amount, but really this is at its heart government red tape telling private businesses, neighborhoods, and all that what they should or should not have.

And in my opinion, the onus should be on the community, the district counselors, city staff, DMD, NDC for making that call because they know these projects a lot better than some formula that might happen from the state or the city or anything else.

Um again, this is not anti-parking, and this really is anti-red tape.

Also, I want to do give uh kudos to DMD because I know they have been working on something similar to this, and this would not override necessarily what they are doing already, because this is something that is just a really suggestion to the MDC.

This is something that we would like to see as a priority.

And also it's worth mentioning too.

This is not just some even democratic proposal.

Just this last week, North Carolina, their state house passed with 100% support with Democrats and Republicans.

They have a Republican state legislature and a Democratic governor unanimously this proposal to eliminate parking mandates in North Carolina.

There have been a number of other states have done the same thing too.

So, really, again, from the kind of more you know, traditional business support, you know, there's the idea of red tape, but also for you know, more uh democratic people, this really would do a lot to support neighborhoods in the city to support different communities.

So I think this is very common sense.

I give you credit for doing it.

I wish this were final, but obviously I hope the uh MDC will take some um notice to this because this would be really great for our cities.

Thank you very much.

Very good.

Uh counselor cake hill.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh the uh I I do hear about this quite a bit as well.

Uh I've got a lot of areas where they would redevelop where there are some excessive parking lots in some, you know, due to being built, you know, 50, 60 years ago when the parking minimums dictated, and yet the parking lots are never more than a third full.

And they would like to do some outlots or things like that.

And they they have to come back and get variances, which are challenging because there's no appeal process if you didn't say the the magic words to satisfy the BCA.

The um I guess I am curious about the the legal process, and I appreciate the the timing that when you submitted, uh you probably were not aware that we were gonna have an opportunity here, but we'll have next up an amendment to the zoning.

Have you so I I appreciate I it is my understanding what you described as well that the DMD initiates it at MGC, then it comes to us.

But it is my understanding, I would be curious to hear if there's a different legal opinion that once we once the door is open, we could amend additional things.

Have you considered simply amending the uh proposal 238 to do these things when we send all this back to MDC?

Thank you.

I mean, without providing obviously I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.

I I understand working within the system.

I know none of us created the home rule statutes that we have under the statehouse, and so to a certain extent, I'm fine with kind of uh you know fighting dirty in that way, but but to me adding in something totally unrelated to what the MDC was talking about and to a bill to send back to them, uh yeah, it makes me a little bit uncomfortable, and I haven't um haven't necessarily wanted to push in that direction.

Okay.

The uh yeah, I just I would add in that I think that frankly they have they have modernized this uh in some portions.

They just simply have not gone back to like the the C one through seven uh because mixed use, which was created more recently, that's one of the notable things that mixed use, which you can build anywhere.

You don't it it's very often built in TODs and things like that, but it can be built anywhere.

And mixed use uh districts uh have one of their hallmarks is that it eliminates the parking minimums or at least modifies them quite substantially.

So I think there is a model.

I think we just they haven't come back to say, hey, you know, if you did wherever that Costco that had apartments above it, if that was built down on County Line Road, uh if they'd simply put apartments above the Costco on County Line Road, their parking lot wouldn't be subject to the minimums that it was.

So all right, thank you.

Very good.

Councilor Delaney.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, as an econ major, I love hearing you say the word free market, we'll take care of it all.

Um so though, I've like my law bringing comes into effect, and I we haven't heard a lot about the counter-argument for why we have parking minimums in place.

I mean there's some obvious ones that come to my mind, but I'd like to know if there's anyone from DMD here that would be able to speak to you said there's a study coming forward to study all of our parking minimums, which sounds great, right?

Like maybe we need some in some locations, um, but maybe we don't, and so I didn't know if there was anybody that could speak to why it might be more appropriate to take a little bit of a slower approach and studying what we have as opposed to just saying no parking minimums anywhere.

Because I do represent a district that borders the county line, and so I'm not I have transit-oriented areas and and very built out, most of my district is built out.

Um, but again, I'm not representing you know downtown Indianapolis and the urban core true urban core like you are.

So I'm again I'm I'm interested to know the counter-argument for why we might have them and and if you could talk a little bit about all that or if there's anyone here from DMD.

Is there anyone in the audience from DMD who can respond to this?

Hi, good evening.

Uh my name is Megan Vukasic.

I'm the director for the Department of Metropolitan Development.

So, yes, that is correct.

We are currently uh we have a parking study that is underway.

This study is going to give us an inventory of existing parking um within key districts while also evaluating future demand scenarios.

So we want to look at what do we have today?

Is that you know, do we need more, do we need less?

Um, all of these questions.

We want to have a data-driven foundation for any policy changes that we bring forward.

So that's why we're going through that exercise.

I think on the surface, um, parking minimums in urban planning.

This is talked about a lot, elimination of them.

We're open to exploring that idea.

That was a part of one of the reasons we wanted to conduct this parking study.

Um, so yeah, we're excited to get some more data to then come back to you guys and make a informed recommendation on what any policy changes could be.

And then I guess to answer the why behind why we have parking minimums.

Um, there's maybe otherwise.

I think what I have heard in my experience as an urban planner is that you don't want spill over into adjacent neighborhoods.

So if you have a development that comes in that's gonna have a lot of uh parking demand for that area, you want to make sure that that development can accommodate the parking that they're going to bring to the area on their site because uh neighborhoods don't want that parking spilling over into their adjacent areas.

So that is one reason why, but I think there are ways that you can design parking um to make sure that you are accommodating both, and so that's what we're looking at.

Very good.

Uh Councilor Jones.

Thank you, Chairman Osley.

Thank you, Councillor Brown for bringing this to our attention.

Looking at this map, it does look like at least half of it is the district that I represent.

And parking is a huge topic of conversation in District 18.

And I know I have one business association in at least two neighborhoods that are waiting for that parking study.

Um they're waiting for those results.

And I would um just because I haven't had any conversations about this proposal this evening, I would have just a little heartburn voting on it this evening, although I feel very supportive and I think it's a good idea.

I would just want to make sure that I go to my businesses and I go to my constituents and ask their opinion on this.

So if it's all right, I would like to make a motion to have some more conversation on this.

I would like to make a motion to bring this back to the committee, maybe after budget season for our November meeting, if that would be all right.

Um so November 9th, make I would like to make a motion to bring this before our November 9th committee so that we could have a more robust conversation about this if that's okay.

Motion's been moved and seconded.

Uh Councilor Barth.

Uh thank you.

Um Chairman.

I I I agree with you, Council Brown.

I think conceptually this is a good idea, and I think I appreciate you bringing this up for the discussion.

I also uh agree with Councillor Jones.

I think there's more partnership.

I think the director just made that clear that there's an opportunity here to bring this together with a bigger coalition of people who really want to do this.

So I think taking a pause and then doing some more work between now and post-budget would give opportunity to have a more of a crescendo that's a a bigger level of support.

So um both uh points are good, both points are strong, and I think uh taking time to build a broader coalition makes sense, so I support the counselor's motion.

Uh thank you very much.

Any additional comments?

Um counselor Maori Uh I just asked uh Councilor Delaney here, and I'm not sure if I missed it or what, but did we have a timeline on that study that we're doing?

Um that way we know to give Councilor Brown a fair shot at having this heard in November that this will actually be completed.

I know sometimes with government things take a little longer than some they feel like they should, so I'd like to see if we had a timeline.

Yes, so the study is anticipated to take eight months is our timeline.

When did it start and when will it complete?

Um it was just getting underway.

We went through an RFP process to procure the con consultant, and so I would say eight months from now is when it would be.

So I guess my question then goes back to Councillor Jones.

How how do we feel about that, knowing that we won't have this ready so we can give him a fair shot at this?

I apologize for that.

I thought last I heard it was two months, so I apologize for that.

Um I guess I put it back to the chairman.

I mean, we I think maybe we could come back with I I still am going to put the motion for November because I think we can still have some conversation with our with our stakeholders and still continue the conversation.

Um I I still think November just to have the conversation, we can still continue the conversation.

Um but we'll still will be waiting on a parking study, I guess.

Um, it's very good, Councilor Brown.

Yes, I was just gonna say um that's all fine with me.

I know we've all had a lot in terms of wheel tax data centers, everything else on our plate and that budget coming up.

Um so I wanted to open the door to this and get these conversations started.

And I hope in November we've had time to talk to constituents and feel like we have a good sense of this.

Um I would remind everyone that you know best case scenario we'd pass something for the MDC to then take up when they saw fit.

So they wouldn't necessarily move lightning fast, I would imagine.

Um but I'm fine with with waiting until November.

Counselor Barth.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I was just gonna support um uh counselor Jones' point.

I and then I appreciate the minority leaders' point that that I haven't all the information matters, but I think that'll be a big enough pause to at least continue discussion.

Doesn't mean we necessarily have to take action that night.

So I think we could have a continued discussion and debate, and that's the whole point of having sort of public policy in in the public arena.

So I think November is fine.

Very good.

Any additional comments?

Uh Councilor Cahill.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, just to clarify the motion is this is a non-binding resolution, but we're gonna postpone it to November.

Is that yes?

Okay.

Thank you.

Very good.

Additional comments from the counselors.

All right, is there anyone in the room with an interest in proposal 237?

Oh, oops, this one moment.

Madam Clerk, you have a statement to make sorry, sir.

As we move to the public comments portion of the debate for this proposal, we would like to remind committee members and the public of a few ground rules in order for everyone to have a fair chance to speak and be heard.

It is important that we each observe the following ground rules.

First, each speaker will be limited to two minutes.

Second, any public comments must be reasonably relate to the agenda item under consideration.

Third, speakers who stray from the item under consideration or become unduly representatives may ask to move on their next point or conclude their comments.

Finally, attendees who cause disruptions that prevent the council from proceeding through today's agenda in a reasonably efficient manner will be removed.

Please remember that some types of threatening speech or incitement to violence aren't protected by the First Amendment at all.

We will deal with those if issues if they come up.

We don't think they will.

And now, Mr.

Chair, if if a com committee member asks for consent to adopt these rules, we can proceed to public comments.

Consent.

All right, very good.

Thank you so much.

Sir, please come forward.

My name is Nathaniel Martin Nelson.

I live uh at the by the intersection of college and fairfield, just south of 38th.

I'll start by noting right next to the state fairgrounds, parking minimums do not protect us from spillover.

Um every summer is exciting.

Um this college in Fairfield, all four corners have vacant properties that are zoned for retail use.

If these properties were developed, as we would love to see, the current zoning code would require building over 90 parking spaces in the middle of our neighborhood.

No one asked the business owners if they needed those spots or if they would help the business.

But the neighborhood and business would have to pay for those spots.

Every purchase at those stores would be more expensive because the cost of building parking spaces is rolled up in the rent or mortgage.

Even now we are paying the price of parking mandates as the cost of parking or the variance process deters businesses from building.

If if you were to vote in favor of this resolution, as mentioned, you'd be in good company.

There's a hundred and sixteen U.S.

cities that have completely eliminated parking mandates, including South Bend, Indiana, Toledo, Ohio, and Lexington, Kentucky.

Eliminating parking minimums spares every business in a household in the city from the cost of unnecessary parking spaces.

While allowing necessary parking spaces to still be built, allowing businesses the freedom to build the parking they need.

It helps affordability and the homelessness crisis by making housing cheaper to build, helps the environment by making walking, busing, and biking easier.

It helps reduce crime by making vibrant mixed-use areas more feasible.

But best of all, it costs the city and citizens nothing to eliminate parking mandates.

Every month, every year that we go without doing stuff on this is another another month or year that those lots are still vacant that people are paying extra on their rent because they had to build um build more parking spaces.

Buildings are going up in my neighborhood right now that are having extra cost because of this policy.

So I urge you to use your vote to make Indianapolis a better place to live and save us all some money.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Forgive me if these thoughts are a little disjointed.

I I wasn't anticipating uh coming up here and speaking in favor of this resolution.

Uh, but it is something I I think is really important, uh, especially from a long-term perspective for the city and from a sustainability and resilience perspective.

Um, you know, Indianapolis has a walk score of just 46, making it a heavily dependent uh car city uh with limited micro amenities and residential neighborhoods and an average commute uh is heavily reliant on cars and personal vehicles.

And this isn't by accident, it's a product of state and municipal policy, and one of such is parking minimums.

Um sort of to just focus on some of the impacts.

You know, I think forcing parking minimums incentivizes automobile use at the expense of space and land.

And so some of the major impacts it has impacts the parking infrastructure.

Parking infrastructure neg neg negatively affects a wide range of urban outcomes, primarily significant long-term infrastructure costs and lower tax base is impacts and car ownership and travel behavior.

So parking affects current ownership, driving transit uses, forces the use of a car and disincentivizes public or alternative transportation.

It also produces effectively an extra tax on resident on residents who need to use a car to drive around, like the only way to get around the city.

Parking minimums as a constraint on development.

Density is extremely important for climate resilience and for like long-term costs of infrastructure such as water, roads, uh electricity, other costs.

Um when you have an undensed city, uh those costs become higher.

And the last point I want to make is repealing the amenums uh generally slows the growth of new parking supply and often produces the intended effects that they are argued for.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hello, I'm Elizabeth Nager.

I live at 14th in Bancroft in the Little Flower neighborhood.

I did not come here today aware of that this would be a topic.

And I'm here not to argue one way or another.

I'm here to ask that you counselors yourselves and ask for the city itself to look at the needs of seniors in their policies and the changes.

I I love the the wonderful biking paths we're making.

Um Michigan and New York have have been wonderful improvements for people on the east side to get to and from Indianapolis.

Uh I like to see more density in housing too.

I'm I'm really happy that we're getting uh transit, more transit services.

That a lot of these things assume people have the physical capacity to bike and to walk and to stand because we don't have seats by any hardly any of the um uh bus stops.

Um you know, as a mobility impaired senior, as many of my friends are.

Um I just asked that you find some way to look at those needs and incorporate them in your decision making.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Right, if there are no more comments uh from the public, I would ask um uh uh Chairwoman Jones if she might just restate her motion.

Thank you, Chairman Osley.

I make a motion to uh reschedule the proposal to our meeting on November 9th.

All right.

Motion is improperly moved and seconded.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, nay.

All right, very good.

Uh that motion carries.

Uh thank you.

And thank you, um, uh, Councillor Brown.

The next item on our agenda is proposal uh 238, which amends chapter 740 to 02 otherwise known as definitions.

742-109, otherwise known as special use districts, and table 743-208-1 of the consolidated zoning and subdivision control ordinance of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana concerning data center development.

Um Madam President, I believe you have um a comment.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, as you know, sitting in this seat, um, you often have the opportunity to hear all sides of an issue, oftentimes multiple times, and even before the public has an opportunity to hear said specific topic.

As the topic of guard rails and zoning continued to unfold, it was clear that there was still work to be done with industry experts, the administration, the council, and the community at large.

Also, it was clear that as a body we weren't in agreement, and that we were faced with at least 20 to 30 amendments ranging from banning data centers altogether to passing uh uh additional centers without any guardrails.

I know that Vice President Barth, Assistant M.

L.

Nielsen, Councillor Brown were working on amendments.

Also, I was recently informed that our majority leader leader and you, Mr.

Chairman, were also working on amendments, all signaling that there is much more work to be done.

I felt that it was important enough that we should hit pause to allow for the conversations to continue, especially for those individuals that felt like they haven't been heard or wasn't given the opportunity to be at the table.

So I made the decision to pause on proposal 238 that I solely sponsored.

This isn't about grandstanding, slowing down economic development.

I've had conversations with the chamber and IEDI and ask them to assist us moving forward.

This is not a cop-out indie star.

It's about being humble enough to acknowledge that when something isn't working, we should hit pause.

With that said, Mr.

Chairman, I move to amend proposal 238 2026 by deleting the language and the double stricken through and adding a double underlying language to read as follows.

Colleagues, you should have a copy of the amendment.

Section one revised code 742, subpart L of the zoning ordinance in Marion County, Indiana shall specifically reserve for data center regulations shall be developed by staff after a moratorium ending no later than December 31st, 2027 on permitting or allowance of any and all data centers within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Development Commission MDC to allow for staff to consult with or convene a committee of expert committee of experts and community members.

Again, I did mention the chamber and um IEDI.

This group uh, but not limited to and to reviewing existing structures, uses, standards, specific data center campus size, maximum building height, maximum footprint, sound levels, including DBC and low frequency noise, browns brown field and other environmental concerns, including surface, subsurface texting testing, generating testing plans and electronic waste disposal plans.

This ordinance shall be effect from and after its passage by the council in compliance within Indiana Code 36-3-4-14.

Mr.

Chairman, again, I so move.

Other comments from counselors.

Counselor Barth.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, I fully support the president's um amendment to create a moratorium for a meaningful period of time when it comes to reviewing and approving data centers.

Um it's plain and just uh underline and bold and italicize what the president just said.

The um there's a lot more work yet to be done.

Uh even though I do appreciate and value the work that um our city staff have done, they did a uh thorough job.

They looked at uh other cities, they did a very meaningful uh level of community engagement and came up with a proposed um plan for zoning uh for data centers.

The feedback I'm getting uh from my district is that like the president said, uh folks just want more time to to weigh in.

So I think um it's important uh that we do this and that we take this action and I support it.

I do want to make sure folks uh here and at home understand similar to what we just did with uh council brown's um uh proposal um proposed postponing something and putting moratorium for a period of time gives us more time to to work and come up with the right solution for the city.

But in both instances, we are reliant on the MDC and their work.

So uh on the zoning changes, they send it to us, we can amend it and send it back.

We are dependent on them.

So they will receive this, assuming it passes it passes tonight and it passes the full council.

So please, everyone who's very tuned into this issue is paying a lot of attention when the MDC receives this and they um decide how they're gonna proceed.

You need to show up there too.

Uh let them know um your point of view and and why you think they should accept this moratorium because ultimately this is a conversation between this body and the MDC to get to uh to get to a conclusion.

It's perfectly possible that they could send it back to us for us to continue on with the with the zoning debate.

So unless uh we are successful in uh letting them know that it's the will of the community that this moratorium proceed and give us more time to work on the right solution for Indianapolis, then uh we won't have achieved anything tonight.

So please be aware of the sort of conversation and the back and forth we're in right now with the MDC, but I fully support this action from this committee and ultimately from the council.

Thank you.

Very good, thank you.

Council Delaney.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I think it's important that um we recognize the timeline and why it was set into place, and that was because we don't have regulations right now in this county, and so thank you to the staff.

There was a group of counselors that met prior prior to the staff even introducing the ordinance that we're trying to get something on the books because we have no regulations in the county as it stands, and so um, or just general zoning regulations, nothing specific pertaining to data centers.

So I do want to acknowledge the work that's been done in the effort of why it may have felt fast and and ultimately now why we feel we need more time was we were trying to get something in place, and so it was done with the best of intentions.

Um I do have a question for um Madam President or Council pertaining to the language of no later than what specifically does that mean.

The way the way I read it, we're gonna continue to work on our regulations while the moratorium is in place, and then assuming we have another package that's ready to go that's had everybody's amendments and everything considered, then we can still propose that, and at that time the moratorium would fall off.

I'm getting a nodding head for anybody that's not seeing her on camera, our president is nodding.

So I will leave, stop talking and let her respond.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

That's exactly right.

I wanted to allow space for if the work gets done before December 31st, 2026.

And so the plan is for everyone, including us that we continue to work on those amendments that everyone was discussing, allow MDC to do what they do, allow DMD to bring the experts to the table to have the conversation, and then again, if it's done before the the 31st of next year, then that's fine.

But again, I didn't want to lock us into that date, and I did not want to signal that everyone needs to go home and stop having the conversation.

We need to continue to have this conversation.

Thank you.

Very good.

Additional comments.

Council Cahill.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I I guess I would like to hear more about it.

I have a real concern.

I I brought this up with minority counsel that we have struck through the definition of data center in this, and then used the word data center in referring to a moratorium.

And so I would pass along what minority counsel uh said was that we now have stripped out the definition of data center, and unfortunately, there is no consistency from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

There isn't something that you can point to and say this is what other places have said as a data center.

I look, for example, like at Seattle, their definition was the storage and processing of other people's data and using more than 20 megawatts.

It's it's very technical.

Uh it's different than ours because ours also encompasses network processing, which I think is has historically not been what most people understand to be data centers.

That you know, just the the network switching, uh, what Comcast does, the routers that they have near your neighborhood would not be what most people would think of as data centers, but they were caught up in this definition.

In the absence of a definition, my big concern is that we're saying the word data center moratorium, but the legal advice was that now that decision on what a data center is and whether or not a moratorium applies goes back to the MDC and uh potentially the BCA, where much like the ones that we've seen so far, we don't get to review.

My my fear is that while I think this needed a fair bit of work, it did at least put a position through where these were subject to calldown where any one of us, if there had been one in our district, could have done that.

But in the absence of this and having stripped out the definition of data center, I I'm not sure that the moratorium has the teeth that we need it to have to actually block this.

So if if you could address that, I'd love it.

Thanks.

Madam President.

Mr.

Chairman, that was extremely technical.

I will uh look to our our council, but I will say that the intent is that for those uh uh centers that are on the docket now and are in the queue, if you will, that those will continue to move forward.

It's this is this speaks specifically to new centers, but again, I will allow uh our experts to speak to the tech technical piece of this.

Madam Council.

I we currently don't have a definition if I'm correct, and I'll let Megan answer, but we don't have a definition as we speak today.

And so DMD does their best to define what that is, and they have done that, and I'll leave it to Megan to just to say how they get it.

Yeah, so currently the zoning ordinance does not have a definition for data centers.

Uh so I guess one thing to consider would be adding that definition back in to this amendment, so that way there was a definition for data centers.

So that way there was a definition for data centers.

You could still do that with the moratorium language that you've suggested.

Um then absolutely correct.

We've gotten questions on telecommunications facilities versus data centers.

I just want to make clear that there are is a specific definition for telecommunication facilities within the zoning ordinance.

Those are regulated by a different set of state regulations, and so those would continue to fall under that definition.

Um, but you are absolutely accurate.

There is no definition today of what a data center is in the zoning code.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I I guess with that, I I think that we need to have that need that's a pretty critical piece to this, in my opinion, that we do need to make that definition here because otherwise I don't know that you can just wave your hands and say data center moratorium without having defined data center.

It's a it's a pretty critical piece of this.

I I guess I would encourage us to continue to work on this.

Um postpone it if need be to have that continued amendment to the amendment.

Um because I'm I'm concerned that this is actually going to continue legally to allow the current wild west.

So I know that the comment was it allows the existing ones, but I don't think there's anything in here that would stop somebody from tomorrow coming in.

And in fact, my fear would actually be that if somebody was thinking of a new data center and saw that we were taking this action, it would lead to like a little bit of a gold rush where somebody would now come in and go, Oh, I need to before they because we can't move quickly.

We like we amend this, we come back in August, we send it back to MDC, they have to pass it.

Like this could cause if this bounces back to September or October going back and forth.

Um that could be a real problem.

There could be additional data centers that we don't know about today coming through.

So thank I think the council, Madam President.

I think uh our director can speak to that, and then I'll I'll follow up.

Very good.

Yeah, so just one option, just a recommendation to address that point, would be to alter the amendment to just continue to include that definition of data center.

That way you wouldn't need to postpone it to another meeting.

Matthew since we would need a written amendment, you could do that at full council.

I'd be approved this and amend to add a definition back in at full council.

Is that good?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Uh I do not support us postponing uh this conversation.

Uh Madam Council stated that we can do it on the on the council floor.

You have my commitment that we will uh uh go back and and add that language uh into this amendment, but I do not support us postponing uh this conversation or this this amendment.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

All right, very good.

Additional comments, Council Cahill.

I just uh just a thought that uh we could not take the vote on this amendment but vote on the proposal as unamended, send it back with the intent of amending at full council.

Mr.

Chairman, absolutely, absolutely not.

Uh again, uh I'm confident that we are doing the right thing and suggesting that we go ahead and pass that what we know is not fully fully baked, that is not uh uh a good proposal.

I I I cannot support that.

We know that that proposal needs more work and it's it's not uh ready for us to take before the full council, so I do not support that.

All right, additional comments then uh councillor Hart.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I'm on under the belief on this one that there are with the existing proposal.

I think let me start over and represent it this way.

I think if we do what you're proposing, but if we do it with the the president's proposing, Mr.

Chairman, um we may leave some unidentified gaps.

And what I mean by that is alluding to similar to what counselor Cahill is talking about, because uh I'm actually experiencing a similar situation.

Now I know nothing today is going to be impacted, but technically the folks today could have uh designed what's uh known as a fiber node, right?

It it would not have come up in a data center as the map because they essentially create a fiber hub around it and then lease out space internally and never use the words data center, but still provide some similar features, right?

So I think the big the one of the bigger concerns that I've seen around data centers is certainly around hyperscalers in most cases, not necessarily some of these things that could be defined else like fiber nodes or things of that nature.

So when that comes into play, that's what gives me reason to believe that a set of regulations is actually safer for the community than a moratorium on data centers on that one singular term because there's still an option for things that can fall outside of that term that can still facilitate a similar type of need.

And so then what will happen in that case, which is similar to what I'm experiencing now, is that I'm going through a variance of use, not a rezone.

And so in that case, there is no authority that comes back to the city council as a whole.

It stays with the MDC.

There's no ability to call down, and then you end up with a data center-like facility defined as something else.

Whereas if you have a set of regulations that you continue to work on, you have a level of protection, you have accountability from the council, and you can provide a level of protection while still improving the language.

That's the observation I've made through learned experience.

Um I hear what you're saying, I see what you're trying to do, but I think it still leaves open uh a level of vulnerability uh and reduces protections for the public.

Render President.

I I I thank you for your your comments, both of you.

Uh I think you guys are proving my point.

There are more questions than answers.

Therefore, again, I I suggest I recommend that we move forward with uh with the motion to uh have a moratorium on data centers.

Very good.

There's no comments.

Councilor Brown.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you, Madam President.

Just wanted to commend you on the record.

I think this is the right move for today.

Um frankly, I find myself very frustrated with the MDC.

Um, you know, although there were some caveats presented in some votes, we did unanimously as a body, as a 25-member council, instruct the MDC that what we wanted was a moratorium months ago.

That's also borne out by the vast uh or the largest single response to uh Director Vukosich and her staff's um public comments about the proposal was that we want a full ban or a moratorium for now.

We can see the number of people in the room tonight, we could see the number of people who've come out to council meetings to MDC meetings for a year at this point, and there's never been a more clear signal of both where the popular will and where the will of this council has been, and so I find myself very frustrated that we're in this position to once again for the second time this year tell the MDC that we would like a moratorium.

If in fact we are allowing developers to skirt um this decision, I think that is very clearly on the heads of the mayor's appointees at the Metropolitan Development Commission, not because of any misstep made by this body.

Thank you.

Very good.

Uh Councilor Nielsen.

Uh thank you, Chairman Osley.

Um I do appreciate the dis I mean the the catch uh by counselor Cahill.

I I I think that that's an important clarification.

I think why I also appreciate uh counselor Hart's discussion, that same complication would exist if we did have the regulations, right?

So if we had regulations with a a definition that maybe wasn't all-encompassing, it would apply, it would it would apply in both cases.

Um but I do I do appreciate what you're saying.

I think what we do need is something clear that at least DMD staff can point to while maybe not the most comprehensive possible because we don't know how technology is going to work in the future, it at least is, I think at this point in time, the most comprehensive definition that we are seeing.

And so I do want to actually thank DMD for their hard work and for taking on such a challenging topic in such a short period of time.

And I think that they were doing so.

This is my interpretation, they were doing so because what we are seeing is the wild west of how data centers are able to compete with either either a variance of use or a CS district classification, and they're able to kind of jump back between the two of those without anything for DMD staff or counselors to real to really point to.

Um with that in mind, I also want to thank the president for her leadership on this because I think um as been at as has been outlined, it has taken to this moment for us to be able to take this action.

Uh but what was very clear at the point with which we can take action, the council is taking action.

I think that's really important for people to see.

I know there's been robust conversation at MDCs, at hearing examiners and communities around this city, and what has been universally held is why isn't the council doing more?

Well, the council is doing more right now, right?

And I want to thank you, President Lewis, for stepping up and doing that.

Um I'd also like to say uh that you know, during this period of time, it's important that we continue to show up and it's continue important that folks continue to to engage in in this process, so that hopefully we get to a point where we can have this more comprehensive uh conversation on this.

Um I think that again, why this is a challenging topic, it's not over, right?

So we're hopefully this passes tonight.

Um if it's successful, we'll go to the full council for a vote.

It then goes back to the MDC, has been discussed at length, of which the MDC has time.

If we get into a point where there's ping pong, we're gonna have to legislate, right?

And we're gonna have to do some more.

But it is also important to note that tonight is just the next step in another process.

The vice president has emphasized that.

You're gonna hear us say that a lot, because I think what often gets lost in this conversation is that somehow the process isn't working for you, and that is uh that is a factor of of state law, but we are operating within the confines of what we have.

And again, uh the amendment tonight is a reflection at uh the council and the president um are listening.

So thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Very good.

Um, I also want to recognize a counselor who is um who is visiting with us uh this evening, and that's counselor Carlos Perkins.

I wanted to make sure that we recognized him and if he had any comments.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um Dr.

Carlos Perkins District Six.

Um I'm fully in support of the proposal from uh Madam President.

Um I echo what my colleagues have shared.

We've heard from the community, uh this continues to uh be a hot cop topic for uh not only in this chamber but across the city, across Marion County.

Um we need time to talk this through to resolve this, and so I'm fully supportive of what Madam President support is uh recommending tonight.

Thank you.

Very good.

Uh Councilor Roberts.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um echoing all of that, I just wanted to also mention I do plan to vote for this.

Um this is also largely informed.

I actually put out a survey on Friday of people who live in the district that I represent.

Um, and I was wondering, you know, because obviously when we have these public hearings, it's always very overwhelming.

The opposition.

I was just wondering though, you know, if I do put out something that's more neutral, like a survey, would there be the same level of opposition?

And I will say unanimously, the answer is yes.

It was over 90 percent of people wanting a data center moratorium.

And I will say the interesting thing was the amount of people, and I think there are different schools of thought on this, some people that are 100% anti-all data center, some people that are more nuanced on it, or the amount of people that are just making the point, which I think is a strong one of us wait and see, right?

Like, let's see what the effect of these data centers will be.

Let's see if we need more regulation, right?

Not just maybe a year and a half from now, but just seeing the effects of it, I think is responsible.

We have data centers all over the city that have been actively present, like we've shared for years, but most of them are in a smaller scope, but also seeing what other cities are doing, just really getting a better, broader view of this before we have other legislation pass.

I do think that is responsible.

Um, and thank you, everybody took my survey.

It was very informative.

Um, and I think the community's been very loud and clear on this their stance.

Um, and you know, I think there's ways you can be nuanced on this to really legislate with all the intricacies of the different bills, but I think having time is the important part of it.

So thank you very much.

Excellent.

Councilor Mowery.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, after hearing a lot of the comments here, I mean I think data centers is probably a pretty close contender with potholes in Indianapolis at this point.

So we've seen the we've seen the outpour of uh opposition to the data centers, and I think Madam President is on uh the right track with this proposal.

However, given the comments I heard from Counselor Cahill and Hart about you know moratorium on data centers, though the definition of data center, uh I do have concern there because the doors that could open.

So while I don't know that I can be in support of tonight because of the lack of a definition, I think once we get to the full council and Madam President has that amendment to amend the amendment uh with definition of data center and then give us an opportunity to come wrap our minds and heads around what is it gonna look like in Indianapolis 30, 40, 50 years from now with these if we do go forward with these data centers and have more of an idea of the structure of how to move forward with these data centers with community input um with people that are subject matter experts and uh businesses that would essentially want to house these data centers.

So uh I I respect the the effort that Madam President's put forth with this with this amendment to the this proposal, but uh until we can get that definition and baked in there, I I don't know if I can be in support of it.

Thank you.

Very good.

Counselor Brown.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and I'm sorry to be on the mic again.

I just thought it was really important to put context around, I think Councillor Nielsen had some very helpful points about the complexity of this process.

And you know, you mentioned this, Councilor Nielsen, but but I just wanted to restate for people who haven't followed state politics as much.

Um as counselors, we all get membership in a group called Accelerating Indiana's Municipalities aim, which allows um city and county leaders from across the state to just be on a big email list and ask each other questions to help resolve uh answers.

And over this weekend, we had someone, I don't even remember what town asked the whole state of legislators hey, do you guys have a sample data center moratorium language that you could bring as a proposal?

And uh Michael Griffin from Highlands in Northwest Indiana said we don't have that because we literally just in the middle of a meeting, someone made a motion saying let's put a moratorium on all data centers.

Someone seconded it and they passed it, and that was law.

And the reason we can't do that in the city is because we have the MDC that carves out that power that normally would be this legislative body's power, and they have the sole ability to do that.

But they still do not actually need to wait until we pass this at the August meeting.

They don't need to wait on us for anything.

They meet on Wednesday of this week, and the Chairman Dillon could just say it's clear what the council wants.

We're instituting a moratorium from today.

That's a political decision that he has.

This isn't some arcane process where he's constrained by the handcuffs of law.

The laws that we have are set up by the State House Supermajority Republicans, and even still, the Metropolitan Development Commission has the power to act as they've had for months, and they're politically choosing not to.

Thank you.

All right, Council Hart.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And I just wanted to share one thing that was sent with me because I don't see a copy of it in front of me.

And so I just wanted to say it for the record most importantly.

But um I know I received a letter from uh John Hooker, the president and executive director of the Central Indiana building and construction and trades uh of Central Indiana that represent painters, electricians, iron workers, laborers, operating engineers, pipe footers, sheet metal workers, and countless other skilled trades that build in the city.

And I'm not gonna read the whole letter because it was really long, but I'll I'll read the big bolded part that it says here is that as his words we support guardrails, not a blanket freeze.

It says to be clear, the Central Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council are not asking the council to approve every project with no questions asked, legitimate concerns about water usage, energy demand, grid capacity, and neighborhood impact deserve serious study and clear standards.

We support the council developing thoughtful transparent criteria, efficiency standards, utility coordination requirements, community benefit agreements, and higher local apprenticeships when applicable.

And then towards the end, it says we respectfully urge the council to reject blanket moratorium and instead work with the industry, labor, and utility partners to develop clear, responsible standards that keep Indianapolis open for business and our members on the job.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I just want to share some of those passages from that letter because I know I got an email and I don't see it on my desk.

Very good.

Additional comments from counselors.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Just to be clear, if this passes tonight, it will go to the full council with the again if it passes, it would be a due pass recommendation.

After that vote, it would go to the MDC.

And again, to Councilor Brown's point, like the process doesn't end tonight or even at the next council meeting.

If the NBC says that they do not support our effort, then the proposal comes back to us the way that they originally submitted, maybe, and then we, as counselors, would go back to uh picking up where we left off with the amendments.

And so again, I just want to stress that there's a clear process moving forward and that the work does not end this evening.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Very good.

Thank you very much.

So before we open uh the floor to the public, um I'd like to ask uh the uh DMD director uh for any comments that she may have, and also to say thank you to DMD for the work that they put in over these past months.

Uh Director.

Thank you, Chairman Oslee and Counselors.

Uh, for the record again, Megan Bukisich, director for the Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development, which is commonly referred to as DMD.

I think we've said that a lot tonight, but just want to make that clear that that's what that stands for.

Um so this is a proposal to amend the consolidated zoning and subdivision control ordinance of Indianapolis-Marion County.

Specifically, uh, the proposal that was before you was um to amend chapter 74202, which is the definitions section, and then chapter 742109, which is the special use districts chapter pertaining to data center development.

This proposal is the result of over a year of research and development, which included working meetings with city council and city council staff since January of this year to get direction and guidance on policy objectives.

We appreciate the city council's attention to this matter as our zoning ordinance currently lacks regulations for these developments.

While the Department of Metropolitan Development has conducted thorough research and has proposed reasonable and responsible regulations for data centers, this is a highly regulated use with potential impacts beyond what zoning has traditionally regulated, and we support taking a pause to be able to have time to conduct additional research and stakeholder engagement.

I also want to take a moment to say that one of the biggest challenges we've had to overcome throughout this process is misinformation.

And I want to make a few things clear on the record.

The first is that DMD's goal is to protect the people of Indianapolis.

DMD wants public comments to be known and for information to be accessible.

Our goal is to make information easy to understand so people can know what is going on and can provide informed feedback.

DMG is an objective regulatory agency.

Our role is to process applications and review requests for alignment with local land use policies that are set by our elected official in our boards and commissions.

Suggesting anything to the contrary is inaccurate, dangerous, and insult to me and the hard work of my team.

Over the past year, our staff has had to process data center applications with no defined regulations, as our current zoning ordinance does not include a definition nor regulations for data centers.

DMD did not seek these developments or did we ask for these developments to be built, but we are the staff members who must process applications.

This has made the department a target caught up in an issue that is discussed at a national level but with no decision-making power.

What we have done in this interim period, and what we are required to do without defined regulations, is identify uses within the zoning ordinance that are of a similar use size and that require similar resource consumption and have recommended conditions that should be considered for approval.

Having defined regulations is the only way we can require companies to meet minimum standards and ensure the proper public process plays out.

So we are able to take time and a pause from having to review projects on a case-by-case basis, and having additional time to conduct research and stakeholder engagement will allow us to do that.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you very much.

So I'll ask uh for public comment.

And I will ask everyone to please uh stick with uh with two minutes so that everyone has an opportunity uh to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um, first we have Christian Stoddard, Jason Hurley, Wes Leaper.

Hi, Kristen Sodtered, Cambi, Indiana, Decatur Township.

I should be home with my children watching the home run derby as promised.

Instead, I'm here in hopes of saving all Indianapolis children.

Let's talk about children, your children, nieces, and nephews.

Actually, let's talk about anyone you love.

Chances are someone you care about has an autoimmune disease or a chronic illness.

In the documents handed out, hopefully you received your copies.

You will see over 30 chronic illnesses that can be exacerbated by the things that data centers or their likeness can bring with them.

One being sound, infra sound, and sound waves.

Fourth grade earth and physical science taught us about sound and sound waves, how one is heard and one is felt.

It travels and is confirmed by the very acoustics behind you now.

Sound waves are physical and at different frequencies make different patterns.

Sound waves travel fastest through solids like the ground.

Data center soundproofing walls will rely on mass, damping, and cooling to absorb vibration energy, turning it into heat, contributing to the already urban heat island concern.

Soundproofing will not be possible for the ground.

In fact, it will be an conductor.

Your same document was presented via email to Bryce Patz for the MDC ahead of the SABE data center proposal indicator township.

Not one MDC representative asked about independent environmental and noise sound impact studies or health impact studies.

Yet the MDC made life-altering health decisions for its citizens using them as medical experiments.

This alone should halt any current data center proposals or its likeness and launch any investigation into any data center or its likeness already approved.

I'd like to take what's time left in my time to invite anyone and everyone who supports this to quietly stand in solidarity.

Hey, I'm Jason Early.

Uh this is in regards to the Thunderbird location.

It was a couple sessions ago, and uh Judy Hall, after listening to both sides of a was like a debate, and it was overwhelmingly obvious that these points on this side were just overwhelmingly describing reasons not to go further with any kind of development of a data center there.

And so when it came down to it, Judy Hall just, you know, she kind of, you know, even though in their face, you know, she was smiling and everything, and then uh, you know, and then finally she kind of her head went down subconsciously, it seemed to me, you know, in guilt and she said, Well, you know, it's just what's going on these days.

And she literally said that that well, it's just what's going on in the United States that data centers are are going up, and just disregarded all the facts and anything, and just you know, as Jesse said, that they're just doing what's political and what and what they want to do without taking uh you know health and the environment into consideration is just irresponsible.

Um I don't understand uh Barth when you're saying that these are being done for the city, and for what I'm reading that uh these companies aren't being uh you know, there's no obligation to pay you know property tax or whatever you know, they're not paying monies that could be used for our city, you know, and that and then you guys with the the will tax and all that.

This is not and it just doesn't seem like things are being done properly.

Thank you.

My name is Wes Leeper and I live in District 7.

I currently serve as a policy director for a U.S.

congressional campaign in Texas where data center policy has also become a significant issue for us.

Now, Indiana's become one of the fastest growing data center markets in the country with more than 90 proposed or planned projects statewide.

The question is not whether these data centers create economic value, they do.

The question is is who is capturing that value, who is burying the cost, and how much of the economic benefit actually remains in the communities that host such facilities.

The tech industry argues data centers are necessary to support the U.S.

economy's increasing demand for digital infrastructure.

Well, this is technically true, it's a less than authentic way to present the position.

Citizens don't need the digital architecture.

These companies do.

And what these data centers will do is support large companies in their efforts to monetize every single meaningful human interaction in society.

These companies are building the physical infrastructure that will store and transmit a massive amount of personal information about our daily lives.

Ninety percent of all data in existence today generated in the last two years.

Pattern's gonna be this more users, more data, more data, better algorithms, better algorithms, more users, more users, more revenue, more revenue, purchases, more data centers.

In the end, without proper governance, you're gonna see this cycle repeat until unprecedented concentrations of economic power reside in the hands of institutions like Amazon, Google, Meta, and Oracle.

Now, these meetings, it's emblematic of a growing perception among many Americans that these projects become large enough, public opposition becomes secondary to the economic momentum that only benefit the few.

This isn't about data centers.

This is about power, ownership, and self-government.

It's about whether our communities direct capital or whether the capital ultimately is directing our communities.

And I encourage everyone to confront the question of who owns this data, who controls the infrastructure, and who governs the systems through which modern society increasingly operates.

In a nation founded upon the principle of liberty, what could be more fundamental than asking who controls the systems that increasingly shape our lives?

Progress isn't going to be measured by the number of servers we built.

It's going to be measured whether our citizens become more prosperous, independent, and more capable because of them, whether communities like to cater township, retain agency over their future, and whether we leave behind policy our children will thank us for or something they will spend decades trying to undo.

Yes, who's next on the list?

In that order.

Yes, sorry, I didn't have my mic on.

Donna Blair, Meredith Sharp, Joshua Ferrier, and Brett Sullivan.

Good evening.

I'm here to support the council members who are bringing consideration for a moratorium to the table.

This lets us know we are being heard.

Current outcomes and studies on data centers throughout the nation have already shown negative impacts on home prices, the environment, and the health of those living near these centers.

More independent studies need to be completed in order to determine the long-term effect of the data centers in order to develop needed safeguards.

Indiana 22 counties in Indiana have realized this need.

Let Marion County join these counties in setting an example for the state.

Thank you for listening to us.

My name is Meredith Sharp.

You may remember me.

I fought as part of Protect FT.

We fought hard to protect our community from Google last summer.

I won't rehash the details of the NDAs, the secrecy, the exhausting process, and the lack of protections and studies around that project.

But I'm back today with the same issue, yet a different fight.

I'm angry.

And I'm angry because if a weak ordinance is passed, then protecting my family and my community yet again becomes a non-option.

I'm angry because our whole city, well, our whole state is under attack.

And I could inundate you tonight with facts and articles and quotes about data centers and why they're bad for our community.

But you're all intelligent people, and you're gonna hear it all tonight.

So my questions to you are how many times I have to stand in this building, protecting my family, my community, and this beautiful state that I have called home my entire life.

Why do we have to keep having this conversation instead of pausing and thoughtfully building a smart city?

Well, we should simply ban data centers in this country.

Clearly, we the people do not want them here, and they are not safe, even remotely close to residential areas.

I understand due diligence.

So why not form a committee with members from each protect group?

We come together with county officials to discuss and thoughtfully create protections from data center harm.

You all know yourselves that you wouldn't want to live next to a data center, but it's okay for us too.

You're all elected officials here to represent Marion County residents.

I urge you to hear our voices tonight and pass a moratorium.

Hello, my name is Josh Farrier.

I've uh lived here in Indianapolis my whole life.

I'm from the southeast side.

I want to ask a different type of question.

Where does water come from?

Does anyone in this room know?

You guys are gonna say, oh, it comes from the sky, it comes from rain.

You're gonna say it comes from snowfall, right?

That's what you were taught.

Rain or water itself comes from the land being coherent.

When you have an oasis in the desert, how do you think that oasis is able to hold water?

That is able to hold water because it is a coherent snow.

It is coherent in that area, which is why water is drawn to it.

Our water circulates every eight to ten days in a circular motion all throughout the planet.

It goes to the top ionosphere, turns to plasma.

When it's in the ground, it acts as mist.

The ground is not solid per se.

It is going through it as vapor all the way around.

So what happens when you build data centers everywhere that are destabilizing the soil?

What happens?

It can't hold water anymore.

I've predicted within seven to ten years, based upon my data, that we will have irreversible damage once the data centers are 100% active.

And the reason why is because we can't replenish the water faster than it will be pulled out.

It's impossible.

And once it reaches that irreversible damage, it is done for a hundred generations.

This is fossilized water.

I'm talking about the carsta aquifer system.

The more we keep building these data centers, it keeps destabilizing the soil.

As the soil keeps getting more and more destabilized, we are building as many, it's like we're building as many data centers as we can to we're trying to create a desert here in the Midwest, and that's what it's going to do.

And then, you know, what really bothers me is I see the new crypto fund coming out for the water reserve.

Why are they doing that?

Water scarcity.

It is being created purposefully.

Thank you for your time.

I'm Brett Sullivan.

I live uh in Canby Road by a new data center that they're supposedly going to build.

And I've grown up here.

My mom recently passed away, and I inherited her house.

My dad's ashes as have been at this house spread.

And uh I do not want to breathe.

Um pollution from diesel generators and noise pollution.

I have enough problems trying to sleep as it is.

And I do not want this in my neighborhood, and I already have lung issues, and I've seen several documentaries on this.

And um just so much pollution and noise.

I don't want this in my neighborhood.

Next, can we please have Mavine Dobie, Kevin Nicholas, Paul Hart, Rebecca Burris.

Hi, I'm Maureen Dobie.

I live near John Barth.

And I'm grateful for you all to think about this.

And I just want to say that we all know that the tech millionaires are buying favorable politics with alarming speed, but none of them has asked me or anyone here if they wanted AI involved in every data search.

If they wanted AI making pickleball songs or World Cup memes, we're being it's being forced down our throats, and we don't want it.

So AI is already too expensive in terms of electric water and land resources.

So let's fix the problem now.

Let's do a moratorium.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Kevin Nichols.

Uh, I live in the Little Flower Neighborhood, 4621's of code.

Um, here today on behalf of Earth Charter Indiana, Earth Charter Indiana, uh, which is the organization I work for.

Um, and we've worked tirelessly since 2001 to inspire and advance sustainable, just, and peaceful living here in the state of Indiana.

Um, in recent history, so you someone already said this 17 Indiana Counties enacted moratorium on data centers in response to widespread public concern about the impact of this wave of hazy development on public health and the environment.

So I'm here today uh to voice my organization's support for counselor Lewis's call for a moratorium here in Indianapolis.

Uh so in 2017, the City County Council passed a youth-led climate resolution and set in motion a plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

Earth Charter Indiana worked with the City Office of Sustainability to develop the Thrive Indianapolis plan.

And unfortunately, the surge in energy production required to meet the expected data center load growth accelerates carbon emissions into our atmosphere by burning fossil fuels all at the expense of a livable climate.

The popular will against data centers has manifested itself in passionate grassroots efforts like Protect Martin Del Braywood and protect Decatur Township.

Data center developers prey on localities with regulatory environments that they can take advantage of.

It would be unfortunate to see this moratorium not cover the projects like the Martin Dale Brightwood project, the Decatur Township Project, the Irvington Project, because those are the communities that have laid the groundwork for this moratorium.

So all of that is just to say that this moment is urgent because it should have happened months ago to protect those communities as well.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Paula Hart, and I live a couple of miles from where the Decatur Township area is.

They're proposing the Saby Data Center.

Um there's so many frustrations.

I don't even know where to begin, but I'm here to support the counselors who are bringing this to as a moratorium.

We've been calling for it for months now.

Umbe we're finally listening.

Um, and I appreciate the opportunity that we all have here to speak tonight.

This is the most that any of us have had a chance to talk.

So this is fantastic.

We know all the bad things about data centers.

Um I want to talk about one of my frustrations.

I was in this room last week on Monday, July 6th, where we heard the whole tax increase on uh registrations for the wheel tax, right?

Um heard several of you express your um your uh just how hard it is for you to have to vote on a tax increase.

Um mind you it's a 100 annual tax increase.

Not not a lot of money is a lot of money, however you look at it.

Um why are we giving why are we asked to have a hundred dollar tax increase while we give these companies massive tax abatements?

It's very frustrating.

Um I appreciate that all of you express how you felt on how difficult it is to vote on that.

Um, but I've hardly heard many people talk about how difficult it is to vote on this.

Um so that's pretty frustrating.

And we have an MDC, as uh many of you talked about the process.

This can go back to them and they can just squash the whole moratorium idea, they can vote on whatever.

When do we get to hold them accountable?

We don't.

They're not elected.

That's wrong.

When are we going to do something about that?

So I appreciate the time.

Thank you all very much.

Hi, my name is Becca, and I live in Decatur Township.

I come before you today requesting a moratorium.

As the DMD stated in their July 1st hearing, they strongly recommended a moratorium in the case that the MDC and the city counselors recommended more time for research and community engagement.

That is exactly what Indianapolis needs.

Overall, I want to note we support the councilor members who are bringing forward a moratorium.

Thank you.

I appreciate that we are finally being heard.

I come to you as a licensed social work in the state of Indiana.

Time and time again, I see our most vulnerable populations falling through the cracks.

Safety nets continue to crumble.

Oftentimes I see temporary band-aids are put on much larger systemic issues such as health care, mental health, and inequality.

I fear that the development of AI Dinner Center data centers is going to propagate these issues.

Hands 2025 study, the unpaid toll, quantifying and addressing the public health impacts of data centers found that by 2028 alone, they estimate that U.S.

data centers alone could cause approximately 600,000 asthma symptoms and 1,300 premature deaths due to air pollution.

Another study conducted by Dr.

Saylor, a top urban climate expert, was recently published that showing that air temperature is increasing downwind downwind from data centers.

Increased heat has been found in multiple studies that we are now hearing terms such as heat islands and data center waste heat.

Yet data center developers continue to say that this will have no impact on utility rates.

Additionally, these developers continue to build these work these in working class neighborhoods where families likely will not have the resources to offset their health care costs, pay higher utility rates, or upgrade their home to withstand these effects.

We need time for responsible, thoughtful development.

We cannot pass the buck on to our community members.

As this research continues to become available, users must ask: do we want to risk our health, our utility bills, and our proper property values, particularly in these most vulnerable communities?

Based on the community response, the resounding answer is no.

Please advocate for our community with your vote supporting the data center moratorium.

Thank you.

Can I please have Martin DeGostino?

William Bollio, Kelly Hammond, and Manoy Wright.

Good evening.

My name is Martin DiAugostino.

I live in the Fall Creek Place neighborhood.

Five quick points.

Number one, the council must insist that the mayor speak to this issue and no longer hide behind the veil of, well, that's a land use issue for others to decide.

Given the incredible state tax incentives already on offer, I oppose any use of local tax abatements or tax increment financing for data centers.

Three.

Similarly, any data centers that are approved should include some form of community benefit agreement that helps spread the wealth from the digital economy to the rest of us.

Here's one example.

You could require developers to install rooftop or plug-in solar systems in nearby neighborhoods, thus providing direct financial benefit.

That's key.

Direct financial benefit to neighbors.

Four, I don't think no should be our permanent default response to data centers.

Some months ago, Councillor Barth called for a rational, thoughtful, intentional, and durable policy.

More like a yellow light instead of automatic green or red.

That makes sense to me, though of course the particulars will matter greatly.

Finally, please be mindful.

Thank you.

My name is William Bowler, District 8.

Now, when I sat in my research lab training hundreds of models for AI, I felt a little guilty of how many resources I was actually using.

And come to my surprise that now everyone's kind of happy that we're using a hundred thousand or so GPUs per data center to train models that hallucinate like crazy.

We don't have trusted AI, which is what I worked on for the DOD.

When I say I want a moratorium, I'm trying to speak through Mark Zuckerberg who said we have too many GPUs.

When you guys talk about defining a data center, you don't mention graphics processing units, you don't mention tensor processing units for Google.

You don't mention these parallel processing that requires high capacity memory, which is why our memory products are so expensive.

It's why our GPUs are so expensive.

I calculated a naive assumption.

If we gave everybody a Quen model, Chinese Quen model, 32 gigabytes, runs on one GPU.

That's 85 gigawatts total.

You know how many data centers we have planned in the U.S.

360 gigawatts.

Four times as many.

So I demand we have a moratorium now because you don't know where your bread's buttered.

You don't know where this economic advancement is actually coming from.

I'm trying to tell you there is no money in the future in AI, in this AI.

That's all I got.

Hello, my name is Kelly Hammond.

I work for Citizens Action Coalition, and we rise tonight in strong support of the moratorium and wanted to express our sincere thanks for your leadership on this really important issue.

One of the many reasons that we support a moratorium is because it creates the opportunity for the community to be meaningfully involved in crafting strong protections.

Right now, communities are feeling steamrolled by data center developers, and the process that we have established before the MDC does not create the opportunity for the public to meaningfully participate or influence the outcome of development decisions that will impact their lives for years, if not generations to come.

And as a result, we've got communities that feel like our city doesn't care about them.

And that's why it's so important that you're calling for a moratorium so that we can create the space to wrap folks into local government processes rather than push them away.

And here at Citizens Action Coalition, we are here to help in whatever way that we can.

We've learned a lot about data centers over the last couple of years through engaging in cases at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, advocating at the Indiana State House, and monitoring filings at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

So if we can serve as a resource to share knowledge and information, we are very happy to do that.

Last but not least, CAC has been around since 1974, and we have never seen an issue that has engaged and united communities the way that data centers have.

Um thank you for giving us a chance to speak today.

I have a unique perspective.

Um I'm the former facility director of the Indianapolis City Market, which we see across the street.

And currently, in my opinion, that right now that mess, the delays has a lot to do with how we let developers run the show in this city.

Um I manage a food pantry in 46218.

We serve over 1,000 families a month.

No company should come into this city without giving back a lot of money.

There are needs in this city.

The Office of Sustainability, I know for a fact, approach DMD.

So I'm asking DMD.

I understand there's a whole new crew, and you're gonna do a better job, so I appreciate you putting a pause.

But a lot of damage has been done.

The Office of Sustainability has approached DMD.

All the hard work off of sustainability has done is being wiped out with one data center.

It's horrible for Martindale.

That needs to be looked at.

I don't support a pause, I support a ban.

So then we can see years later what the effects will be.

I'm asking the city of Indianapolis, the people that we vote for, the people we vote for who put people on commissions to push hard to do the right human things.

We all have a healthy human experience in the city of Indianapolis.

Thank you.

Can I please have Megan Anderson, Phil Gabriel, Pat Andrews, and Amy Goosman?

Data centers are creating a significant strain on our resources.

They're fueling climate change, water noise and air pollution, farmland loss, and they're dodging paying half a billion dollars in taxes in Indiana already.

Hyperscale data centers use hundreds of diesel generators for backup power.

Um but those are also tested frequently, and the EPA is already rolling out a proposal to weaken public participation during air permitting.

Those same kinds of permits have these loopholes that are allowing the sites to operate under a minor permit, meaning that they won't be required to use pollution control or best available control technologies.

The bet uh the richest companies in the world are exploiting these loopholes.

All of Google's hyperscale data centers in Indiana are using tier two generators with no pollution controls.

Hundreds at Fort Wayne, and the data center will exceed this voluntary limit that the company took to avoid the stricter permitting within 83 hours of operation, which is well under what the a hundred hours that are allowed by EPA for testing and conditional non-emergency use.

Um and so we all know that EPA is probably gonna weaken rules further to allow these to run more frequently.

Google's Monrovia site is also putting a strain on our electric grid.

AES is providing power to that site, and it's projected to use almost twice as much electricity as Marion County residents use today.

That site is also going to receive millions of gallons of water from Citizens Energy Group and Citizens Energy Group is providing millions of gallons of water to the Meta Data Center in Lebanon and as much as 25 million gallons to the industrial site there at LEAP.

Um, and so you know, we already unfortunately are are dealing with the strain, and there's already proposals on the table to still send the entire amount of wastewater from Leap to Eagle Creek, which is the source of water for us in Pike Township.

Um just this year, Meta introduced a bacteria into the Cheyenne, Wyoming wastewater system by accident when it did its first trial on its closed loop system.

And please support the moratorium.

Thank you.

I live in Pike Township.

Um I uh also been affected by data centers.

Um we postponed a data center in our neighborhood.

Um, and I was glad to do that, but um I also think an ordinance should be um stricter, much larger easements.

Umise regulations, um, data centers are depleting our water resources across the country and in our state.

Um Indianapolis can be part of creating you know better regulations, new regulations that prevent damage to our environment and our health.

Um so I support the moratorium.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, counselors.

Uh my name is Pat Andrews.

I chair the land use committee for the Decatur Township Civic Council and the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations.

I'm here representing both groups and my husband and myself.

Um thank you uh for continuing to push forward the idea of a moratorium.

Thank you for continuing to push forward the idea of a moratorium.

It is desperately needed.

There are people in decision making positions in the city who think the data centers are nothing more than warehouses.

And nothing can be further than the truth from the truth.

Most of the people in this uh room have already begun that steep learning curve about what the hell is a data center.

And just talking about the savvy one in Decatur, they were talking about a million to a million and a half gallons of diesel, a hundred to a hundred and fifty generators, lithium batteries.

They were talking about being right up next to residences, and it passed.

So why?

It has we have to have an ordinance that protects neighborhoods.

That has to be a major goal of any ordinance that gets passed.

So with that, thank you again for putting forward moratorium.

It's much needed, and we must have something that works for actual residents in the city.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Amy Grisman.

I'm in 46214.

Um, leader of West Side India Indivisible as well as um a member of the Dandy Trail Neighborhood Association.

Um just as not feeling heard applies to the active projects, um, which I'm trying to I specifically am concerned about LEAP.

Um, so I hope that we could think about applying this to the active projects as well.

Um sorry.

Um because we are concerned at near Eagle Creek about paying to treat our water that we swim in.

We are in a we live around a um the islands, which is a little water uh lake south of Eagle Creek.

So we are going to be dealing with that issue of the wastewater.

Um we swim, we pay for that, we use electric boats, property values um we are concerned about as well as utility bills that are already rising.

We're concerned about corporate greed, sacrifices our land, natural resources, farmland.

This is not a solution to the struggles with agriculture for income in Indiana.

We need experts reporting on these restrictions and long-term effects of health, environmental, wildlife, natural resources, and water.

This is an ethical and moral issue of justice for equal access to well-being.

As a public health RN and certified nurse midwife, these types of health concerns are what affect a maternal child health, making Indiana the 34th in the U.S.

for preterm birth and 38th for infant mortality, despite little improvements.

Social determinants of health, which are regarding to recreation, environmental concerns, wildlife drinking water, health risks that we don't even know yet.

This is a social justice issue.

There's not transparency.

Either way, water is the issue and the damage to Eagle Creek Park.

Lastly, it is totally out of bounds for Boone County to enter into Marion County to use our resources, hurt our recreational and our vital our vital natural biodiversity.

Thank you.

Next, can I please have RJ Shona Meyer Majors, Bethany York, and Randy Bearman Beerman.

We don't think RJ's here, everyone.

Good evening.

Um Chairman Osley, um, Madam President, thank you so much, uh, and counsel.

Um my name is Shauna Majors.

I am the executive director at the Brightwood Community Center.

And I just wanted to come here to I actually wrote stuff down tonight, um, in support of this moratorium for several reasons that have been named already, so I won't go through all of those again, but this is long overdue, and I want to um make sure that moving forward that there is more conversation with the community that these data centers are coming to before a decision is made, and that the um constituents that live in those communities don't feel unheard or unappreciated and not listened to.

And I want to make sure that moving forward that there's more conversation with the community that these data centers are coming to before a decision is made, and that the um constituents that live in those communities don't feel unheard or unappreciated and not listened to.

It's very frustrating when I have to listen to people coming in to talk about data centers and the disappointment that they feel in their representation.

So I hope that moving forward we take this serious.

Madam President, thank you so much.

We really respect your leadership in this and and allowing these voices to be heard, and this moratorium is heavily supported in this room tonight.

So thank you.

Again, you're hearing a lot of this.

Bottom line, we need more information.

So I do think a moratorium is gonna be the best step for us in this process.

I do respect that the DMD was trying to do the best they could with the information they had.

That's not good enough.

The best we can at the moment is not good enough.

We need, as some other people were saying earlier, we need to stop and make educated data-driven decisions with more information than the little bit that they are trying to push on us now.

It's not enough.

We don't even have a definition.

How can we make these major decisions that are going to impact our city and our state for like I said, decades and generations to come when we can't even properly define it?

We need more information before we move forward.

Period, that's it.

Yeah, yeah.

Especially considering the energy crisis that we have going on right now.

We are all looking at our energy bills going up, jaws dropping, and I'm not even in a position where that really hurts my bottom line.

But how many people are there are there in our city that it does hurt that extra 10, that extra 20 per month, it's hurting people.

And then we have these data centers coming in that are going to exploit it even further.

So we need more information.

We need to see what the real costs, the tangible costs to our community are going to be before we start moving forward on these data centers.

And I don't just mean upcoming projects, I also mean the ones that are currently in place.

Thank you, President Lewis, for bringing this up.

Hi, Randy Berryman, Decatur Township.

Um, nine months ago, my life changed forever.

I learned a hyperscale data center was planning on moving in one and a half miles away from my house.

At that time, I knew data centers were resource hogs.

These massive data centers consume water and electricity and they pollute the air and environment like nothing we've ever seen in history.

Why do we tell our children to turn off the water while brushing their teeth when big business is allowed to keep it on all the time?

When we met with some of these big business people that build some of these data centers, we listened to their empty promises that never showed up as commitments, and we've known these promises will never be seen in Decatur Township.

We are the citizens.

We work hard every day to provide a life for our children so that they will have a future, a future that is kind of uncertain right now.

We pay our bills, federal tax, state tax, citizens, AES, mortgage or rent.

And along that along the way, we've lost faith in our elected officials.

We have they we've been completely ignored.

Um they've moved forward with their own narratives.

When we try and get transparency, we run into brick walls.

And when we call to try to find out what department we need to contact, we are given incorrect information.

Communities are relying on each other more than they are the government because of the misinformation we current we continue to receive.

That's a term that this country has not been forced into in a long time.

We need our elected officials back, and we need to be supported.

I fully support a moratorium on data centers and tell experts, not lawyers representing big business and appointed officials assuming expert status on data centers.

Environmental and health effects can be properly addressed.

Ordinances of this caliber need to be developed carefully by a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Next, can we please have Mark Smith, Chip Pearson, Chloe Bistons, and Camille Walker?

Hello, my name is Mark Smith.

I live in Decatur Township.

These multi-billion dollar corporations could build these data centers way far away from our communities, our neighborhoods, our families, and our children.

So why in the middle of our neighborhoods?

It's because they don't want to spend the extra cost to build their own infrastructure.

Think about that.

Multi-billion dollar corporations do not want the extra cost to build away from our neighborhoods.

We don't know the immediate or the long-term effects, such as high frequency sound pollution, low frequency uh sound pollution, air and ground pollution from the on-site diesel fuel and generators we'll have on our communities, our neighborhoods, our families, and our children.

Isn't the health and well-being of our communities more important than the cost savings and profits of multi-billion dollar corporations?

I asked the city council for a moratorium on these data centers to at least study the immediate and long-term effects of these data centers on our communities, on our neighborhoods, on our families, on our children, on everyone.

This is who you represent.

You don't represent the data centers.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Chip Pearson, and I'm not prepared like these people are about all the bad things about data centers.

We all know what they are.

My thing is my next Sunday sermon is going to be on the golden rule.

And what I would like you to think about, if you don't want a data center in your backyard, please don't put one in ours.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Chloe Basance.

I'm a Hoosier Environmental Council volunteer.

I am a resident of Marion County, and I have been my whole life.

Today I'm speaking not only on the behalf of the Indianapolis residents, but also on the behalf of the future Indiana residents.

And for the animals who don't have a voice.

For years, Indiana has been undermining the environmental protections for many protected areas.

Interlessingly enough, Mike Braun decided to pass a bill to make it harder for environmental protections to be upheld here in our state.

This is called Bill 277.

This altered over 40 rules of over environmental code and made it so that there is no regulatory reviews over air, water, and land.

Now that makes us the worst state in the United States for environmental protection and the worst state for the health concerns due to possible spills or contem chemical contamination in our state and air quality due to large amounts of pollution.

I bring all of this up because if something happens in the lead project here in Indianapolis, how are residents supposed to know that the water is contaminated?

How are they supposed to know that it's safe for their kids to even go outside?

How are we?

How are we going to protect the ecosystems that have been here long before people decided to come here and use it for circumstantial profit for a political pawn?

We are not playing chess here.

There are so many questions, honestly, that we haven't answered, and I think that they should be answered before there is any data centers that are in Indiana anymore, especially if we want anything left for the future generations because I think it teaching the teacher teaching the future generations that it is important to protect the earth is more important than teaching them to destroy it.

Thank you so much for your time.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Camille Walker, and I am a certified minority business women enterprise owner in Indianapolis.

I am also a data annotator and an AI ethics integrator.

So basically, I help the community feel better, okay?

So I'm the intercessor person in between.

And over the past couple years, I've had the privilege of working with some of you individuals that are sitting up here, and I've had the privilege of seeing the progress of Indianapolis and Indiana.

As a business owner, Indiana is not going to look the same by 2030.

We know this, you know this.

The point is is making sure that our voices are heard in this process.

I do support the Moritarium only because over the past couple months, when I have been in the community having conversations with individuals about data centers, about the fear surrounding AI, there is so much misinformation.

And we cannot expect individuals to support something if they don't have all of the facts, if they don't have all of the information.

Indiana is strategically placed to be the mega center in the Midwest for technology infrastructure.

It's happening, it's coming.

Computer science is now a requirement for our graduated, our graduates starting in 2030.

Excuse me, 2029.

Which means that technology is coming to Indianapolis.

We are now requiring our children to understand what computer science and computer technology is.

Some adults don't fully understand it.

So to me, it's unfair and unethical to move forward with policies if we don't have all of the information necessary to make those decisions.

Again, I'm for the community, but I want the progress of the technology so we can see the advancements for our people.

Thank you.

Next up, can we please have Elizabeth Najin polling?

Marlene William Smith, Paul.

If they're not here, next is Marlene.

If Marlene's not here, William.

William Smith, I'm proud to be a Wayne Township precinct captain.

And I have a lot of concerns about this data centers, but I want to thank the city council for proposing a moratorium.

Hopefully, it gets passed.

And one of the big things I it will be affecting me personally if a data center goes near my house as an autistic person.

I can't handle background noise, and I shudder to think of what might happen with all that ultra frequency stuff and all that junk that would have prevent me from sleeping at night.

And you know, I want to show you just how effective a moratorium can be.

I'm a no-un pickleball player.

Last Saturday I had a horrible day.

So I took a step back, a moratorium in effect.

I said, come back today.

And today I want all of my games, all nine games.

So that's how effective a moratorium can be.

And I hope we pass it.

And I also want to know, did anybody see what happened in Virginia during the last heat wave?

Because the uh had to ask the data centers up there to use their backup diesel generators, otherwise it would have crashed the entire power grid.

And that's what we are playing with here.

These data centers are no joke, and we need a moratorium so we can study this properly.

They don't even have to measure the heat island effect.

I mean, I had to walk here today five miles.

Would you like to walk five miles in 110 degree heat?

No, thank you.

And my uh grandkids, I would like to show them in Indianapolis that it's beautiful, green.

I don't want to show them Indianapolis that's been ruined by data centers.

So thank you.

Hello, everybody, greetings.

Uh to me personally, it doesn't make any sense to proceed with any plan that has all cons and seemingly no pros whatsoever, just a litany of issues.

And how rapid is progressing, lets me know that it's at the behest of multinational multi-billion dollar corporations, not the people behind me or you beautiful people in front of me.

That alone, I mean, moratorium isn't even a strong enough word.

Funeral.

Dead the idea, stop it.

Don't let it even come back.

What are the pros?

I still haven't heard one.

And for the past decade, if not more, all I've heard was how we need to conserve water and electricity.

But now, you know, forget that.

We need data centers.

And uh, I don't think it's for our benefit.

I think it's for the benefit of the surveillance state.

Uh honestly, that should be a hearing all on its own.

I don't know if you guys have any freedom to operate within that realm of condemning the surveillance state that's being built around us, but you know, 20 more years, just open up George Orwell in 1984.

It's gonna be every city is gonna look like this.

So we can only control what we control here.

Please debt it here and now.

And uh I guess as a passenger in the back of the plane, I would suggest adding some verbiage uh since these corporations have you know wizard lawyers.

Uh data center is a very vague and generic sounding term.

I guess to strike it down permanently, I would add some constraints on uh issues that they can't navigate around, like the amount of water and power that they use.

I would have that be forefront of the definition.

All right, thank you.

For our last two people, can we please have Jeff Stunt and Mark Bookwriter?

I'd like to let Mary go first.

Thank you.

Good evening, and thank you so very much for this opportunity to support Ms.

Lewis, your uh uh initiative here, and supported by the other counselors, our own thank you, and I'm grateful, uh Mr.

Nielsen.

Um I uh like the lady here who spoke about what is the use of AI if it's not it goes to corporations.

We personally we have to struggle to answer uh in email with our own words.

You know, there's a there's a thing you punch right there.

I never asked for this Gemini thing to enter my life and and do whatever the hell it's doing because uh I can't get it out.

And this is an intrusion of uh I think our person uh hood, our thoughts, our acuity, our humanity, and and um well thank you.

And um, I just say it uh also uh everyone has pointed out here, it interrupts our interaction with the natural world that we are a part of, and this denies us our ability uh to think and to breathe and to ensure that it goes on.

Um it is killing us, and we uh need to.

This is our small step uh for Indiana, but uh our legislature is next, and thank you.

We're gonna do this next, too.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'm Jeff Stunt uh Stant uh Forest for All and uh Indian Forest Alliance.

The guardrails cited in the regulations that are being considered for data centers don't address the most significant environmental impacts of these industrial behemoths, and that's their use of water and energy.

The water usage could be addressed by making them build closed loop systems that recycle their water.

And I want to focus on the electricity usage.

The staggering levels of electricity these data centers consume, particularly the hypercenters, is another uh a far-reaching problem that's going to have nightmarish impacts if we don't uh come to grips with it.

The burning of fossil fuels, coal, natural gas, diesel, and gasoline is causing a climate crisis that is threatening our very existence.

The recurring droughts, more frequent violent weather, summer heat waves, and mild winters are generating a plethora of diseases, blights, and non-native pests that are killing tulip poplars, beeaches, maples, oaks, ashes, walnuts, hemlocks, and other trees in Indiana's native forests.

But the harm to forests is just one manifestation of the crisis.

Whether it's pervasive flooding, lost crops, destroyed homes of buildings, crumbling roads, unaffordable property insurance, increasing deaths from sweltering heat and famines, or climate-induced mass movement of refugees.

We are in an unprecedented environmental crisis that Americans must address.

Every community must do its part.

Twelve years ago, the residents and officials of Indianapolis forced IPL to switch its coal-fired units at the Elmerstadt plant to natural gas.

Our obligation to address this crisis didn't stop there.

We need to keep move for moving forward.

Today, this moratorium should be used to examine the fundamental question of where the massive increases of electricity required by data centers are going to come from.

Even with the reduced amount of power just announced for DC blocks, this data center and the one just approved in Decatur Township, we're going to use 300 megawatts of power and peak usage.

That's equal to 200 to 300,000 residences.

So what we're talking about is a city twice the size of Fort Wayne.

Just the power usage of the residences there is what this is going to require.

That's staggering.

So my final uh closing request is please uh require that the data centers and utilities providing living power must show how they're going to generate the electricity.

And two, that instead of a moratorium, there'll be an outright ban on favor.

Um thank you for this opportunity.

I know I'm trying to sneak this in.

Um to our council president Maggie Lewis and City Councilors that are in attendance this evening.

Uh, my name is Annette Johnson, and I am a tr uh elected official, a trustee in Pike Township, and I'm here for all the residents that couldn't come.

I got so many phone calls.

I might be the only elected official that's here that cares.

I I don't know.

But I'm here for Pike Township residents that didn't come.

I'm involved in so many environmental groups, Sierra Club, um, Protect Pike Township recently, Earth Charter, Resilient Pike, um, Indiana Forests Alliance.

The list goes on and on because I care about our communities, and I am so happy that you guys are really looking at this.

And I do appreciate that you are supporting this monitorium to kind of put a hold to this.

Again, I I hope instead of a pause, it's squashed.

But hopefully we will see.

Um, the senior citizens, as I are seasoned seniors in Pike, were like, please, trustee, just tell them that we're concerned about these high utility bills because we really don't know about the data centers and what the consequences will be from that and what's forthcoming.

And so I just wanted to share that with you too.

Um thing I wanted to just share with you before I leave this evening.

Um, and I'm proud of this.

Um with the help of our city councilor um Leeroy Robinson.

We stopped the data center in Pike Township.

Woo-hoo!

We we still have work to do because we're still organizing to save Ewell Creek, and again, we're going to work on that as well.

That's our next big project that we're working on.

Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity and thank you for this monitoring.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone, for your comments this evening.

Um I'll turn this back over to our committee members.

Um a second.

And um are there any further comments from members of the committee?

Madam President.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I do just want to commit that we will get that definition into this amendment before the actual final vote.

So again, I thank you all for your consideration and I do ask that you uh vote in favor of moving this uh amendment uh forward.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Very good.

Um there's no further discussion.

I would like um uh to um for us to vote on the amendment as put forward.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Let's get a roll call on the nays.

Councillor Callahill, nay, counselor Hart.

And then Councillor Maori.

What is that?

Three nays.

Very good.

All right.

Now let us go ahead and I will ask for a motion to vote on the proposal as amended.

All right, so properly moved and seconded.

Are there any comments from counselors?

Seeing none.

Let's um let us uh let us vote.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed uh nay?

Let's get a roll call, please.

Councillor Khalil, nay.

Councillor Hart, nay.

Councillor Maury, nay.

Three nays.

All right, very good.

Um then we will move forward with that.

Um with the due pass uh recommendation to the full council uh on uh I believe it's August the 10th.

Is there any uh further uh comment, anything else we need to discuss this evening from members of this committee?

Well, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

So second.

All right.

We're adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you all.