How do we give us a hug Development that happened just yesterday afternoon as well, which um requires some refinements to the site plan and um some additional commitments.

We've um talked to staff about that yesterday afternoon.

Kathleen has already worked very quickly to update the blurb.

It would not require any new notice because it's a decrease in our requests related to the variance and and results in a number of positive things for um the neighborhood, including less megawatts, less generators, more green space, less square footage, and then phase two would no longer be speculative.

So we'd uh love just a little bit of extra time to work on those updates and would request your favorable consideration for July 15th.

Thank you.

We have a request for 2026 C V R 815, 2026 CBL 815.

Uh counselor uh Nielsen's here.

I think you indicated you were fine with this request.

Could you come up and go on the record for me, Counselor?

I'd appreciate it.

I know you've been working very hard on this.

Uh thank you, President Dillon Commissioners.

Um Andy Neels, City County Councillor District 14.

Um the petitioner and the representatives have been in contact about a uh continuance for two more weeks.

Uh, been working with the neighborhood and and leaders of that, and they're aware, so supportive of this continuance.

Great.

So we're looking at council of July 15th.

Yes.

We have before us is there anyone else who wants to comment on this?

Continuance.

Seeing none.

We have before us requests for continuance on 2026.

Excuse me.

C VR 815, and 2026 CPL 815 to move to July 15th, 2026.

I will make the motion to do so.

Commissioner Robinson, can we get a second?

Second.

We have a second.

Let me call the roll.

Lyle.

Lyle.

Yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

Counselor, you have an eight zero vote moving it to July 15th.

Thank you.

Any other special requests?

Continuances.

Kathleen, you're looking at me.

Yes, I am President Dillon.

2025 Z O N 114, second amendment, located at 4005 East Southport Road.

Staff received an email on the 24th of June withdrawing this request, and this would just require your acknowledgement.

So acknowledged, Kathleen.

Withdrawn.

Thank you.

President Dillon.

Members of the Commission staff would draw your attention to item 13.

That is 2026 REG 015 of 412 West McCarthy Street and 1717 and 1721 Chadwick Street.

Staff would request a continuance of this uh regional center case to the August 19th, MBC, and that would be without notice.

Thank you.

Or is there anyone else who'd like to comment on 2026 REG 015?

Seeing uh Commissioner Murphy.

Can I get a motion to move 2026 REG 015 to August 19, 2026?

So moved.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lyle, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Hergott.

Hergey, yes.

Lyle, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

That moves by vote of 8 to 0.

And it goes to August 19th, 2026.

Additional uh withdrawals, special request.

Yes.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Pat Andrews, 7631 Reynolds Road and Camby.

Um, I would request a waiver of your rules of procedure.

Uh, given all the people who have shown up in which to speak, um, so that folks can get two minutes apiece to address the ordinance two thousand and twenty six AO 001.

Pat, I'm gonna make a um proposed change to the rules, and since you've brought it up, I'll explain to you what I'm gonna do.

We've decided to take this as a petition versus a resolution.

So it's gonna be a petition, but I'm going to ask the commission to approve instead of our usual, which you're familiar with, 15 and 5 for rebuttal.

We're gonna go a block of 20 minutes for DMD staff since they essentially are the petitioner, and 20 minutes for remonstrators, and then have uh any counselors that want to speak, and then we'll come back either after those sessions or at the end to ask additional questions.

That's that's where we're gonna go, but I think that block of 20, if you get your people organized, will work to get their comments on.

That's where we're gonna go.

Okay, thank you, Pat.

Any other special requests?

Withdrawals.

Seeing uh Nancy, would you read the resolutions into the minutes?

Thank you, President Dillon and Commissioners.

2026 R018 authorizes the Department of Metropolitan Development to cooperate with the Indianapolis Fire Department to acquire and facilitate redevelopment of the property at 834 East Westfield Boulevard, aka 6330 Guildford Avenue.

2026 A0A 028, um, and two nine were continued.

2026 A030 for public hearing, final economic revitalization area resolution for aerodine engineering, LLC and Araldine Real Estate LLC located at 1919 South Girls School Road, Council District 17 Wayne Township, recommend approval of four years real property tax abatement.

Final economic revitalization area resolution for Aerodine Engineering LLC in Arrow Dyne Real Estate LLC, located at 1919 South Girls School Road, Council District 17 Wayne Township.

Recommend approval of four years personal property tax abatement 2026 A 032 for public hearing.

Final economic revitalization area resolution for Olson Custom Designs LLC located at 6803 Kaufman Road Council District 6 Pike Township.

Recommend approval of five years personal property tax abatement.

2026 A036 for public hearing authorizes amendment to the 2024 personal property tax abatement approved by resolution number 2024 A040 at 4825 West 79th Street Council District 6.

Carlos Perkins.

This ends the reading of the resolutions.

Thank you, ma'am.

Secretary, members of the Commission.

2026 R016 does not stand for public hearing.

That is the old firehouse that was in Broadripple.

It's now been moved to a brand new, beautiful firehouse on college, which is station 32.

This will go out in RFP, and DMD will decide what's the best use working with the Broadway community on what to do with that facility.

Oh, I'm sorry.

It's 2026 R018.

I stand corrected.

We have that before us.

Commissioner Schumacher, can I get a motion to approve 2026 R018?

So moved.

Commissioner Robinson, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the rule.

Hergett.

Hergitt, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

More erity.

Mority, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West, yes.

Dillon is a yes.

The old fire station passes 8 to 0 to go out with DMD on an RFP.

Moving forward.

Our first public hearing is 2026 A030.

Final economic revitalization area resolution for Ariden Engineering LLC and Ariden Real Estate LLC located at 1919 South Girls School Road.

Council District Number 17, Wayne Township.

A recommended approval of four years for real property tax abatement staff.

Good afternoon.

Tanya Ellison for Economic Incentives.

Here on resolution 2026A30 and 2026A 031 for Eralddyne Engineering and Aeraldine Real Estate.

These resolutions are requests for expansions of the existing Indianapolis location.

The request is for a four-year real and personal property abatement with a total investment of 13.4 million.

The project will retain 65 jobs and create 25 new positions all above the wage of 40 dollars an hour.

The company will realize a tax saving of approximately 570,000.

We're recommending approval of both of these resolutions for the four years.

Thank you.

Do you want to put their letter into the record?

Yes.

Please do because I thought that was a step forward.

Yes, we would like to add the letter of uh proposed and uh steps to increase the number of Marion County jobs, so we will add that to the record as well.

Questions.

Does anybody else here have comments on this resolution?

Seeing none, we have before us.

Commissioner West, can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robinson, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Hergett.

Hergett, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Mority.

Moreity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dillon is a yes.

It passes 8 to 0.

We now have before us 2026 A031, which was just discussed.

Final economic revitals there area resolution for Aeroden Engineering LLC.

Herodon Real Estate LLC.

Located at 1919 South Girls School Road, Council District Number 7 Wayne Township.

This one is for the recommended approval of four years personal property tax abatement.

And you're putting the uh letter into both these files.

Yes, that is good.

That'd be great.

Is there anyone else here who would like to comment on this matter?

Questions from the commissioners.

Seeing none, we have before us 2026 A03.

Commissioner Morerity, can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lyle, can I get a second?

Second.

Call the roll.

Hergett.

Herge, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle.

Also, yes.

Morerity.

Mority, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dillon is a yes.

It also passes 8 to 0.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have now 2026 A032 for public hearing.

Welcome.

Thank you, President Dillon and members of the Commission.

I am Kathy Battle with the Economic Incentives Team here to speak on behalf of Olson Customs Design LLC.

They extend are expanding their CNC manufacturing over into 6803 Kaufman Road.

This is a phase two.

Back in 2024, they uh showed us that they honor their commitments, they've exceeded all of their commitments for our for the 2024 project.

And so they've come back before us because they are expanding, asking for a five-year personal property tax abatement.

This is going to come with a $15 million investment to the property over the five years.

The tax savings would be 467 K.

They'll pay 298K in taxes, and then their 5% savings will go towards the India Chiefs grant in the amount of 23,000 dollars.

So staff is recommending approval and seeking and asking approval for resolution 2026 A032 for a five-year personal property tax abatement.

Questions from Commissioners.

Seeing none.

Recommends approval of five years personal property tax abatement.

Commissioner Lyle, can I get a motion to approve?

Yes, sir.

So moved.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hergitt, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Hergitt.

Hergett, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

More erity.

Moreity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dillon is a yes.

It passes 8 to 0.

Which takes us to 2026 A036, a dovetail resolution as well.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, President Dillon.

Commissioners.

My name is Sherry Orm with DMD Economic Incentives Compliance Team.

Uh as my colleague just referred.

Olson Custom Design received a five-year personal property tax abatement in 2024.

This is located at 4825 West 79th Street.

The company has exceeded their goals for workforce development and investments and now wants to add an additional three million for personal property investment as well as nine additional new jobs to their workforce development goals.

All of this will be due within the same original time frame they committed to, which is just by December 31st, 2029.

Staff recommends approval of this uh amendment.

Resolution 2026 A036.

Questions for staff from members of the commission?

Is there anyone else here today?

Like to comment on this resolution.

Seeing none 2026A-036 authorizes an amendment to the 2024 personal property tax abatement approved by resolution 2024 A040 at 7825 West 79th Council District Number 6.

Carlos Perkins is the councillor and is part of the Olson Dovetail resolutions.

Commissioner Morani, can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Thank you.

Commissioner Murphy, can I get a second?

Second.

Call the roll.

Hergett.

Hergett, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Morerity.

Morrearty, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

It also passes 820.

Nancy.

That takes us to our petitions of no appeal.

Would you read those into the record?

Yes, sir.

Thank you, President Dillon and Commissioners.

Petitions recommended for approval by the hearing examiner with no appeal.

2026 ZON 035 7323 South Mooresville Road.

Decatur Township Council District 21.

2026 Z O N 040 at 2422 and 2430 Prospect Street, Center Township Council District 18.

2026 CZN 823 at 4240 Bluff Road, Perry Township, Council District 22.

Petition 2025 R E Z R E G 036 at 22 222.

That is East Market Street Center Township Council District 12.

Still six.

And we um continued ROG 015.

That leaves us with 2026 REG 035 at 17 West 22nd Street, Center Township, Council District 12.

This ends the reading of the no appeals docket recommended for approval by the hearing examiners.

Nancy, check my math.

I'm counting two, three, four, five, six petitions and no appeal that you read into the record.

Mr.

Your continued R E G.

I've got it.

I've got 2026 REG 035 in here twice.

So that makes sense.

All right, thank you.

We've have five zoning petitions of no appeal that have been read into the record.

2026 ZON 035, 2026 Z O N 040, 2026 C ZN 823, 2025 REG 036, 2026 REGO35.

I would like to take those all at once.

Commissioner Schumacher, can I get a motion to approve all five?

So moved.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robinson, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Hergett.

Hergitt, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

More Earth.

Moriarty, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

They pass.

820.

Nancy.

That takes us to the only public hearing for today that we're going to hear.

And as I stated at the beginning, members of the commission.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to make a motion given the unique nature of the proposed ordinance, amendment 2026 A0001.

I'm going to make a motion to modify the commission rules of procedures to provide for the filing format for today's public hearing only.

First, the Department of Metropolitan Development and any supporters will have a total of 20 minutes as a group for the presentation of evidence statements and arguments in favor of the proposed ordinance amendment.

This will be followed by an opportunity for members of the commission to ask questions of the DMD and supporters of the amendment.

Next, any remonstrators wishing to speak in opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment.

We'll also have a total of 20 minutes as a group for the presentation of evidence statements and arguments in opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment.

This will be followed by an opportunity for members of the commission to ask questions of the remonstrators following the presentations by supporters and remonstrators.

Any city county council members who wishing to provide testimony regarding the proposed ordinance amendment will be given an opportunity to do so.

And then finally, members of the commission will have the opportunity to ask additional questions and offer any additional amendments.

At that point in time, ballots will then be cast by the commission regarding the proposed ordinance amendment.

Would the petitioner DMD staff please come forward?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, President Dillon and members of the Metropolitan Development Commission.

I am so sorry.

I've got to vote that resolution or that amendment in.

I apologize.

I jumped the gun.

I've read the uh proposed ordinance amendment for 2026 8001 into the record.

Commissioner Murphy, can I get a motion to approve?

Uh President Dunn, please can you restate exactly what your motion is?

Is this the motion regarding the time frame?

This is the motion I just read into the record on how we're going to conduct this hearing.

I second.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mority, can I?

Well I made the motion.

You're seconding.

Thank you.

Let me call the roll.

Her yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Moreity.

Moreity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

It passes 8 to 0.

I am hopefully I was clear.

Petitioner or staff gets 20 minutes.

Remonstrators get 20 minutes.

I'll then ask for any counselors to come forward.

We can ask questions during this time.

We can ask questions at the end from members of the commission and offer any amendments.

Madam Executive Director, now we're ready to go.

You're on the clock.

Thank you.

Thank you, President Dylan and members of the Metropolitan Development Commission.

My name is Megan Vukasich, and I'm the director for the Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development.

Today we are here before you to present on 2026 A0001.

This is a proposal to amend the consolidated zoning and subdivision control ordinance of Indianapolis Marion County.

Specifically, we are looking to amend Chapter 740 202, which is the definition section, and Chapter 742 109, which is the special use districts chapter pertaining to data center development.

As we begin, we wanted to start with what is a data center.

A data center is a specialized building or facility that stores the physical components of IT infrastructure.

Typically, this would include servers or machines that store data, networking equipment, power, and backup power infrastructure to avoid power outages, cooling systems to keep systems from overheating, and security and fire suppression systems.

One second.

Data center uses include data storage facilities, server farms, artificial intelligence training or processing, image processing, cloud computing, email servicing, and similar uses.

This definition does not include information technology services and equipment, which are incidental and subordinate to a primary permitted use.

So just to be clear, this definition would not include a use such as a hospital, which may have a campus with a data center associated with it.

It would also not include a telecommunications facility, which has its own separate definition in the zoning ordinance for that, or ISP internet service provider head end facilities.

We've received questions on that, so we wanted to make that clear.

These uses that I listed would fall under their own definitions of the zoning ordinance.

To give you some background on the current state of zoning related to data centers.

Staff began research on this topic in March 2025 when a Google data center was proposed.

This was the first data center of a large scale that we had encountered.

Since then, and over the past year, a total of four new data centers have been requested.

This includes Google, Metroblox, SABI, and DC blocks, which is currently going through the approval process.

Our current zoning ordinance does not include a definition or regulations for data centers.

However, this does not mean that staff can turn away application requests.

We are still required to process applications.

What we have done in this during this time is we've identified uses within the zoning ordinance that are of a similar use size and that require similar resource consumption and have recommended development conditions that should be considered for approval.

We also want to provide some background on the current economic landscape.

The state of Indiana has passed tax incentives that are making Indiana an attractive place to build data centers.

Tax incentives typically include a reduction of taxes for a certain amount of years.

This reduces the cost of data centers to be built, therefore making Indiana an attractive place to build.

We also see that private investment dollars are going towards data center developments because these developments have a high return on investment.

Indianapolis must carefully weigh between attracting private investment, which can be good for our growth, and ensuring resources are protected.

And then we also know that companies use data centers to support the infrastructure load of modern technology.

One additional background item we wanted to call out is the delineation between zoning and tax incentives.

While both are tools used by the city of Indianapolis to influence development, they have distinct differences.

For zoning, DMD must process applications when they are submitted.

A property owner has a legal right to request a zoning change on their property.

Staff then reviews that request for compliance with land use policies and state law requirements.

We, Indianapolis, get the ability to have our zoning through state law, and therefore there are limitations on what zoning can regulate.

We have to live within the confines that state law allows us.

DMD's mission is to ensure Indianapolis' growth is done responsibly and respectfully towards citizens.

For local tax incentives, these are negotiated by an organization called the Indianapolis Economic Development Incorporated.

And they determine whether tax incentives should be offered based on a data center scorecard.

With tax incentives, there is more flexibility to require higher standards.

Different from zoning where we are limited in what we can regulate and require, through tax incentives, the city can require things like requiring a company pays for all electrical infrastructure.

This allows the city to attract the best in class companies who are building high quality facilities.

IEDI, the Indianapolis Economic Development Incorporated mission, is to create a strong business environment, ensuring Indianapolis remains competitive to attract high quality companies.

Both zoning and local tax incentives through these tools, we want to ensure the city is getting the best facilities we can.

So the proposed zoning regulations.

We are recommending the creation of a new special use district called SU 47.

With all special use districts, we must identify a base district for applicable development standards.

We are recommending the medium industrial district, I 3 as the base zoning district.

With a special use district, a rezone to the SU 47 district would be required for all new data center developments.

This means any new data center would go through the MDC and City County approval process for approval.

This would also mean that administrative approval from DMD would be required before any building permits are issued.

In addition to the I 3 development standards, the SU 47 district would include these additional regulations.

We are recommending that noise be limited to 55 decibels at or belong beyond the property line to ensure that this can be met.

A noise study would be required to be submitted with the rezone request to verify existing noise levels on the property and confirmation that the 55 decibels will be met.

We are recommending a 400 foot setback from a protect from any protected district.

A protected district would be all residential districts, schools, churches, to give you an idea of what 400 feet looks like.

This would be greater than the length of the standard American football field.

A new data center would be required to also meet all landscaping and screening that applies to the I 3 district.

In addition, if it is next to a protected district, they would be required to install an eight-foot berm and evergreen trees.

We are also recommending a robust operations plan be submitted so that way we can ensure quality operations prior to the approval of any rezone.

This operations plan would be required to include a detailed site plan, a security plan, visual screening report, water management plan, electricity capacity plan, noise study and mitigation plan, and decommissioning plan.

This would also include providing will service letters from all of the utility companies.

Zoning standards cannot regulate the amount of electricity, source of electricity, or amount of water used by a development, but we can ask for information on what operations will look like so decision makers have all of the information they need to make informed decisions about allowing a new development.

We are also recommending an annual report be submitted to the MDC verifying the development is in compliance with zoning standards in their operations plan.

This would be an annual report that is submitted, so yearly.

Additionally, we are recommending a public facing dashboard be created by the property owner and operator that includes information on electricity consumption, water consumption, generator testing, dates and times, and other important announcements for the neighborhood.

DMD's ultimate goal is to propose responsible regulations for your consideration.

DMD is putting forward the best recommendations in alignment with policy objectives that have been established by elected officials.

This includes policies at both the state and local level.

At the state level, we know that tax incentives are being offered to make Indiana a more attractive place for data centers.

At the local level, Indianapolis Economic Development Incorporated has supported these developments, and two data centers have been approved and supported.

From some of the public comments, we've heard that establishing these regulations will make it easier to build data centers in Indianapolis.

And this is not the case.

Having no regulations does not make it harder for data centers to be built.

It just means that we don't have defined guardrails in place.

These regulations are a way we can require these companies meet minimum standards and ensure the proper public processes play out.

So before you today is the anticipated timeline for adoption of these standards.

Today is July 1st, where we will have the MDC public hearing.

Is anticipated that MDC will provide a recommendation to city council.

On July 6th would be the full city council meeting where they would introduce the proposal.

No public hearing for the state, but it would be a public meeting.

July 13th would be the City Council Metropolitan Economic Development Committee meeting.

This is anticipated where we would hold another public hearing.

That committee would then provide their recommendation to the full city council, which would be anticipated on August 10th for that final vote.

Again, that last meeting would be no public hearing.

Before we wrap up, I want to make note that DMD has collected over 1,500 public comments related to data center developments and data center zoning regulations over the past year.

Many of the concerns we've heard about are outside of the scope of what zoning can regulate, such as utility rates, electricity and water consumption, fire and building code standards.

We have put together an FAQ document that is available online.

While we may not be the correct agency to regulate all of these concerns, our staff is happy to help and point people in the right direction.

There are other avenues to provide public feedback if there are concerns outside of the scope of zoning.

Either by contacting the appropriate agency that does regulate the concern or contacting elected officials at the state or local level.

Outlined in the staff report are recommended amendments to the proposed to the proposal based on public feedback.

We request a favorable recommendation of the proposed ordinance with these amendments, which we will read into the record now.

Thank you, Madam Director.

President Dillon, members of the Commission.

Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment 2026 AO001, subject to the following proposed amendments based off of stakeholder engagement and feedback.

Section 3, protected district separation, minimum separation of 400 feet between any portion of the primary building of a data center facility and the proposed line of a protected district pertaining to industrial development.

Item 4, sound levels.

Maximum sound levels associated with any component of a data center may not exceed 55 decibels measured at or beyond a data center facility property line.

Under item 5, mechanical equipment, sub bullet.

Any and all testing of equipment of generators is prohibited between 5 p.m.

and 7 a.m.

and on no zone action days.

Staff proposes a new item 9, emergency contact information.

All data centers shall provide a signage with 24-hour emergency contact information that is visible at the access entrance, access entrance areas.

It shall include a company name if applicable, the name and telephone number of a representative of the operator, and a website or other available identifiers, i.e.

quick response QR code, to require publicly available online dashboard identified in the proposed section 742-109, item L, item 11.

Item 10, under required site and operational plans, item one, all data centers shall be subject to the approved site plan and plan of operation with utility consumption and capacity reports which identify.

Under item F, a water management plan detailing water use associated with the facility.

The plan shall provide at a minimum for both initial and full site build out.

Item one, average of a peak water use associated with the facility operations, average peak water use associated with energy generation, discharge location of used water, including frequency, velocity, quality, and amount, and a discharge location that's other than a sanitary sewer requires written approval from the administrator and or designee as assigned by the Department of Public Works Deputy Director of the Engineering Division.

Item 4: Measures taken to minimize water use in the initial facility design and planned efforts to monitor and minimize water consumption at the facility during operations.

Under item H for noise study, prior to the issuance of an ILP, a report that describes the methodology on how to the property owner and operator shall measure and monitor decibel levels at and beyond the property line shall be submitted to ensure compliance with all the rules and regulations related to the permitted uh level of noise.

The noise study and mitigation plan shall provide at minimum the existence of ambient sound levels measured prior to construction at the property line in adjacent protected districts.

Projected sound levels during the normal operation of a facility, projected sound levels during peak operation conditions, including generator testing, uh simultaneous equipment operation, emergency backup operation, and other reasonably anticipated high noise events, the proposed locations, times, duration, weather conditions, equipment, and methodology for all sound measurements, identification of the applicable maximum sound level standards and analysis demonstrating whether the facility is expected to comply with that standard at and beyond the property line, and uh the proposed mitigation measures, including but not limited to the sound walls, enclosures, baffles, ventilation silencers, acoustic louvers, equipment orientation, building placement, operational limitations, landscaping, berming, and other noise attenuation measures necessary to ensure compliance.

Underneath the same section under the decommissioning plan, we amended item six, which is reads the facility restoration plan includes the removal of all equipment, restoration of building, ensuring that the building that is a building code compliance structure, and remediation of any environmental impacts of hazardous materials associated with the operation of a data center, up to contemporary standards defined by an environmental regulatory authority.

Under Item 2, Section D, adequate water supply is available to meet the current and current customer demand and the expected demand of a data center facility and whether the serving the data center is in alignment with the utility's most recent integrated water resource plan.

Staff also proposes new item section 11 minimum commitments.

At a minimum, the following commitments shall be included with the approval of each SU Special Use District 47 and/or data center facility.

The property owner and/or designee operator shall one submit an annual report to the Metropolitan Development Commission no later than January 31st of each calendar year for the duration of the facility's operation from the previous year.

The annual report must be signed and notarized by the property owner and designated operator.

Two, to provide a publicly available online dashboard within six months of operation, and three, resubmit water management plans and electricity capacity plan for review if facility operations change in such that the original submitted values will be exceeded.

Revised operations are not to be initiated until the revised plans are approved.

One, the annual report shall include the following.

Summary of any on-site renewable energy generation systems serving the facility, documentation of any renewable energy offsets, renewable energy credits, power purchase agreements, or other renewable energy sourcing mechanisms utilized to offset facilities consumption, general summary of the measures implemented to reduce operational energy impacts or improve energy efficiency during the reporting year, and confirm the compliance of any approved local utility, state and or federal regulator requirements and commitments, water annual water consumption report, including annual water consumption for the facility, specific water consumption for cooling systems, including cooling system storage units, water consumption associated with the energy generation, water conservation or reuse measurements implemented in the last year of the corresponding impact on water use, and the confirmation of compliance with any local utility, state and or federal requirements and commitments.

Annual noise compliance report prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer documenting the compliance of the max decimal limit at and beyond the property line, including the methodology of measurement.

The report shall be prepared in accordance with the approved noise study mitigation plan, and shall include sound measurements conducted under the operation operating conditions identified in the approved plan, include normal operation and peak operations such as generator testing, annual emergency generator testing report, which documents the frequency of generator testing, the duration of the testing for each generator unit, testing schedule, and confirmation of compliance with all IDEM regulations.

A statement confirming that the facility continue to operate in substantial compliance with the approved development plan commitments and all applicable special use district standards.

Item two, the public the publicly available online dashboard shall include at a minimum the following information.

Dates of upcoming plan generator testing, notice of all temporary changes that may impact the public.

The following information updated monthly with the data posted by the 15th day of the following month.

A minimum of three years of data shall be maintained, allowing trends to be identified for electrical, monthly total electrical use and peak use, breakdown of electricity sourcing, i.e., purchase from grade renewable, et cetera.

For item two water, monthly total facility water consumption at peak facility consumption, and monthly total water demand at peak energy at peak energy water demand.

Those are the following uh proposed amendments to the ordinance based off of stakeholder feedback and a public comment.

That conclude your presentation.

Thank you.

Questions from members of the commission.

I have some questions, President Dillon.

Commissioner Murphy.

So some general questions and then more specific.

As proposed, this amendment does not in any way uh limit what type of current zoning is eligible to apply for this new special use district.

Is that correct?

In other words, whether a property is currently zoned agricultural or C7, whatever, it could still apply for SU 47 rezoning.

That is correct, and that would be true for any zoning district.

Yeah, and and so the reference to I-3 isn't limiting it to properties that are I 3 currently to apply for this.

It's just using I3 standards as the applicable review template in effect for the SU 47.

That is correct.

And unless something is specifically amended in I3 through this amendment, then the I 3 applies.

Correct.

And I assume that from a practical standpoint, you have to reference one district as the template.

You couldn't reference multiple, because then you would have varying standards that it would be impossible to figure out whether a petition complies with one or the other.

Is that correct?

That is correct, yes.

Each special use district must identify one base district in which we follow the development standards for.

Yeah.

Um heretofore the data centers that have been approved, generally have been, I believe, industrial zoning, and then they obtain variances.

That is correct.

Uh say for the Google site, which was re uh Metroblox was also a CS district, as well as Google, that was their proposed.

We had uh the SABE case, which was an I2 uh original zoning.

Okay.

So if a site currently is zoned, say I 2 or I3, and they wanted to develop a data center, would it still be, if we pass this, would it still be possible for the petitioner to go the variance route and keep the existing zoning?

Uh in terms of uh what we're proposing today, if it is a uh data center facility use, they would have to rezone.

Uh if there's development standards that they can seek variances from by state code, they can seek that.

Uh but for variance of use into another zoning uh for that we would require that all data center uses the prime if it's a primary use of a data center must be rezoned to SU.

So I'm a little confused by your answer.

So you said that under state statute, if they could achieve the development with variances from existing zoning, say it was an I2 or I3, they could do that or they could not do that.

So so what I'm what I'm trying to say is that we cannot say no, you cannot file a variance.

Any property owner has the legal right to file a variance?

What we're saying with this ordinance is that for you to develop a data center, you must rezone to SU District.

Now there might be some development standards within I 3 that they seek uh variance again.

We cannot stop them from seeking that variance.

Uh but what we're saying is if you want to develop as a uh as a data center uh under this proposed ordinance, they would have to rezone to special use district 47 uh for that development to occur.

Okay, thank you.

And then uh some specific questions on uh minimum separation 400 feet rather than 200 feet.

So does that mean that 200 feet is what's currently required in I 3?

So within I 3 development standards, uh there are um transitional zones as well as uh separations.

Um so what we're doing with the special use district is uh we're asking above what I three development standards states.

And so that separation what we're proposing is 400 versus 200.

But I-3 requires 200 feet of separation from a um protected district.

It would it would depend on the type of use within I3.

So we do have within our zoning ordinance particular uses require uh different separations.

So it depend on that uh that use not to try to muddy the waters yeah but is there a use that would be permissible under I-3 that require under the current ordinance more than 200 feet of separation.

Yes there's some uses within I-3 that would require 600 foot separation or further.

Okay.

And then um sound levels again I'm just trying to understand the difference so is I-3 65 decibels at the property line?

So this is again uh with the special use district we're asking above and beyond what the I3 development uh standards are.

I understand that but the answer to my question is yes or no I-3 requires 65 decibels of the property line uh currently in I3 development standards there's not a minimum requirement for uh decibels thresholds which is why we're proposing it in the special use district or a maximum requirement right correct maximum decibels now throughout within city code there's nuisis or uh nuisance ordinances excuse me uh where there's particular types of uses or circumstances where there are uh decimal plus uh thresholds which is where sixty five decibels was originally pulled from so we use that because that's already in nuisance ordinance regulations as already placed for the city uh county of Indianapolis so that's where we leaned on the reason why we're proposing 55 today is based off of community feedback and uh stakeholder feedback where there was a request to lower that threshold okay and then on decommissioning plan so you highlighted number six um does that mean that one two three four five are already part of a decommissioning plan that is part of I three so what what we did with the uh additional amendment to item six uh was just add clarification again from stakeholder feedback uh the rest of the items uh one through five were from the original posting of our amended um so we just want to make clear that this would be above and beyond what I-3 development standards ask.

And does I three have a decommissioning plan requirement uh not this time for any other use okay thank you additional questions yes sir President Dillon Commissioner Loyal uh so staff can you clarify simply that SU 47 then becomes a development type or no?

So what special use districts uh do is that there's uh a type of use that's uh a little bit unique that doesn't quite fit into other districts so another good example would be like a government facility we have a special use districts for like indoor recreational centers things of that nature so with this amendment what we are proposing is a new uh um new special use district on its own for this particular use so we're creating a brand new one uh for specifically data center use so should it pass if there is a project that comes before the city that intends its primary use to be data center it will divert to S U 47 as a hearing going forward yeah so versus any other structure that the city allows in I2 I3 CS anything correct so if a land use petition is filed asking for the development of a data center we would issue them to a rezone petition to a special use district.

Okay.

And in these new proposed guidelines, one of the things that I read in many of the remonstrance documentation pieces was about low frequency testing.

Has that been considered in the sound profile that you all are proposing to analyze?

Yes, we did.

So we we looked into that.

We also looked at what our peer communities are doing as well.

As you know, across the country, this is a new use that every community is trying to uh regulate or try to understand.

We could not find anywhere where that type of low frequency was regulated.

And so what we did was we wanted to ensure that we have ways to regulate and to enforce.

And so we go back to what is already on the books, and we have a nuisance ordinance that depicts uh often what are those thresholds, and that's where we originally proposed 65 and we went to 55.

So we wanted to ensure that we had uh measurable enforcement uh rates while we still uh try to determine what other communities are doing for low level frequency.

And where are we in that process?

So far, uh it's been very difficult.

We've been reaching out to other peer communities.

We've also been watching uh the uh any amendments uh particular particularly with uh communities in the state of Indiana, and currently right now there's no regulation uh enforcing low frequency.

So we're we're we're still watching, we're still uh making sure that if there is a way to regulate that, if we know how to do that, we definitely want to be proposing that.

Okay.

Um there was a few mentions throughout the remonstrance about increasing the distance from protecting districts from the current 200 to 500 to a thousand feet, seeing as how we landed at 400.

Um what would be the rationale to get us to 500 against from the city's perspective?

From staff's perspective, we landed at 400 based off of the research that we've been pulling from not only other peer communities, but uh just what data centers and uh you know the reports that are out there from other communities.

And so we landed at 400 because we want to ensure that uh people understand what these centers are.

If there is more separation that's required, you know, we're open to that.

We also want to ensure that we're we're not in a place where we're regulating so much to where there can't be any development that occurs.

Also, we also want to understand uh where the reasoning behind a lot of the annual reporting is that that provides us as decision makers uh real data.

So if we need to come back to amend, uh we can do so with real data backed up.

So we landed at 400 based off of really what our peer communities are doing and regulating, and that's been all over across the board from uh one community only had 100 feet separation to we had another community that's looking at a thousand.

So we we did again we based off of what I3 development standards are, we looked at the current use in the data that we've done our research on for data centers, and uh with that conclusion, that's where we felt that 400 foot separation was reasonable responsible regulation.

Uh being that we do have something on the books already that allows us to get to 600, I think it would be a reasonable request to accommodate a little bit more of that distance seeing that this is such a fiery topic.

I think we can go a little bit above and beyond and become a leader in the space and push for a little bit more separation because we've seen across the country how much uh vitriol there is in response to this type of development, and since it is fairly unproven scientifically, I think more is a better case.

Um so I would just push back on staff to encourage a conversation about increasing that distance because we have people who have been in neighborhoods for decades or hundreds of years, and if their perspective is I need more, then let's listen.

Um the other thing would be a lot of conversation has happened around community benefits.

Um, so in the conversation about what the public dashboard would display, that is a great idea to produce a public dashboard, but I didn't see any mention of how the status of the community benefits would be in that public dashboard.

Um I totally understand where we're talking about economic incentives and those benefits.

What we try to do is to ensure that what's in our zoning ordinance is what zoning can regulate, and so that's where we we landed with those reportings on if we can ask for those annual updates on those metrics that zoning can regulate, that's what's the safest bet.

So we're we're open to feedback on the dashboard.

Uh in terms of our zoning ordinance, we want to ensure what's in there is what zoning can regulate.

Not looking to litigate the benefits themselves, but if they're proposed and codified, they should just be displayed.

And if there are things that happen over time, like dollar amounts that have been allocated towards certain community initiatives, the status of that dollar amount should be displayed.

So that public dashboard should actually be public.

Yes, please.

Excuse it, Commissioner West.

Yes.

Uh-huh.

Go.

Thanks.

In your document, on page 53, paragraph 101 F4, about halfway down, you refer twice to permitted level of noise.

And in that subparagraph 5, identification of the applicable maximum sound level.

And then a lot of this puts the onus on a sound expert that's brought in with the project.

Is his or her permitted level of noise, your permitted level of noise, or this uses permitted level of noise being the 55?

That would be correct.

So that's really the permitted level of there would be no other permitted level of noise other than that.

That would be correct.

And is that 55 DBA or DBC, please?

We have currently uh in our uh zoning regulator uh DB, uh DBA.

Why did we choose not to we we in previous uh weeks and months we talked about DBA in writing?

Did we dropped that here in today?

Yeah, that could be something.

If we uh need to make that a motion to amend, uh we'd be happy to do that.

Did you have any um sound expert testimony uh backing up the change from 65 to 55 and what that would mean?

So we we have received uh some uh public communication and from stakeholder engagement that 55 would be a challenge for uh development of data centers.

Um what we've landed on is again what can we enforce.

We have to have those measurements.

We also wanted to lean into community engagement.

They've asked for lower, and that's what we're proposing to honor what we've been hearing with our stakeholders.

Um, and so that's where we landed at 55 uh for that decibel.

Uh, we also, through our other land use petitions, we've been asking for measurements for sound because our uh commitments uh previously have been requiring 65, and so those in uh reports uh through those land use petitions has shown us how they can do those measurements.

So we were actually taking in live data uh throughout the year to how do we regulate the noise level.

So that's uh kind of the background and the context of for that sound measurement.

Have we approached any industrial users or data center builders to get feedback on what their response is to that goal of 55 dBA or DB?

So we we have received as DMD uh through the stakeholder engagements, we have heard from uh those types of users, they have expressed uh some difficulty in meeting that level threshold.

Um, and so that's where uh again we we we take in all the uh uh stakeholder feedback and comments and we try to land at something that again uh we can enforce.

So we understand that it can be difficult from our responses, we need to see evidence that's uh not possible, and we have not seen that, which is why we still have as proposed as 55.

I went out to one of the data center sites to measure DBA and ambience were between 60 and 65.

When a car drove by, it was typical to see 72 to 75.

So if you've got an ambient level of let's say 55 in a rural quiet location, and you add a 55, then you would double it, and doubling is represented by a three dBA increase.

So you would be measuring 58 at that location.

Would that be seen to be in compliance or not?

And I can step in here, Bryce.

So with the noise requirement, we're also requiring the noise study and mitigation plan be submitted on the front end.

And so as a part of that plan, we've asked that they identify and measure existing noise levels out on the site, so then we can delineate that between the new noise generated by any new facility.

I saw that, and that's very good to have that in there.

A change from 65 to 75 to the layman might seem like a 13% increase, or a change from 75 to 65 might seem like a uh well, I guess I got my numbers wrong, but in any case, it's about a 15% change one way or the other.

But sound pressure level doubles with every a doubling of the sound pressure level is represented by a 3 dBA increase.

So if 65 is a norm that's been used here and there in ordinances and within industry, then to go from 65 to 62 would be the sound level cut in half and then half again at 59 and then half again at 56.

That's a just to be clear of what kind of ask that is.

And I've heard the argument about the low frequency sounds, and I heard you say you want to be responsive to that.

DBA is what the human ear hears, and so that's commonly used for that reason because sometimes we don't care about other sound, we just care about what we hear.

DBC is a wider spectrum, it doesn't discount the high frequencies and the low frequencies that we cannot hear.

So the DBC reading will hear those low frequencies, and since that's a particular item of concern, and I even saw some thumbs go up when we were talking about low frequency, and I know you want to be responsive to the low frequency, because you said that you did.

Perhaps we should consider uh some expert sound testimony that would point to a DBC rather than a DBA, and perhaps I don't know for certain, but perhaps that would be better approach toward addressing the low frequency than just simply dropping the number, especially down below ambient levels, where it would become possibly said to be unrealistic.

Yeah, thank you for the feedback, and we'll take whatever direction this board would like to provide.

Okay, thank you.

Additional questions?

I have a couple, Bryce.

We have several existing data centers that are in Marion County.

If they want expansion, and some of these are in very metropolitan areas, do these requirements apply to their expansion?

Uh once passed and um in full enactment, yes, if they were to expand their, they'd be essentially created as legal nonconforming use.

So if they expand that use, they would be required for that parcel to be rezoned.

Is it smart to put a grandfather clause in there because several of these data centers that have been operating and nobody's complaining about them?

Don't even know they're there, you shut them down from any expansion of trying to increase their capacity.

Yeah, if that's a direct from the MDC, we'd be happy to provide that provision.

Can you think that through as a provision that we can add in today?

Absolutely.

Going forward, I would appreciate it.

Secondly, you know this may be for executive director or you, I don't really care.

Why I-3, not I-2.

I'm not I'm happy to uh jump in there.

Well, love to hear it.

Yeah, so what we did was with uh all of our industrial districts, all the uses are typically put into what's more compatible with one another.

And so what we were reviewing is you know what what can the scale be?

What types of uh developments that can occur, where are existing uh zoning uh our industrial zoned uh parcels within the city?

Um what we landed on was I three development standards really do help regulate the scale of the development, and so if there's a larger parcel, there's still some protections in place to ensure that the scale is still uh in check and in line with what what we're uh trying to achieve with the zoning ordinance.

So I-3 is where we landed, uh, particularly with the transitional yard requirements and the scaling of the um the structure at the height limit for the structures.

Is there any way for the new SU 47?

If the restrictions or comments are not in SU 47, then they fall to I3.

Is there any way that they could fall to I3 or I2?

Uh, or have your developer or data center individuals who come forward to file for the I for SU 47 because it's a data center, and we need the new regulation.

Say we want to fall in under criteria I2, not I3.

So have like an I3 or I-2, if I make sense.

Yeah, uh, absolutely.

Uh my my reaction to that is with our special use districts, the way that they are structured within our zoning ordinance, there is one base zoning district.

So having a either-or option would be uh a brand new regulation uh for our zoning ordinance.

So I would want to make sure that from a legal standpoint that's something that's permissible, right?

And I don't know the answer to that.

I think it might be, but I don't know the answer to that.

Yeah, I I would say for for the sake of the regulation and how the ordinance is structured today, there's one zoning base district, uh, but we can definitely look into more research about the legalities if we have an either or let's go back to our setback number.

Um that number's been all over the board, but in our previous approvals, uh they were at 200 feet, as I remember, and that at the end of the day did not seem to be contested by anybody at that point in time.

Now I've seen a thousand feet, I've seen you know, two miles.

I mean, it's all it's been all over the board.

So talk to me again on the 200 feet versus 400 feet.

So the the original proposal of 200 foot separation is what uh what DMD staff has been requiring as commitments for for land use petitions for data centers prior to this ordinance.

So our intent was to be consistent of what we've been asking.

Uh since then and working on developing this ordinance amendment.

Again, we we've been taking in feedback from not only just through the stakeholder engagement and public comment period for the ordinance itself, but the feedback that we received from all land use petitions, and separation uh to your point has been all over the place.

We've had uh community members ask for you know over a thousand, fifteen, eighteen hundred.

Uh we've also had uh uh public feedback saying two hundreds too much.

So again, what we did was we looked at the scale of the development, the type of the development with how this occurs and I-3 development standards, and we we tried to propose listening to stakeholders, uh, what isn't a reasonable and responsible separation increase, and that's where we landed at 400.

And again, that's also based off of other peer communities and their separations as well.

So we wanted to make sure that we're in line with other uh communities in their regulations too.

Final question, Bryce.

I also noticed the DBA designation was taken out to the DB designation, which I was a little surprised about.

But your testimony was there is no decimal levels around the state that you've been able to find.

Anywhere.

Is that correct?

Uh specifically for low frequency.

So we haven't found, but with uh feedback that we've heard, I think there's ways that we can uh uh capture that kind of measurement as well.

But we are just focusing on again what does our nuisance ordinance say, and try to match that.

I think from uh what's that's 65, is it not?

And that's that was the most frequent use for industrial type uses, and that's what we we originally proposed 65 DBA.

In your professional opinion, is 55 even possible for a data center?

Again, based off of stakeholder feedback, we have uh heard that there would be difficulty meeting that.

Um so why do we want to go to that level when 65 has been the standard?

Uh again, what we're we're we're trying to balance, DMD staff is just trying to balance what is reasonable responsible regulation based off of what the community's asking for, and then what we're learning with this development.

And so again, we're we're trying to build a logic and consistency.

Um, but when we're hearing from community members that the frequency is just too high, they want to lower that decimal level.

We're trying to strike that balance.

The other piece that the way that we viewed the decrease is that would be another way to regulate the scale.

If it's a smaller development, it would be easier to meet those sound metrics.

So that's the kind of framework that we were reviewing on the policy side, is you know, how can we find this balance?

What the community is asking for, what is possible through developments, and what we're trying to achieve, which is which is regulating the scale of these types of developments.

Uh so that's again again, we're open to feedback if we need to adjust that for the amendment.

We are open to that, but that's the logic behind why we landed at 55.

Thank you, Bryce.

Are there any other questions?

Uh may I follow up, please on my earlier question.

Commissioner West.

Thank you.

If we're voting today, and proposing an amendment to the amendment, I'd be more inclined to go with 65 DBA as a suggestion.

However, I think we should be really careful about the DBA to DBC.

Uh just a little quick look into how things work here.

I I have experience as a sound engineer with equipment, and we always worked with DBA because that's what we heard.

But there's so much concern about the DB, the low frequencies, and I just noticed that often there are different requirements in DBA and DBC, and that typically the DBC limit is higher.

Um the Rose Bowl, for example, has a limit of 95 DBA, and at the same time 108 DBC, so they want to protect people from low frequencies, but apparently, uh max of 95 DBC would result in a lower sound level overall.

So I want to be real careful about suggesting a limit in DBC, in numerical format.

I don't know how I could do that here today.

But you're comfortable with DBA, I would be comfortable with 65 DBA.

Okay, thank you.

I got it.

Anything else, Commissioner West?

Commissioner Megan V.

Bryce.

I know that you all have put in a tremendous amount of time.

I know you have taken significant sacrifices with family and with controversy.

We're very appreciative, whether we agree with all of it or not agree with it, we are very appreciative of everything you've been doing, and don't think that we're not.

So thank you for your hard work for this city.

Nancy, I'm going to ask the remonstrators to come forward.

I want them to introduce themselves and their addresses.

Nancy reset the clock.

Remonstrators, you have 20 minutes, as we said in our resolution before the meeting.

And then after you're done, we'll go to city councils.

You're on the clock.

Go.

Do I not swear them in?

20 minutes.

Swear them in.

Swear them in, each one.

So I've prepared remarks with several others that we have.

In order to help us on time, could all of you come forward?

We're going to square you in all at once, Pat.

Okay.

And I'm not sure all of you are going to get in in your 20 minutes, but we'll do the best we can do.

And in your testimony, when you introduce yourself, please say I've been sworn in.

So you're on the record.

Go, Nancy.

Yes, please raise your right hands.

Ashley Hooley, seven.

I'm so just please raise your right hands.

Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Now we'll start the clock.

Please introduce yourself and your address.

Yep, Ashley Hooley, 7115, Mendon Hall Road, Cambi, Indiana, 46113.

I prepared remarks today with several others in attendance, and we'll leave time for others after I'm done.

Dear esteemed commissioners of the Metropolitan Development Commission, thank you for your time and attention today.

I represent thousands of people living across Indianapolis that are disappointed in calling on the nine or eight of you to do the right thing today.

While I appreciate all the effort the DMD has put into crafting this ordinance, the regulations outlined in the amended draft fall short of ensuring responsible development while protecting citizens.

This ordinance fails to address the nuance of data centers, making it seem like all projects are created equal.

This ordinance is vague and leaves your neighbors here in Indy vulnerable to companies looking to exploit all the items that are missing.

Hyperscale data centers have not been operational for very long.

These giant data center projects are new and unprecedented due to the massive push for AI.

It is imperative that you use your positions of power to take the appropriate time to research, listen to all the experts surrounding data centers, and quite possibly most importantly, to meaningfully engage with the communities that will be most affected.

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time today to explain every instance where this ordinance falls short, but I will attempt to hit on the most glaring issues being voiced by our collaborations with dozens of organizations throughout Indy.

If you turn to page 165 of your data center analysis questionnaire survey results, you'll see an overwhelming response calling for a ban on data centers.

Citizens need to feel confident in this ordinance that it will protect our quality of life, our resources, and our investments.

Passing the ordinance in its current form would be injurious and reckless.

There has been immense pushback and disdain for the decisions being made in this room by the MDC over the last couple months.

I know everyone here wishes to move forward with peaceful, transparent, fact-based dialogue and collaboration.

So I am respectfully reminding this commission that the only way to build adequate community buy-in and trust at this point in time is to bring us along.

I pray that each of the commissioners will work with the community so that together we can protect Indianapolis.

Indianapolis residents have identified six key ways in which the ordinance falls short.

The first relates to size.

The ordinance fails to distinguish between different sized data centers, leaving communities vulnerable to massive projects of millions of square feet being treated the same as a data center, the size of the room we're in right now.

Tiny data centers of one or two megawatts, like the ones that were built 10 or 20 years ago, should not be grouped in with hyperscale data centers of 50 megawatts or more.

Instead, we call on this commission to add clear classifications to address today's trend towards massive hyperscale data center projects.

Nashville, Tennessee's proposed ordinance and many others we researched categorize data centers into four designations small, medium, large, and data center campuses.

These designations are based on square footage and energy capacity.

By having clearly defined and adequate sizings, Nashville's ordinance is able to determine the appropriate setbacks from protected districts based on size, which leads me to the next point.

This ordinance is negligent and insufficient because it does not include appropriate setbacks for data centers from protected districts.

Hyperscale data centers should have the highest setbacks from homes.

We are requesting an increase from 400 feet to 1500 feet or more for this classification, which is in line with the public comments you received detailed on page 176 of the DMD's questionnaire results.

As it stands now, the ordinance only says that the building of a data center should be 400 feet from homes.

It does not state what can or can't be within that setback.

And this leaves open the possibility of having diesel generators right next to our families.

The setback needs to be clearly outlined as a full buffer zone and not allow objects such as generators, since the intention is to keep sound out of protected districts.

Valparaiso, a growing and thriving community in Northwest Indiana, is currently considering an ordinance that would require 1,000 foot setbacks.

So why would we settle here in Indianapolis for such weak requirements for our residents?

Will folks in the help folks in the crowd help me demonstrate by standing if you do not want a data center 400 feet from your backyard?

What about you, commissioners?

Is 400 feet enough from your front door?

I urge you to listen to your fellow neighbors that voice the need for a bigger buffer.

Thank you, everyone.

You can have a seat.

Moving to another topic of concern.

We are encouraged by the MDC's move to amend the sound requirement from 65 to 55 DBA.

I've personally talked to hundreds of community members, and sound even at 55 DBA remains one of our gravest concerns.

We are alarmed that low frequency noise, which is measured as DBC is not mentioned at all, nor is cumulative noise.

Dr.

Jamie Banks, the chair of the Noise and Health Committee for the American Public Health Association states sound energy is typically measured in DBA, but that A weighted decibel excludes sounds like frequency.

If DBA is the only method method of measurement taken into consideration, then a cello and a leaf blower, both producing sounds at 65 decibels, would make you feel the same, but they won't.

Therefore, there is more to sound than DBA measurement.

Commissioner West understands this.

DBC measures low frequency noise that is difficult to hear, but that constant hum and vibration is doing damage.

The around the clock exposure to lower frequency airborne pressure waves can cause cellular and tissue damage, and they are also found to interfere with daily activities, thoughts and emotions, sleep, and might lead to negative responses such as anger, exhaustion, and other stress-related symptoms.

Passing the ordinance with its current considerations for noise will risk and harm Hoosers' quality of life and health.

Do the right thing.

We must spend time researching DBA and DBC to address and alleviate these public concerns.

On a separate note, the ordinance will allow new data centers to be powered by polluting fossil fuels, which is known to negatively impact our health, environment, utility costs, and this move is in direct conflict with Indianapolis' Thrive Plan.

The Office of Sustainability and the City of Indy have adopted a plan to become carbon neutral by 2050.

And this will not be possible if you allow AES to power data centers using coal and gas plants.

Furthermore, we must consider how diesel generators will hinder us from carbon neutral plan.

The EPA classifies generators based on emission standards.

Tier 4 generators are more than 90% more efficient than tier two generators, so I urge this commission to make tier 4 the standard.

If you hear anything I say today, please educate yourself on the differences in tier two and tier four generators, since this pollution will arguably impact each and every Hoosier now and well into the future.

Our concern around the health and environmental impacts of tier two diesel generators is something that has not been adequately addressed by developers or this ordinance.

It does not appear that this commission has considered or researched the difference despite repeated public comments requesting this be looked into.

We also feel this ordinance fails to address rising utility costs.

We are currently facing a heat wave across the U.S.

this week.

Temperatures are expected to reach well into the 90s, but with humidity, we will have a heat index of 100 to 110.

While these unprecedented heat waves continue to threaten our most vulnerable, we Hoosers need to work together to reduce future risk instead of adding to it.

A US based study published in the Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Buildings and Cities provided evidence of the effects data centers have on air temperature.

Dr.

David Saylor, a top urban climate expert, collaborated on a study focused on air temperature effects on neighborhoods adjacent to data centers.

And overall, research found warming downwind from the data centers range from 1.5 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit.

I'm sorry, no thank you.

Yet data center developers continue to say this will have no impact on our utilities.

Commissioners, how is that possible when multiple studies are showing impacts to surface and air temperature?

Next, Indianapolis rejects residents reject this draft ordinance because it lacks emergency resources and response training criteria for firefighters, which perfectly highlights the lack of considerations and thoroughness.

The potential for a fire at a data center campus poses a real safety risk to families, schools, and community spaces adjacent to the site.

At the SABE data center in Round Rock, Texas, they had a two-alarm fire in 2024, costing over two million in damages, and the fire report lists a civilian injury as well as the release of chemicals in the area due to the fire.

This is one example of many showing that hyperscale data centers are an eminent fire hazard, particularly with the egregious amounts of diesel fuel stored on site and the instability of lithium ion batteries.

Specific resources are needed to put out fires of this type.

Many of our local fire departments are not equipped with the critical training and resources to keep their communities safe from data center fires.

The ordinance must outline exactly what a data center must do to minimize the risk of a fire and to show that the surrounding community will be appropriately equipped and protected.

And finally, as you read in the DMD's questionnaire feedback, there have been little to no meaningful opportunities for public engagement or collaboration.

The City of Aurora, Illinois requires public hearings and city council approval of all proposals.

We want the same opportunity to be heard and listened to.

Page 174 and 175 of the Data Center Questionnaire Analysis demonstrates there is an overwhelming desire for transparent communication and the inclusion of resident voices in decision making.

Pitting lawyers for developers against working class communities who have to take crash courses in land use, data centers, legal policy, and politics to provide a 20-minute remonstrance in the middle of the work week doesn't allow for very many people to participate and influence projects that will impact them for decades to come.

Instead of inviting meaningful collaboration with communities and other city agencies, the DMD rolled out their proposal, held a couple virtual meetings that failed to address all questions from the community and accepted written comments but not public feedback.

It's disappointing and enraging.

In closing, it is important we press pause on data centers until we can develop a comprehensive ordinance that will work for all of us now and in the future.

Please prove that you value public engagement and collaboration by listening to the city county council that unanimously voted in May to pass special resolution 12 2026 to request that the MDC pause all data center activity.

Each of you have an opportunity today to regain public trust as a governing body by implementing serious and practical zoning regulations that actually address this industry for what it is, as your peers are doing across the nation.

It is a time in a time of significant division here in Indy and across the country.

Communities are uniting over data center concerns.

You've heard our cries over the last several weeks, and a new Gallup poll shows seven in ten Americans oppose the construction of a data center in their community.

Per page 55 of the planning staff's survey analysis, if the MDC deems that further zoning research and community outreach is required before bringing forward a revised draft of zoning standards for data centers, the DMD would highly recommend a temporary moratorium on data centers to carry out this additional directive.

The community is here today to tell you emphatically that the DMD has not done sufficient community outreach and has not proposed responsible regulations.

We agree with the DMD's recommendation in the staff report for a temporary moratorium to support the additional directives I've described and more.

I agree with Commissioner Lyle.

As the capital city, Indianapolis should be a leader in our state.

So let's join the growing list of communities across Indiana that have passed moratoriums.

That includes Shelby County, our neighbors, Boone County, Madison County, and that list is longer.

There are a total of 22 communities in Indiana with active moratoriums.

Blackford County, Cass County, Dearborn, Decalb, Fayette, Fountain, Franklin, Fullet, Grant, Huntington, Marshall, Miami, Pulaski, Putnam, Rush, Stark, and White Counties, as well as the towns of Ingalls and Maryville.

I want to thank you for your compassion and diligence with this sensitive matter.

Please let us know what questions you have.

Thank you, Ashley.

Please introduce yourself, address, and confirm you were sworn in.

I'm Julie Goldsberry, 2804 Davis Road, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46239.

I have been sworn in.

Thank you, Julie.

Goes.

The current SU 47 language is weak, even as amended.

It does not adequately protect us as residents.

We're tired of watching in horror as city officials roll out welcome mat for data centers like beggar children crying for coins from rich tourists.

While local residents are ignored or told that we need to be educated.

The level of involvement that the public has been allowed, I mean denied in the development of this ordinance has been concerning.

Please look at McCannna's letter on page 148 of today's agenda packet.

It expresses our concerns.

In both the recent comp plan process and now this data center ordinance, DMD seems to be using the Delphi technique, which replaces strong, vigorous open communication with structured and controlled feedback.

We don't appreciate this erosion of the robust public engagement opportunities that Indianapolis used to have.

Please involve us in the next steps for SU 47.

First, include some of us who have been dragged through the hellish process of remonstrating against a data center in developing the next version of SU 47.

We've eaten, breathed, and slept data centers, some of us for years.

We have come to know a lot about them.

Please involve us.

Second, hire impartional technical experts, not DMD staff, not data center insiders for technical matters like noise.

The quality of life issues with data centers are too important to have the language drafted by well-meaning but non-technical staffers or industry insiders who have an agenda.

We live here too and deserve to be heard, not maligned or pushed aside like idiot children or a nuisance.

Putting a data center in anyone's backyard is a big deal.

Please involve us as this moves forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Julie.

Please introduce yourself address and confirm your sworn.

My name is Robin Heldman.

I've been sworn in 8824 Combs Road.

I am president of the Gateway Community Alliance, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Docket 2026 A0001.

I want to thank the Department of Metropolitan Development and the Commission for the improvements that they made on the ordinance.

The revised addresses many concerns raised by residents with stronger setbacks, lower noise limits, enhanced site planning, water management requirements, annual reporting.

These are meaningful and appreciated improvements.

But as you move forward the ordinance, I respectfully ask that you consider five additional recommendations.

First, while applicants must identify wetlands, the ordinance does not require avoidance or preservation when practical, existing natural resources should be protected whenever feasible, not mitigated after disturbance.

Second, although a decommissioning plan is required, there is no financial assurance to ensure completion, a performance bond, escrow account, or similar security to protect the taxpayers if a facility is abandoned.

Third, I encourage requiring e-waste management plan to so obsolete electronic equipment that's replaced on average of two years is responsibly recycled, reused, and disposed of, reducing environmental impacts and supporting sustainable data center operations.

Fourth, while resident setbacks have been strengthened, the ordinance does not include building height transition standards near neighborhoods.

Reasonable transitions provide an added buffer and reduce visual impact.

Finally, I encourage requiring a host community agreement as a condition of every SU 47 rezone approval.

This would ensure enforceable commitments for infrastructure, traffic management, environmental compliance, emergency coordination, and community benefits.

In short, the zoning ordinance establishes the standards for where a data center may locate, while host community agreement should ensure that each individual project remains a responsible neighbor and accountable for the community throughout its entire operating life.

Thank you for your time, your continued work to ensure responsible and compatible data center development in our communities.

Thanks, Robin.

Pat.

Pat Andrews, 7631 Reynolds Road and Camby.

Thank you.

I'm here representing the Decatur Township Civic Council and the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations.

I chair the land use committee for both organizations and know a little bit about the zoning ordinance.

Diesel exhaust health uh issues are not addressed and are quite important and insufficient uh separation from protected districts on the noise.

Uh uh commissioner West, I will have to correct you.

The 10 decibel uh movement in 10 decibels is um a power of 10, yes, but to the human perception is a doubling of the sound.

Um also the grants the gravel sand and borough district in uh Indianapolis already requires DBA and DBC, and from those two readings you can get the low frequency sound.

I will leave it at that.

Happy to answer any questions later.

Thank you, Pat.

Yes, sir.

Name, address, and have you been sworn?

William Smith, 1120 North Berrook Avenue.

I have been sworn in.

I would like to remind people that I'm autistic, and that 55 decibel noise level, if that was near my property, might be enough to force me out of the city.

There's no provision to make special needs people at all.

And furthermore, I walked here today in this heat.

If you dumped all the extra heat from a data center into this atmosphere and raised it by five to ten degrees in some cases, I wouldn't have even been able to come here or not.

And there's no regulations for diesel admissions aside from telling you when you can and cannot use the generators.

I'd be concerned knowing what I want to breathe in in our atmosphere.

So we need that moratorium.

We need better public participation and better special needs protection for people that near data centers.

Thank you, William.

Sir, introduce yourself, address have you been sworn?

My name is Alex McFarland.

I live in 71 South West Street in Buggesville, Indiana, and I've been sworn in.

Even though I live in Buggersville, I actually call Irvington my home away from home.

I graduated from Uvington in 2016, and I um I uh volunteer there every every year since, whether it be in October with the Ghost Toys or volunteering my time as a referee for a nonprofit organization there called Russellites.

That is why this is this issue is important to me.

With these, I'm sorry you've reached your time on your on your presentations.

Thank you very much.

We announced the rules going forward.

Are there any city council people here today who like to speak?

Councillor.

Good afternoon, President Dylan and Commissioners from MDC.

My name is Jesse Brown.

I am the city county counselor representing District 13 on the near north near east side.

Uh I live at 2022 North Riley Avenue, and technically I have not been sworn in.

Yes.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm an appendaries of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

So I do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

I've now been sworn in.

I wanted to take a moment after I think what was some very compelling testimony presented under tight timeline, just to address the context that we're standing in.

Right now, our elected government in this country is failing constituents at every single level.

Life is increasingly simply unaffordable for ordinary families, such that people are having to walk to this meeting in this dangerous heat.

At the federal level, we have a deeply unpopular government that does not seem to care about us.

Here's an example.

At the state level, we're again deeply unpopular, we're left to believe our government doesn't care.

Uh the property tax reform that was promised has bankrupted our public safety, our libraries, and local government in general, and yet it still leaves us unable to afford to pay our property taxes.

So it's a lose-lose unless you're a billionaire.

Again, government doesn't seem to care.

At the local level, we can all see what's going on here.

We've got horrible public services in this city.

We've got pools that don't open for years on end.

We've got roads that are destroyed and look like we were in a war zone itself.

And we have a deeply corrupt mayor who's been in the news time after time after time in my one term as a city county council.

So why do I bring all this up?

I know this isn't any of your jobs.

True.

I know that what you are is a group of talented and qualified land use professionals.

I know that.

A lot of people don't.

I get questions nearly every day from my constituents.

Questions that go like this.

Why would the MDC just ignore this extremely clear request from constituents to ban data centers until we're satisfied with regulations?

And they come to me with an answer already in their mind.

What they believe is that this body is deeply corrupt.

They believe that you are in bed with developers and personally benefiting yourselves as individuals.

They don't see any other reasonable explanation for what is going on.

And I'll have to tell you, I have a very hard time trying to explain the errors in their logic.

After all, we've just seen a meeting today where we had hundreds of constituents, including an overflow room set up for them, who had to wait until the back of the line while we had developers and lawyers who couldn't possibly be troubled that way.

We have seen hundreds of constituents in person somehow be expected to, with no notice, prepare a 20-minute uh organized response where sometimes we have to jockey for position and figure out who gets that time in front of the mic.

We've seen that when DMD staff failed to follow the rules of this body by giving six days notice, the rules are just ignored because the rules only apply to some people and not others.

We've seen that when staff members disagree with leadership, they're fired or disappeared from the Department of Metropolitan Development.

We've seen that a unanimous resolution from the City County Council has simply been ignored.

You're debating what you want to debate and not what the legislative body of this government of this city and this county has asked you to do unanimously.

And we've seen the campaign finance forms with your names on them.

So please help me.

Help me defend you.

Do not let the people of Indianapolis think that you are nothing but a bunch of crooks.

You have to show people you are an independent and responsive board despite being appointed rather than elected.

You have to show people that you care.

Please adopt a data more data center moratorium now and tell Mayor Hogslip staff they have to engage in actual public conversations in every township before they bring a new ordinance as a second try.

All power to the people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's enough.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Members of the commission.

Members of the commission, do you have any questions?

Yes, sir, President Dillon.

It's been a while.

Thank you, sir.

It seemed that some of the remonstrators have had some pretty articulately crafted remonstrance that they delivered today.

Would it be possible to get those submitted in writing?

Aside from the transcript that will be publicly available, I'd like to actually see those bullet points laid out as requested.

There will, Commissioner, there will be a formal transcript with all those comments in it.

So I was asking for their statements that they presented today in paper form to be submitted as they were spoken.

You're going to get it in this in the form of the of the transcript.

So you'll get it twice.

Is that what you want?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

I'll leave that to the remonstrators.

Ashley, you look like you are in charge, so we'll let you submit the uh the paper.

Yes.

Anything else, Commissioner?

That's all.

Thank you.

Any questions for the city councilman?

I have a not for the city councilman, but I have a couple more questions, and I don't know.

I just don't want to lose my chance to ask them.

You will not.

I think you're good, counselor.

Thank you for being here.

Who are your who are your questions for Commissioner West?

Are they for staff?

Are they for point of recommendations?

Okay.

Ask your question.

From a procedural point of view, would it be better to recommend things I'd like to see and have those possibly added here today before a vote, or to recommend that we uh or to make a motion that we slow down or see just as a point of parliamentary procedure.

If we vote against, that doesn't table this, does it?

SU 47, it would come again in a possibly a different way.

Let me uh go back to the executive director.

Can you walk back through the schedule of process that has been agreed with from DMD and the city council, if you may?

I think this is very important for everybody to hear.

Yes, we've got the legislative schedule pulled back up here on the screen.

So today, July 1st would be the MDC public hearing, which we've had.

Um we have gotten um this would be filed with the city council office for their July 6th meeting for an introduction.

If it went to introduction on July 6th, then it would go to the City Council Metropolitan Economic Development Committee on July 13th for a public hearing at that body.

That body then provides a recommendation to the full city council for a final vote, which would then be scheduled on August 10th.

Thank you.

Now, members of the commission, that's on page five of the presentation, and this meeting has been pushed back with agreement with the city council who are waiting for some format of SU 447 to come to them that then they will consider, and they will move forward on or amend or stop.

So if you want to make amendments to what we're doing today on SC 47, we will now accept your amendments, and we will vote on your amendments to go into this ordinance if that makes sense.

That makes sense, thank you.

Great.

So if you have an amendment, we will accept it.

Um, right.

So you're working on my grandfather amendment, correct?

Thank you.

Yes, go ahead and make it.

Should I Commissioner West?

State.

Four, and then we'd vote individually.

Uh, I want you to put the amendment on the table, and then I will call the roll.

All right, um first to the setbacks.

I think it's reasonable to have setbacks be proportional to the size of the project.

Um a big bigger biggest type of approach with setbacks, big bigger, and biggest to go along with it, as was described by Ashley done in other areas.

Um two sound limits.

I'd propose we change from 55 to 65 DBA, but I'd really like us to look into DBC separately, and I don't know what the limit would be.

I'd take a hip shot at 80, but I don't know what the proper number would be.

Let's not take a hip shot, 80 DBC.

Let's go DBA 65 65 DBA 80 DBC.

I would just do one or the other.

Excuse us, please.

We're having a discussion.

I would do one or the other DBA 65.

To be clear, DBA65 is clear and I think appropriate.

Okay.

But it doesn't address some concerns about low frequency.

Okay, what else?

Um generator.

I'd like if somebody could pitch in and talk about generator, I'd be inclined to go tier four instead of tier two, but I'm not a generator expert, so I'm slow to make that recommendation and uh decommissioning plan.

Some discussion on that for a um a bond or escrow, might not be a bad idea, okay.

Any other comments?

I'm gonna try to format those for you, Commissioner West.

Any other comments on amendments from members of the commission?

Okay.

Let me give it a shot for the record.

Nancy, let me give it a shot for the record, Bryce.

Amend page two, section 742 109 L4 sound levels to change the maximum permitted sound level from 55 DB to 65 DBA, specifically amend the proposed ordinance by revising the maximum permitted operational sound level for specific classifications, SU 47 data centers from 55 decibels to DBA to 65, measured at or beyond the property line in accordance with the ordinance, applicable sound measurement provisions.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Let me call the rule.

Lyle.

Lyle, no.

Morerity.

Moreity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, no.

West.

West, no.

Dylan is a yes.

It passes.

Five to three.

Has it a excuse me?

Ladies and gentlemen.

Ladies and gentlemen.

Not going for it.

We're gonna try to work our way through this.

We're not going for it, ladies and gentlemen.

Bryce.

That amendment passed five to three to go to the ordinance.

Now, do I have the information?

You have you're not qualified with this.

You're not qualified.

Ladies, let me go forward with your second question.

Which was decommissioning plan, I think, was it not?

Yes.

Yes.

Great.

Let me try to do this.

Amend page 4 section 42-109L 10 1i, a decommissioning plan by deleting the subsection in its entirety.

Specifically amend the proposed ordinance by deleting section 742 109 L 101i entitled to decommissioning plan in its entirety.

Any reference requiring a decommissioning plan, decommissioning process, inventory removal plan, facility restoration plan, or other decommissioning obligations contained within that section shall be removed from this ordinance.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

We have a second.

I will now call the roll.

Thank you.

I've already got it.

Thank you.

I'm gonna call.

He did not, that's not in my recommendation on the on the uh.

Thank you.

We've got a motion and a second.

I will call the rule.

Hergit.

Hergit no.

Lyle.

Lyle, no.

Mority.

No.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, no.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, no.

West.

West, no.

Dylan is a yes.

It is defeated.

The amendment is defeated.

And then the final required or your final ask, Commissioner.

I don't know that I have you asked about separation protector district separation on size of projects.

I don't have that information to make a good recommendation.

I just don't have it.

I don't, I don't have what you have in Nashville.

I've not seen it.

Um so we're going to leave it.

We're gonna leave it at 400 feet.

We're gonna leave it at 400 feet, which was asked to, ladies and gentlemen, you're getting thank you.

We now have ladies and gentlemen, members of the commission, we now have to go to your ballots, Bryce.

Do you have a grandfather amendment?

Uh President Dylan.

Uh, the language I have provided is existing.

Uh this would be an additional language for existing uh data center uses.

Uh existing constructed or previously approved uses that fall underneath the definition of a data center facility from the adoption ordinance, effective date.

Uh, shall we remain in compliance with their existing zone uh base zoning district?

I will make that motion.

Do we have a second for grandfathered situations?

Second, thank you.

I'm gonna go to the call the roll.

This is on grandfathered situation on existing data centers.

Motion has been made by myself, seconded by Commissioner Murphy.

Hergitt, yes, Lyle Lyle, no.

Moreity.

Moreity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher, Schumacher, yes.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes, that amendment also passes seven to one.

So we have three amendments that go into the ordinance as recorded.

I now ask members of the commission to go to your ballots to vote on SU 47.

President Dylan, point of order.

Uh the symbolic gesture from the city council on the moratorium.

I think speaks to this exact moment that we're in right now.

There is a lot of fervor about this, and we just went over dozens of different suggestions today in this room that we have not yet even seen written, so that we can review them in tandem with the other things that you already presented as an amendment.

So, in lieu of the mere ludicracy of the idea of presenting an amendment to an amendment that we haven't even seen written yet, I move that we pause this conversation and table it so that we can let the staff absorb the suggestions that were made, not only by the commissioners, but also the remonstrators and the petitioners today, so that we could have a more compelling narrative so that we can review on the next occasion we get to discuss this.

Thank you, Commissioner Lyle.

We have an agreement with the city council.

They can vote this up or down, they can make amendments to it.

They're waiting on it.

Point of order.

I've asked everybody to go to your ballots and vote.

You can vote no, you can vote yes.

Go to your ballots.

Okay.

Oh zero zero one.

City of Indianapolis, Marion County.

There were eight ballots cast.

There were five yes votes, three no votes.

The amendment has been approved.

SU forty seven.

Now we'll move to the city council for their amendments, their review, what they want to do, whether it is in their court at this point in time.

Ladies and gentlemen, our meeting is adjourned.

Thank you for being here.