So we're gonna go ahead and call today's special housing urban development and zoning committee meetings to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Alderman Collin.

Alderman Sweitzer.

Vice Chair Sweitzer.

I'm sorry, Vice Chair Sony.

Alderman Browning.

Alderman Aldrich.

Present.

Chair Clark Hubbard?

Here.

We have four present.

We have a quorum.

All right.

With that, we'll uh don't have minutes to review because we're just carrying on.

Um and we're going to continue to carry on.

Try our best to get this right, right?

So what we're gonna do is change the agenda around a little bit today, because I apologize.

I'm gonna have to step out to go to a legislation and rules committee for us about five, ten minutes and then come back.

But I don't want to miss any of the public comments.

So I'm asking for us to switch the agenda around.

We're gonna start with public comment.

Please make sure you signed up.

After that, I'll recognize Auto Woman uh Sweitzer on her bill, and she has some speakers that'll come up with her as well.

You'll hear everyone in the room that signed up to speak.

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

Thank you.

And anyone online, if you signed up to speak or would like to speak, please raise your hand so you can be moved over.

And again, uh Madam Clark or Mr.

Clerk are gonna call your name when you stand up, say your name, your ward, or your affiliation, uh, and then you can proceed with your three minutes of testimony.

Thank you.

Our first speaker in the room is Matt O'Leary.

She had a question.

Mr.

O'Leary.

She's go he's going to get up.

I'm sorry, what did you say?

Okay.

Joe Delea.

There you go.

Okay.

Test, test, test.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Madam Chairwoman, and members of the committee.

Uh my name is Joe Dele.

I'm a businessman in both wards four and six, and I'm a proponent of reasonable data center oversight.

Uh I've attended all the meetings, and it's become abundantly clear that there's some additional time needs to be studied in review.

But I understand or here that there will be a motion today to pass this out of committee.

I was on a call today with Amran, and and they provided uh they indicated they provided the staff and several other persons with data showing that the bill in its current form is on a but unattainable with respect to renewable energy credits.

So I have to ask myself why does the current language in the bill that the sole utility provider, Amran, as indicated is unattainable, remain in the bill.

This would lead a reasonable person to believe that the true intent of the bill is to ban data.

If that is the case, then you should make the board's intentions clear and tell everybody what bill 49's intention is.

Mysteriously disappear.

I would encourage all the members to understand what unbundled and bundled renewable energy credits clearly are and to consult with the Amran representative to assess their capacity to provide them.

Please do not pass something out of committee until you clearly understand this important this important point regarding renewable energy credits, and currently in Bill 49 is unachievable.

As Albert, as Alderman Aldridge commented yesterday, we need to get this right, and we are a long way from that, giving that our sole utility provider is indicated the current bill is faithfully flawed.

Thus, I ask you not to pass Bill 49 out of committee today.

Thank you.

Do I need to be sworn in?

I do.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Thanks for the opportunity to testify again in front of this committee.

I just wanted to report that after a lot of work over the last 24 hours.

Um the uh I represent the Wash App Sid.

Um we have come to a general agreement uh with the sponsor of the legislation and support amendment four as well as uh passing out of committee.

I appreciate the effort led by Audible Woman Schweitzer as well as the rest of this committee.

Um, so I'm pleased to be able to testify and support.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Abby Gunthery online.

Hi, my name is Abigail Gunther, and I live in Ward 7.

Um, I'm just here in favor of the regulations.

Um, I do think that community consent is important, so I think they could be stronger, but I think it's more important that we get regulations in place to begin with.

Um, and as far as the renewable energy credits, um, I just want to push back on that and kind of emphasize what Alderwoman Schweitzer said yesterday, um, which is you know, the city wants to meet their sustainable climate goals, and if the renewable energy credits aren't available, then maybe that this kind of industry doesn't belong in our city.

So thank you.

Next speaker, Lauren Fila.

Hi, I'm Lauren Phila.

I live in Maplewood.

I'm the co-chair of Socialist Green Eastern Missouri.

I won't reiterate what I said yesterday, but I do want to thank the work that Ann Schweitzer's done on the regulation so far, the amendment from Alderman Aldridge, and the additional bill from Alderwoman Sonier.

Um, I know this isn't a question and answer session, but I'm going to ask a question, and I'm hoping that all of you will answer it during the time that you have to comment because we've asked it many times.

And that question is if you do believe that residents should be able to consent to a very risky facility being built near their neighborhoods.

I don't want to hear the obsifications that we heard from some of the committee yesterday comparing data centers to like the automotive industry.

And this is historically unprecedented in terms of noise, sound, air pollution, energy use, and water use.

So I want to hear from each person when the time is open for you to speak.

If you believe that residents have a right to consent to those risks, and if you would be willing to fight for residents' right to consent to those risks, either an amendment to these regulations or into something separate at the Board of Alders, but it cannot wait until next session.

It's urgent.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lewis Hamilton.

Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee.

I'm Lewis Hamilton.

I'm a resident of Ward 8.

Uh, I've been involved in the discussions and back and forth at the planning commission with this board bill with respect to the interests of my client, the global building downtown, which is a longtime existing uh data center.

And uh we're concerned that the the that the existing operators, primarily downtown that have been in business for in some cases 25 years and have operated uh lawfully and and without any uh issues that their interests not be interrupted by any new action by this by the city.

It's taken some time to get to it, but I believe that the amendments that are going to be offered today will satisfy the the concerns of of my client, the globe, and and perhaps the other uh existing operators downtown.

So I'm here to speak in favor of this bill as shall be amended by the board of Alderman.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Danny Danny Kahn.

Next speaker.

Ryan Daibo online.

Uh hi, can you hear me?

My name is Brian Devil.

Um, I live in the county, but I work in Ward 10.

Um, I was at the meeting yesterday.

I'm not gonna repeat myself.

Um, I have this short comment.

Uh nobody wants these data centers in St.

Louis.

They are hazardous to the health of people that live near them, and they are harmful to residents as a whole.

If lunar water are air and create huge amount of noise.

If you have been listening to the public, you should be well aware of that.

There is huge public outrage that we use these things because we know what happens to the people that live near them.

We don't want that for ourselves, and we don't want that for our friends and neighbors.

If they must be built, which again they do not, and no one wants them, except for greedy developers and those that believe they can profit off of they must be strictly regulated.

If these cannot be built with regulations that ensure our health and our environment is protected, then they shouldn't be built at all.

And I I would ask you to pass uh for bill 49.

That's it.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Henry Eubank.

Uh good afternoon.

My name is Henry Eubank.

I'm the director of public policy at Greater St.

Louis Inc.

I want to start by thanking the chairwoman and the members of the committee for your diligent and hard work on this issue.

Uh it's really important.

More so want to extend our gratitude to Miriam Keller and the rest of the planning staff for their diligent work for nearly a year on this framework.

Uh, they've been under a lot of pressure.

However, as the regulations stand today, there are a number of provisions we find problematic that will certainly discourage and effectively prohibit data center investment in the city of St.

Louis, and they weren't reconsideration.

Uh, you heard us speak about those yesterday and you received written comment as well.

Uh, two of those provisions I want to focus on today act as a de facto ban on data center development in the city of St.

Louis.

The renewable energy requirements and the public impact agreement.

Excuse me, requiring 50% renewable energy preoccupants pre-occupancy and 95% by year 10 exceeds the regional capacity in what is possible.

Uh, with the 25% local uh renewable energy credit cap uh compliance becomes prohibitably expensive and effectively blocks these projects.

Uh, this particular regulation acts as a ban on major data center development in the city of St.

Louis.

There's no pathway to achieve the level of renewable energy on the timeline you have set in this bill.

I believe that y'all know this, and that is evidenced by members of the committee stating that if these projects cannot achieve these unrealistic renewable energy be renewable energy goals, that they are wrong for the city of St.

Louis.

Um I don't think economic development done responsibly is wrong for the city of St.

Louis.

Uh while the city does not have goals on economic development or solving the financial woes plaguing city operations, enacting this renewable policy will certainly stifle the historic capital assessment we're seeing occur around the country and around this state.

We urge the committee to slow this process down and take the time needed to fully understand what is possible for renewable energy production.

Again, as written, the the unrealistic renewable energy requirement is blatant and is blatant in its intention to ban major data center development in the city of St.

Louis just without being front about the intent.

Uh next, the public impact agreement.

Um having this public impact agreement process run parallel to the uh board public service and the conditional use permit process is is helpful.

Uh, but ultimately, you know, pitching uh approval of that PIA to the to two-thirds of the Board of Aldermen.

Uh, in our view, kind of acts as another ban on these projects.

You know, hypothetically, if you had alders that are against status center development of all kind, uh that would make that be a pretty steep bar uh or steep hill to climb at the board.

Um, you know, having that PIA get approved by the Board of Public Service where that conditional use permit is already gonna be running through uh might make might make a bit more sense.

Uh to close sensible regulation will not be what stifles investment into the city.

It's uncertainty around who is approving the project.

The renewable standards are not attainable.

PIA offers uncertainty to the process and offers the board of Alderman an opportunity to veto economic development opportunity for parts of the city they do not represent.

Uh again, I want to urge the committee to slow down with this process, take some more time to uh for some fact-finding, especially around the renewable energy.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Tina Feel online.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tina Sweet T.

Peel, and I live in the ninth ward.

First, I'd like to thank the planning department and HUDS committee for the work they have put into these regulations, especially all the women's sweat servants on air.

As a city planner and former all the women of the 17th ward, I oppose the current proposed data center regulations for two primary reasons.

First, the legislation is being rushed.

More time is needed to properly discuss and improve these regulations.

The urgency to finalize them before the Board of Alder People's Summer Recess is a manufactured deadline, not a planning necessity.

Rushing legislation because of legislative calendar is poor city planning, and it has contributed many of the city's failed development decisions over the past several decades.

I'm not suggesting this process should take another two years.

I believe these regulations could and should be completed by the end of this year, but we should not approve half-finished legislation simply because summer recess is approaching.

My primary request is simple.

I ask that this board amend the legislation to give residents the right to consent whenever a data center is proposed in the city of St.

Louis.

This is the same request that I and many other residents made before the planning commission on May 18th, 2026.

We asked the commission, the commission to include a provision similar to the city's existing liquor license process, where residents most directly affected have the opportunity to approve or oppose a proposed business in their neighborhood.

Unfortunately, that recommendation was not included in the legislation before you today.

Too often residents' voices are overlooked in major development decisions.

For decades, the city has pursued one silver bullet project after another, only to watch many of them fail.

Consider just a few examples.

Paul McKee's North Regeneration Project.

Tax incentives were given to him.

His three-room hospital ran into financial trouble and failed.

Joe Edwards loop trolley to nowhere.

How can a trolley that has no commuter function to bring people to their jobs be economically viable?

It can't.

And the loop trolley to nowhere failed.

Green Street's Armory Entertainment Center, which was given a tip despite Green Street Phil Hall's developer owing millions of property taxes to the city.

It failed.

Each of these silver bullet projects promised transformational change.

Each ultimately failed to deliver on those promises, while residents bore the consequences.

As an all woman, I voted against the armory tip, not because I knew about the developers' unpaid taxes, which I did not, but because I believe the legislation lacked meaningful accountability if the project failed.

Unfortunately, those concerns proved well founded.

These projects all share one common lesson.

Large development should not move forward without meaningful public accountability and community input.

Giving us citizens the right to consent would strengthen that accountability.

Give the citizens a vote and a voice and see their choices work.

My second concern is equity.

These proposed regulations constantly I will just I'll just finish.

These proposed data centers are primarily on the north side.

Please give us citizens a meaningful voice in shaping the future of our community.

Thank you.

Henry, you Henry Robertson.

Thank you.

I would like to hear what Amran's reason is why the renewable energy goals can't be met.

It might have something to do with the Emirn themselves because they can make more money building nuclear and natural gas generation than renewables.

I heard something in the uh amendments last year that caught my attention.

That was unbundled recs.

And I have a history of unbundled recs.

I was a lawyer with a Great Rivers Environmental Law Center.

I represented in environmental organizations of the PSC trying to get the utilities to do more renewable energy efficiency.

And my I have a very negative opinion of unbundled recs.

Um, you know, all electricity is like so renewable energy certificates were invented to capture the environmental value of renewable energy.

And so a company can buy renewable energy and get the rec and that proofs that's proof that they can show the world that they're meeting whatever environmental goals they have.

Unbundled recs, however, are not sold together with the electricity that they represent.

They're just floating out there in the market, being bought and sold back and forth until somebody finally buys them for their purpose of using them.

They can only be used once to prove that you are buying or using renewable energy, and then they have to be retired.

They go to registry that are created to keep track of those things.

But they don't really prove much, is as uh Ms.

Russell said yesterday, you can buy one for a buck.

So, you know, if if we must go down the road of allowing unbundled recs to be used, I would like to see that uh the data center be required by some mechanism to take the value of those recs and reinvest it in new renewable energy, otherwise unbundled recs for nothing.

Thank you.

Mary Ellen Parmeter.

Hello, yes.

Uh hi, my name is Mary Ellen Parmenter.

I'm a resident of the fifth ward.

Uh and I am testifying in favor of greater regulations of data centers and support of Bill 49.

Um in particular, I think the I've been to a number of the planning commission meetings, and I think one of the biggest things that is currently missing from the regulations is residents having a right to consent to data centers in their neighborhood.

Um, we've seen with the midtown data center that we don't have sufficient protections right now for when residents don't want to uh have the risks and the downsides of a data center in their immediate area.

Um, so I would advocate for that.

Uh, I also want to push back on the argument that I've heard at every meeting I've attended, which is that AI is here to stay.

We don't want to get left behind.

Data centers are here to stay.

And it's a weak argument.

If you don't have real arguments for the benefits economically and community-wise for the data center you're building, then um like I think it just shows that they don't have the evidence that this will be a long-term economic benefit to build these high capacity data centers.

Um so I would push back on that idea.

Um, and uh well, yeah, just urge the Board of Aldermans to support regulations and uh to oppose high capacity data centers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone who hasn't signed up if you want to speak, please sign the sign up sheet.

And Nick Hartler, you're the next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Nick Hartzler with Steadfast City and a first word resident.

Um, I won't uh uh belabor too many points.

I was told yesterday that I was a terrible speaker, so I hope to be better today.

Um so I really would just want to echo what Mr.

Ubek and Mr.

said um specifically around the language around the renewable energy credits.

Um I hope you'll consider and adopt the language that Amarin you know has said is is attainable and earnable for these projects.

I think that's really what this all comes down to is what what you know what can be done reasonably within this.

You know, we we support regulations.

Regulations provide predictability in the throughout this process.

Um to say that we don't uh support regulations is is wrong, misrepresenting us.

So I hope you'll consider that, and then just one kind of tangential point that I didn't bring up that I missed an opportunity yesterday uh during Board Bill 55.

But in within Board Bill 55, it sets a definition for the data centers.

I hope on the floor you'll consider it an amendment that states um at a trigger clause that whenever board bill 49 is adopted, uh the language in there becomes the definitions tied to that because zoning regulations are much more secure, they can't be changed as easily.

Where otherwise we're gonna have two definitions floating out in the city code.

So hope you'll take up that thought.

Thank you.

Hello, I am a resident of the turn of camera on, please.

Oh, yeah.

Sorry.

Can you see me?

Yes.

Excellent.

My name's Nahela Pittman.

I am a R Synod Board.

Um, I support having regulations, firm regulations for data centers in St.

Louis.

I would like to thank Alder Roman and Schweitzer for your work on this bill.

I agree that with our city's sustainability goals, anything less than 100% clean energy is inappropriate.

And if that pathway is not achievable, then data center developments in our city are not achievable.

There's widespread opposition to these projects.

And if the residents say no, if we have certain goals we would like to achieve for our city, we're not required to bend our regulations to make it possible for someone to put in developments because they want it against the will of the people.

Notice that the very people trying to convince us that AI and data centers are inevitable, are the same people who stand to benefit from these dangerous developments without feeling the impacts.

That being said, I largely support these regulations, but I do feel strongly that there needs to be clear language that requires community consent.

Citizens have the right to consent to what is built in our city because we are the ones impacted by the developments that are built here, not the out-of-state developers.

We feel the impacts.

We have a right to say what we want and what we don't want.

What happened with the Armory Data Center project approval fractured a lot of trust with the community and city leadership.

So please show us that you care about our voices by putting it in writing.

Require community oversight.

Overall, I support this bill, but that community oversight is imperative.

Thank you.

Our final speaker is DC.

Online.

Hi, and thank you for the opportunity to um discuss our thoughts regarding this.

Um, I work in Ward 11 and will be um directly impacted by this.

I'm concerned about health and environmental um negative health and environmental effects from this, as somebody that grew up in North County and was all too aware of the health and environmental consequences of Coldwater Creek.

This is something that we may not know the negative effects until years down the road, um, sometimes decades down the road, and um want that to be considered.

Um, additionally, the application for data centers only requires a third-party professional environment or study.

It does not adequately specify credit credential, unlike the required economic impact report or the annual noise reporting.

Um similar regulations in Jefferson County mandate that the environmental engineer be chosen by the county as opposed to being chosen by the developers.

Um I support the right to consent.

I don't support this data center, but in the event that it does, I guess economic development trumps um quality of life.

Um, I do support these regulations.

Um we currently have no monitoring in place for heat or noise level, and this interim bill only requires annual reporting of noise and heat.

The self-reporting of heat is right for manipulation and misrepresentation.

Right now, major data centers require a 600 feet setback from key areas.

Developers and other pro-data center proponents will push to narrow it down to 300 feet, and we need to ensure that protections are in place for homes, schools, and parks.

The bill currently forbids a data center that solely relies on evaporative cooling, but without specifying an actual limit.

A developer could easily do 99% evaporative and 1% dry cooling in college a day.

Um, I, in the event that this does have to go through, I feel like the citizens need transparency.

They need this data center needs to abide by strict regulations.

And um, please consider the health and environmental impacts that this will have on the citizens surrounding this.

Thank you.

That was our final speaker.

Thank you, Ottawa Schweitzer.

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

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

Okay, so go ahead and speak, and then we can go through your amendments and then we'll go through the committee for discussion.

And any authors who are online, I will give you guys give you all the opportunity to speak as well.

Okay.

Um so I really appreciate the continued work of this committee.

I do not take it lightly that this bill is taking up a lot of time uh from a lot of people, including those in the room who've come multiple times to speak.

Um, you know, they I want to address some of the public comments that were made.

Um, and then as well as uh I have a short presentation that the Missouri Coalition for the Environment will give on urban heat islands, which I think is is really important part of this conversation.

Um, I think I get more than three minutes.

Uh yes, you do on the movement.

Um a few things to bring up.

Um earlier in June, the Health and Hospitals Board uh did meet, and that's uh staffed by people who work in the city health department and then is staffed by by experts in health in the field.

Um, you know, some someone um uh who's been involved in this conversation pointed this, pointed me to that conversation that they were having, and I think it was a really helpful thing to um talk about.

You know, we're not just talking about environmental concerns, like we think of when we think of sustainability, or we're not just talking about um sustainability when we talk about environmental concerns.

We are also talking about the effects that these environmental issues have on our health as uh people of the city of St.

Louis.

So a few things that the doctors on the and that board discussed and and um really gave voice to some of the reasons why these regulations are so important.

Um, one of those things are the noise and emissions from this from this use and how that can disrupt sleep patterns and cause all sorts of other issues that people will deal with uh in their lives, as well as the light concerns, which we've done a pretty good job addressing in the bill, uh, but only if the regulations are in in effect, do we actually have things in place to deal with those concerns?

Um the heat impacts of data centers, these are things that can be felt for great distances from data centers, and even especially in the ones that we're considering in the major category.

Uh, we already know that we have a uh heat issue in the city of St.

Louis.

Uh the Missouri Coalition for the Environment is going to give some information on that current issue as it stands, and then how it stands to be exacerbated by the approval of many more data centers in the city of St.

Louis.

I think it's really important for us to take that in, uh, especially as we've seen uh heat and the it temperatures just dramatically increase uh over time.

And we are expecting it to continue to happen if we do nothing, but if we are adding this kind of use uh or proliferating this kind of use in the city of St.

Louis, we should expect it to increase um much more dramatically.

Um so we need to have we need to have these strong regulations in place to address many of these things, these health concerns, which I feel like I haven't done enough to explain.

It's not just in you know sustainability, but it's also how that how the environmental triggers here affect our health.

Um, you know, we're we don't really know the long-term effects of this industry, especially the larger data, the larger um energy users that are being considered in the standard and and major definitions of data centers.

Umce we open the door, you know, we're we're going to have that door open.

Um, these regulations really allow continuous operation.

Um, and the the uh so that's something that's really important to to make sure that we are thoughtful uh at this time.

Um the comments made yesterday by Ms.

Killas representing the locust business district, I think were others that really explained why these regulations on standard, especially on standard and major data centers are so important.

They are negotiating for their business district with this building that and this use that has doesn't have to follow the regulations that are in front of us today.

They're you know, doing a good job being a good neighbor, according to Ms.

Kitlaus, uh, so far.

But what if they wanted to say no to something?

You know, and then you're in an apartment building right nearby, and you've got this, you know, different um generator testing schedules or emissions or cooling fans or all of these things that our regulation here are striving to address.

Um, and because that data center was permitted before the executive order even existed, it wasn't something that was conditional.

So they're really completely relying on the goodwill of the data center operator for um working with them on things.

Um yeah, I I want to push back a little bit on the comments that have been made about this being a ban with another name.

Um so there are three categories of data centers outlined in this bill.

The microcategory does not have any of the renewable requirements that the standard and major data centers reach up to.

So it is absolutely not a ban because the micro data centers would not have to conform with those pieces.

So that is just false, and I wish you would stop calling my colleagues and telling them that.

Um, so you know, the micro data center piece is not something that is tied to the um renewable requirement, so is not something that um you know that even applies to at all.

So um let's stick with the what's in the bill and and what's true just for the ease of conversation.

Um for standard and major data centers having to follow renewable requirements.

I will say it over and over and over again.

We do not regulate AMRIN.

We do not regulate the industry that provides electricity.

Uh what we do have control over is meeting our comprehensive plan in the city of St.

And you know, listening to the people we represent who hope that we're taking those things seriously, even to the point of saying that these that this regulations are too weak, that they should be stronger, that they're not good enough.

So that is something that I'm hearing more often than almost anything else.

Um we're hearing from people paid by this industry that they believe the renewable requirements are a ban, um, which is again not true because the micro data centers are not subject to them.

And the standard and major data centers, we don't know yet how that will um play out when the what one of those companies comes and applies under this chapter.

They will have to show their megawatted use how much they plan on using and talk with the electric service provider about what they need to meet in the regulations.

Um if at that time the electric service provider says they can't do it, then that is the conversation that they're having with the electric service provider.

What I think is possible is that there will only be so many of these that can happen under these regulations.

And I think that's okay because I don't think the people of St.

Louis want to see a proliferation of this industry that is unchecked.

So if to meet our sustainability goals, the first few data centers that apply are able to meet these goals, which I think they could, then perhaps the 10th or 15th or 20th data center that applies can't.

But that's okay because we have these goals in place and we're trying to meet them.

So I think that is really important.

Um, I understand that infinity data centers wouldn't be possible under these um sustainability goals, just with how much energy needs to be built.

But I think it's also important to remember that Amir is currently working on their integrated resource plan and an update to that.

So they will be showing soon how they plan to meet that in the demands of this emerging industry.

This is an industry that, regardless of whether it's renewable power generation, nuclear, or natural gas, it will need more power, more power generation will need to be built across the grid in order to meet the demands of this industry.

And so I think that that is something that needs to be part of the conversation as well, whether that's renewable nuclear uh or a gas, that's not really up to us.

What's up to us is being able to follow the provisions of our sustainability plan.

That is that is all that we're that is up to us.

Um I just think that that is really important and needs to be part of of the conversation.

Um, with that, I would like to turn it over to Elise Schaefer to talk more about the heat island impacts.

So that can be something that is on the record for our committee's consideration.

Do you need to hook up your own computer?

I certainly can.

Can we hook up our computer?

This isn't this right presentation.

Okay, fine.

What's going on?

Wonderful.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

Uh, and thank you, Alderwoman Schweitzer, for inviting me to speak on this issue.

Thank you again, uh, Vice Chair Sonier and members of the committee.

I know you've heard a lot on this topic, and I will try to be as brief as possible.

For those who don't know me, my name is Elise Schaefer, and I am here with Missouri Coalition for the Environment.

We're a legislative advocacy organization fighting for environmental issues that impact people across the state of Missouri.

And I feel very lucky to work specifically in the city of St.

Louis as well as in Jefferson City.

Madam Clerk, if we could go to the next slide.

So the Alderwoman wanted me to address specifically the issue of the urban heat island in St.

Louis.

And this map shows you a snapshot from a few years ago illustrating what the urban heat island is.

And it's very simply put the fact that the city is hotter than the surrounding areas.

So this image shows you about a 10-degree temperature differential between the city of St.

Louis and the surrounding rural areas.

And if we can go to the next slide, we can talk about some of the reasons why that differential exists.

There are sort of indirect impacts on why it's getting hotter overall.

And I won't belabor the point on energy.

I think Alderwoman Schweitzer has done a phenomenal job, and previous presenters have done a phenomenal job explaining that if we burn more fossil fuels and we will have to in order to accommodate any data centers in the city of St.

Louis, we will be increasing the overall temperature of the globe because we will be emitting fossil fuel emissions like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

That will make the earth hotter and harder for the earth overall to cool down.

Those are emissions that last hundreds of years in the atmosphere.

The direct impacts of data centers on the urban heat island.

Sorry, the direct causes of the urban heat island in the city are the actual fabric of our city.

So the beautiful brick architecture, which is why I love St.

Louis, the asphalt, the concrete, these things are more densely concentrated in the city than they are in surrounding areas, and they hold on to heat for longer.

So they heat up quicker, they hold on to that heat longer, and then they're releasing that overnight, whereas surrounding areas have the chance to cool down, and then that is what we call the urban heat island.

Additionally, our city is very old.

The average age of a home, I believe, is over 100 years old in the city, and that means our buildings are not very efficient, which means you have to use more air conditioning.

And the city keeps getting hotter in a negative feedback loop.

And if we could go to the next slide.

And we have to understand the impact that data centers will have on increasing temperatures in the city.

And if we could go to the next slide, please.

So I'm running specifically on a couple specific papers.

But I wanted to first talk about land surface temperature, because temperatures measured both on the land and in the air.

And research has shown definitively that data centers are increasing the temperature by four degrees on average within 10 kilometers of a given data center.

The setbacks in this bill that are being asked for are 300 feet for standard data centers and 600 feet for major data centers.

They will not be good enough setbacks to avoid this impact on residential neighborhoods in the city of St.

Louis, or for that matter, on any neighborhood in the city of St.

Louis.

And if we could go to the next slide.

And it was emitting the same amount of heat as approximately 40,000 households.

And if we could go to the next slide.

So again, uh much farther than the current regulations go, or where these impacts are going to be felt.

And if we could go to my next slide, just to kind of put a fine point on this whole issue here in St.

Louis, we have seen the number of 100 degree days double over the past 30 years.

And if we could go to my final slide, we will see that number, it's estimated double in the next 30 years.

So it's going to keep getting hotter.

And as the Alderwoman said, that's if we don't invite data centers into our city.

But if we do, that problem will surely be worse, and the public health impacts will also surely be worse.

And my thanks again to the Alderwoman for inviting me to speak and for your time listening to this presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

If there are any specific questions for the specifically you or the Alderwoman.

Great.

Thanks, Vice Chair.

No problem.

Alderman Cohn.

No.

I'm going to go through committee and then come to the rest of the August Online.

Alderman Browning.

Thank you, Ms.

Schaefer.

I really appreciate the presentation and the information.

I I think the people that are saying we don't need to pass these regulations now that we wait are both ignoring the timeline that we've been on, which is that we've had three planning commission meetings, at least three, uh, and uh lots of public comment.

And now this is the third committee meeting.

Uh, I think we should pass these as soon as possible because we've already seen um something that could be described as a large or even hyperscale data center approved by our Board of Public Service, which I don't think I'm I don't think I'm surprising any money when I say that I think they made the wrong decision there.

I expressed as much when they made that decision.

Uh and we are now finding out the effects of these large uh data centers in our city.

And you know, I I wrestle, I think we all wrestle with this as decision makers at our city.

That the decisions we make today, how are they gonna look 20, 30 years from now?

Because we can easily look back 20, 30 years ago and see the wrong decisions we've made and how it's affected our residents in our city.

And this is one of those topics where I don't think I'm going to regret putting in place as strong a regulations as possible because as that information showed, the number of hundred degree days doubling and set to double again.

I I wonder how many people in this room know somebody who's died from heat.

I do.

I've had ward constituents die from heat.

It's awful to hear that news.

It's awful to have to talk to their family members and know they lost someone because they were sitting alone in their house and didn't have air conditioning, which if you've knocked doors in our city, you know there's a lot of places in our city that don't have air conditioning.

So these are decisions that we're having to make that really do have very real effects on people in this city.

And I understand how easy it is to get dollar signs in our eyes and think that we found the next solution for the city, but if we're not making those decisions in with respect to the most valuable asset our city has, which is our people, then I don't think that we're making you know, we're not giving this the diligence it deserves.

Um I guess my question for you, Ms.

Schaefer, is that uh you come from this from an environmental perspective.

Uh and you're not hiding that, you're being very clear about your perspective on this, but knowing that all these things interact with each other.

Is it your thought that micro data centers are the main threat here when it comes to rising temperatures?

Or is there a distinction to be made between the size and the scale of these?

There's absolutely a distinction that should be made, and I think that that distinction is well addressed by the bill.

Um of the papers, and I'm happy to share both or either of those with any of the committee members who are interested, or any of your colleagues if this makes it uh to the full board.

But um we're seeing those impacts um, like I said, at that 30 megawatt threshold.

So I think that that was very wisely chosen.

Um much smaller sites that can be contained, simply don't put off as much heat.

Um therefore should be regulated differently.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

And I agree.

I think that these regulations very thoughtfully uh understand the nuance to this issue and really try to split the difference while at the same time protecting the residents of the city.

So I appreciate your time today.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Thank you for being here.

I'm really, I'll save my question around the data center part uh later, but appreciate the work that uh you do and uh thankful for the angle that you're coming at this with to try to figure out a solution.

So I appreciate your leadership.

Thanks, Alderman.

I appreciated the presentation as well.

Um I thought it was uh good information.

I think it's important to keep the impacts that this will have on people and their quality of life in context.

And I think your presentation was helpful.

So thank you for that.

I apologize for missing the presentation.

I cannot wait to go back in here presentation.

But because I see you and follow you and know how you present in community, I know whatever it is, is um it definitely cleared from my colleagues' comments and was impactful.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And um, Alder Woman Boyd.

Yes, ma'am, can you all hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, thank you for your presentation in regards to environmental, but I guess my concern is uh as being the chair of the health and human development committee.

We've been talking about environmental issues for a while.

So this heat is one piece of the environmental.

So my question to you, ma'am, is with the you telling us about the heat.

So the the uh data centers that's already in existence, how are they impacting our environment?

Because we had what 12, 13 data centers.

So what I'm hearing is you saying the data centers are bringing out this heat.

So, how are these data centers impacting the city as a whole?

Absolutely.

Thank you for the question, Alder Woman.

Um, they definitely are already contributing to the um heat island that we're experiencing in the city.

Um I believe the data centers that we have in the city right now are of much, much, much smaller scale to Alderman Browning's question than the ones that are most heavily regulated in this bill.

So uh the worst impacts would happen with the largest data centers.

Uh so the ones that are in that five, 10 megawatt range simply aren't putting out as much heat because they're not using as much energy and they're not using as much equipment as the larger facilities, and those are the ones that will put out more heat and exacerbate the process.

And so uh as far as uh environment, I guess I'm I'm concerned because nobody is looking at the environment as a whole, for example, COVID.

That was environmental.

Nobody saw the urgency to address that environment danger within our city.

The tornado, nobody saw the environmental issues in that part.

So I I guess what I'm saying is I understand her looking at after the fact because the cow is out, the gate is closed.

I understand that, but I think people need to be careful because as a city, we have impacted our residents for a long time environmentally, and it's just seems to me it's just certain things that they bring experts to talk about how it's impacting our citizens.

Yeah, I do have citizens in my community that have been impacted with no air, but I also have residents in my community that have been impacted by cancer, by asthma and the COVID, because our numbers are higher.

Infant immortality because of environmental issues, and so it's not that I'm saying I'm totally want to agree with this bill, but I'm saying we need to be careful when we start putting this information out to put fear into our city when it's other things people are ignoring in certain communities, and they don't get this attention as they're getting as this is getting now.

But thank you for bringing that up, and I appreciate it.

But I just think you need it, we need to look as a city as a whole in regards to impact in our citizens.

Thank you.

Well and if I may chairwoman and an alderwoman address some of those concerns the I don't think the the cows out of the pasture yet and the adding more greenhouse gas emissions with these standard and large data centers will only exacerbate most of environmental issues older women brought up natural disasters like tornadoes included asthma included um and I would encourage you to take all of those things into account when considering today.

Thank you so much.

Thank you and thank you for coming to give that that presentation I think it's really helpful um and just helps the members of the board members of the committee to really understand the impact of this use especially as we start considering these larger standard and major data centers that we really just haven't seen yet in our city or seen yet operational we do have a 27 megawatt facility currently being built that we will know more about as it as it turns on.

I have a few amendments today I know that they were spoken about briefly um by some of the current data center operators and their representatives there are three amendments um two of them amend the the bill itself um which is just helps us so that when we refer to something in the amendment for the the current operators that it is correctly written in the bill itself so it's all sort of part of the same same thing even though it's broken into three pieces.

So I can go I'd like to start with amendment number nine um which is the longest one if that's possible.

Great.

Thank you.

So as has been said we spent many many hours um going through the applicability requirements for this chapter the new facility section has been updated um the new facility language has been updated uh to make sure that full compliance is required for new data centers but to specify that new data center occupants within existing data center buildings are addressed further on in the non-conforming use section so we agreed on that um we agreed on the expansions uh for data centers well it really doesn't apply to them but it this this part of the chapter uh any expansions of data centers that are uh conditionally approved under this chapter if they expand they need to comply with the chat with um with the with the chapter going forward and that includes any changes in their size classification so it doesn't change anything um section c is where we start getting a lot of the a lot of the changes um it's we're discussing the expansion or enlargement of a structure and then structural alterations so there's an agreement that if the exterior the physical um building increases in size uh with various um clauses about backup generators and and screening and things like that not being part of that physical enlargement um that there would be full compliance um but then with their structural alterations which do not enlarge the physical exterior footprint there are specifics written out for uh current nonconforming uses so it requires the full compliance with the noise and vibration control sections uh for the building system equipment design and screening um that's solely applicable in relation to new equipment or new backup generators associated with the structural alteration um the backup power systems that is solely for any backup general new backup generators associated with the structural alterations uh and there was some discussion of you know in general we're asking we're not asking we're requiring the regulation for tier four uh generators um but with some of the currently operating data centers operating tier two is part of their their business model and what they have built in uh as what they what they do on on site and um so where there's discussion about that but a compromise reached there um we have full compliance with electronic waste disposal requirements uh the PUE uh that is requirements in the bill um with these current um data center operators not planning for having those PUE thresholds uh we have sit instead had a a goal um as 1.35 or better and submit and that they have to submit reports of the facilities peak PUE and the proceeding for the preceding year and annualized PUE by May 1st each year if possible um that one of the the state currently operating facilities is in a situation where they have data centers as tenants and don't necessarily receive all of that information from their tenants uh so that makes it harder for them um and nearly impossible to submit that information uh we have the um some of them have goals for renewable energy so asking even if they do or do not have goals that they would be submitting the scope schedule and budget for the information of the voluntary renewable energy uses um and then specifies that the currently operating uh the nonconforming data centers have no minimal renewable energy requirement um again that goes back to you know they have this grandfathered use and have already have contracts in place and wanting to make that clear for them um then it goes into the reporting requirements um and then

So asking, even if they do or do not have goals, that they would be submitting the scope, schedule, and budget for the implementation of the voluntary renewable energy uses.

Again, that goes back to you know they have this grandfathered use and have already have contracts in place and wanting to make that clear for them.

Then it goes into the reporting requirements and then that the when those reporting are uh requirements are triggered related to the structural alterations and that they would be submitting their renewable energy use in lieu uh or may submit that in lieu of the renewable energy requirements required for the facilities.

Um then it goes into if a new structure is constructed for vibration heat and noise abatement of the new backup generators that that would not be considered an expansion or enlargement, that that would be a structural alteration.

Uh we do have some language in here that was recommended uh in planning commission and for in previous parts of the or you know current parts of the bill regarding uh the type of material that's used so that you don't end up with a you know screen that is a gallant long side of a building that doesn't match or that is not compatible with the the neighborhood and ends up looking um or you know being being uh something that is not desired by the surrounding use.

So that is laid out here.

Um section D goes into the existing non-conforming uses and our non-conforming structures and previously approved facilities.

So it specific specifies that um subject to provisions of subsection C, which talk about those structural alterations and what that triggers and what enlargements trigger um that they are um basically grandfathered in.

So it specifies the backup generators.

New backup generators um are not considered an enlargement, uh including rooftop dunnage, which is very important, or that's like um a support for generators on the roof, which is very important to one of the uh downtown operators.

Um and then it also says that the building itself is the non-conforming use, uh, and then conditional use permits approved prior to the effective day.

This chapter still remain valid and in accordance with their conditions.

So that is what it does.

And I think it it if desired, it may be appropriate to have one of the current operators uh speak again on their support of this, but as you heard, um everyone agreed and um is happy with the language where it landed.

All right, we'll go through the committee out of my cow.

I want to make sure Madam Clerk, is Adam and Connell still on, or does he have the amendment?

He is on uh tier Adam and Brownie.

Uh thank you, Alderwan.

So this amendment is meant to address existing data centers in the city.

Right.

I mean, it does specify some things for the new facilities and expansions and it's about the applicability.

Uh so the majority of the time that we spent on this was the expansions of existing non-conforming structures and um the existing non-conforming uses and previously approved structures.

So if there's a current facility and it's going to expand, and I think that was a concern that was been brought up to many of us as we've been going through this process.

Um these right these regulations in this amendment are meant to coordinate with those existing data centers and figure out a path forward to make sure that we're not making them completely non-compliant with these regulations, but at the same time making sure that if they do expand, they're doing so in a way that protects the environment around them.

Yeah, so that's a great question.

So there's different language in this amendment that triggers certain levels of compliance.

If they add a floor to their building, for example, in an enlargement in that way, then full compliance is is triggered with the regulations.

Uh if they make a structural alteration, there are requirements that are triggered as well.

Um, those are laid out in subsection C or in section C, rather.

Uh, so it is written in a way that makes it clear which work with certain work happens, then what happens in terms of how they must comply.

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

Right.

So we do have a future amendment that talks about fuel storage um masonry screening.

We have it in our our bill now for the um fuel storage needs to be have masonry screening.

Um and that was a concern.

Uh, but we wanted to make sure in uh the next amendment that it's standalone fuel storage that needs to have that masonry screening, uh, and um that generators that have fuel storage, if that makes sense, and that's uh that's amendment number 10.

Um we went back and forth on that piece.

Let me see.

I don't believe that we're counting that as an enlargement.

Yeah, we have people shaking their heads, so we're not counting that as an enlargement.

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

I do not believe so.

I'm trying to see if we have that specifically called out in here.

Or where that would be.

Yeah, please.

It would not be or Caitlin Smith, policy advisor to mayor, it would not be considered an enlargement, but if they have to make any structural alterations to the site to um make that uh full fuel storage um work, then they would have to comply with everything that's under C.

When you say structural, sorry that I'm being so specific about that, but it's a real world situation that's happening right now.

Uh so I'm asking because this has a real effect on the neighbors, and um so what does that mean?

A structural improvement because like the addition of a fuel tank, I would consider that to be a new structure.

But is that under this bill defined as something that would trigger regulations that would require it to be screened?

Yeah, under um uh Missouri revised statutes, we cannot um if like new equipment is not considered um like an enlargement, which is why that was taken out.

So we can't if they're not changing the structure, we cannot add um compliance standards.

But if they do, they are and um for that specific um fuel storage, that is part of the reason why the masonry wall is under there, and they're already have agreed to put a masonry wall around that current fuel tank, and they're not planning to add another one.

Okay, all right.

That's that's my question.

Thank you.

Yeah, Altaman Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Uh thank you, Alderwoman, for bringing this forward and working with the existing data centers.

Um, I know that we want we talk about on locusts in the 14th and plenty of others in the 14th and eight um has been one of my key things and make sure as we're doing regulations that we also uh ensure that the ones that are here are still being protected.

I know there may be a lot of fill-ins right now on data centers in general, um, but it's not like they are not currently or here or haven't been here um and don't want to find us in a situation where um either it sounds like something was in state statute that we had to take out of the bill because it wouldn't have been in compliance, but don't want something where we're uh in my opinion.

I think my stance has been very clear shutting down the existing um data centers that currently have already been operating here.

So I do appreciate uh your work we're working with the the data centers to get the language right.

I think as I stated before, there's a lot of um stakeholders in this legislation for various reasons.

If it's data centers, people may like it or not.

If it's um uh labor groups who build it, people may like not may like it or not.

And I think the most important uh group is like the people that will be impacted by it.

So uh I think you're juggling a lot, um, but I do appreciate this amendment and the work that you have done with the existing data centers to be able to uh make sure that the language is right as much as possible before this gets to the full floor, and um I'll save the rest of my comments later, but I do support at least these uh two amendments.

Three all right.

So do we want to go ahead and adapt?

Yes, please.

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

Second.

Roll call.

Okay, so we have a motion to adapt amendment number nine.

So board bill 49.

Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Alderman Cone.

Aye.

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

Aye.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonye.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

We have six eye votes.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee.

Amendment number 10 uh follows along.

So this is this is important because we're talking about we refer to various sections of the bill in amendment number nine.

And one of the concerns that was brought up regarding the screening of the fuel storage versus screening of generators are just different requirements.

The fuel storage has masonry screening and the generators.

We're working on in the next amendment, we're talking about more of those differentiation between the masonry needed for fuel storage and then the type of screen for generators and having that be clear throughout the bill throughout whether you're a new or existing data center.

So board bill, so amendment number 10 to board bill 49 as amended clarifies uh that it is standalone fuel storage that is um subject to this sort of um screening type.

Um so happy to take any questions on that.

Um this might be another one where someone from the the mayor's office or staff help helps me out because that is my understanding of it, and there might be more that I missed.

Everybody sounds good.

So that's perfect.

Uh Ottawa.

No questions.

Other brownie.

Uh just a point of clarification here.

I it says beginning on page 14, line five.

And I don't know if I'm looking at the most recent version of the bill, and I think it's actually page 15 line six.

Very good, Alderman.

While other questions are asked, could we please clarify?

They already talked to the clerk about it.

Okay, so as long as we feel good about it.

As long as that's okay.

I have no questions.

Staff members are on more on top of it than I am as per usual.

Adam Aldridge.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Snay.

I don't have any questions.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

So moved.

Second.

Roll call.

It was moved by Vice Chair Saye and seconded by Alderman Browning that we adopt amendment with the call of a roll call by Alderman Coll.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Cone.

Aye.

Alderwoman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonia.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

We have six eye votes.

All right.

Thank you.

So amendment number 11 uh is regarding that differentiation the types of screening for generators and fuel storage.

Uh, and this allows the um uh uh screening of the enclosure of a generator shall include sound attenuated or soundproof enclosures that are standard for the for the original equipment manufacturer that apparently comes with when you're buying a generator.

So it's a deal.

Okay.

Alderman Cone.

Okay.

Alderman Browning.

No questions.

No questions.

Aldrich, no question.

Okay.

I'll just circle back to Alderman Cone just in case.

No questions.

Okay.

I'll make a motion we adopt amendment number 11 to Board Bill 49 as amendment committee.

Previous row.

All right.

It was moved by Alderman Aldridge, seconded by Vice Chair Sanye, that we adopt amendment 11 with the call previous row with no objection.

You may now perceive a board bill 49 as amending.

Thank you, uh, Madam Chairwoman.

I'm happy to answer questions on the on the bill or any specifics that people have now that we have it um amended.

Uh I I don't plan any uh further amendments on this bill.

I know there's been a lot of a lot of conversation about the bill changing and you know amendments happening, and you know, that's pretty standard in our legislative process that we have amendments in committee and that sometimes they're substantive, uh, and that we need to um you know get to get familiar with them, and then that happens.

That's where the work happens in committee.

This is the the third committee hearing that this bill has had.

Um the amendments that were made uh were made in the second committee hearing after people had some time to kind of digest the bill as it as it came out of planning.

Um all the amendments that I've made so far uh we've discussed and were flagged for the committee during that first hearing um that's something that was coming.

Um the renewable energy amendment that was made yesterday.

Was it yesterday?

Yesterday.

Um that was an amendment that did um slightly lessen uh the renewable requirements, um, it cut the renewable requirements in half for our entry into the market, um, which I think is quite significant.

Uh and then also uh added language for um the ability to have uh extra time at the five year mark um and specified uh how the unbundled and bundled recs work.

Um some of that language um and the definitions uh create definition changes so we would know what bundled and unbundled recs would face, uh, and how that the uh project could most um easily take what they are required to do in order to um operate in the city of St.

Louis and bring it to the electric service provider and see if that project would be able to have that um energy available.

Um and besides that, the other big amendment was the one that we adopted today that did take a lot of time and negotiation um to get to where we landed.

Um so again, I don't plan on making any further amendments to the bill.

Um and this is the bill that's in front of us today that I'm hoping does pass at the board of aldermen.

So I'm happy to take any questions now and and hear from members of the committee on any concerns.

Uh yeah, I don't have any questions.

I've I asked several questions yesterday, which I feel are still relatively unanswered, um, to be quite honest.

Um, you know, uh I'm understanding that there has been a considerable amount of time put in at the planning commission level with respect to the policies that we're discussing.

Um, but this board bill was just introduced less than two weeks ago.

Um the planning department is not part of the legislative branch of government.

Um, the same ample conversations that have been taken place at the planning commission level, which we do have two representatives on this committee that um sit there on planning, I think is important.

And I think also having um an opportunity to digest amendments, you know, with more than 24 hours uh is uh certainly something that I've always tried to, you know, uh permit in my process as a legislator down here at the Board of Aldermen.

Um I've continued to receive feedback and questions around some of the changes that were made even yesterday, um, that people haven't had the opportunity to really digest.

You know, we had six or eight amendments before us yesterday and then another three today um that I think are worthy of continued discussion.

I think that you know everyone I've talked to certainly on the committee is very much in favor of you know having uh regulations and uh you know trying to address community concerns, advocacy concerns, environmental concerns, um, you know, following the law uh, you know, as it's defined within planning and zoning and you know, other state statutes that might be related.

Um I have concerns around how some of this legislation also probably you know includes things that are already built into the building code that you know, how are we going to change the building code and this ordinance moving forward if we need to change it moving forward?

Um, when we're adopting changes to zoning, it's a little bit more intensive in terms of the process that it has to go through.

And so um, you know, I certainly would appreciate more time to be able to have these conversations.

I've had conversations with the president's office, I've had conversations with members of this committee.

And even to the point where, you know, scheduling additional meetings, um, including this one this afternoon on you know very much short notice.

Uh basically the 24-hour requirement uh that we need to post meetings.

Um, I certainly would appreciate having additional time to have those conversations.

It seems like everyone keeps coming to the table and you know, wanting to continue to have these conversations, but they're very rushed, they're not very thoughtful.

I mean, even in the presentation of amendments raised today, you know, the sponsor of the amendments, you know, had to rely upon uh person from the mayor's office.

And when I spoke with the mayor's office earlier this afternoon, they didn't take a position on the amendments or the bill one way or the other.

Um, and so I'm I'm a little perplexed as to how we have mayoral staff handing out amendments, drafting amendments, et cetera, but we're not getting um clarification as to whether or not you know the mayor's office is supportive of those same amendments.

Um it's just absolutely perplexing to me that we're not taking the time to actually have those deliberative conversations as part of the legislative process.

I understand I've you know been on the planning commission for the better part of you know my uh 17 years down here, and you know, I understand how these processes work, but the planning department and the planning commission are not part of our legislative process, and so affording our colleagues the same opportunity that the two members of the planning commission that are you know ex officio members because they're part of the Board of Aldermen, um, giving our colleagues the same opportunity.

I'm not saying it has to take it you know as long, um, but this is literally less than two weeks at this point, and it's very frustrating that we are not taking the time to connect with various entities, colleagues, even the city counselor's office.

I haven't even had the opportunity to have a conversation with the city counselor's office about some of these amendments either.

Um, so it's you know, very hap-hazard, um, in my opinion, when you have you know 11 amendments that are proposed within a 48-hour period, and you know, I mean, yesterday's meeting was just a sight to behold.

Um, and so I I would kindly ask that we give this some more time.

Um, if not, you know, I will have to unfortunately vote present on this, even though I very much support regulations for data centers.

Um, I just think you know, we need to make sure that we're doing it correctly and addressing as many concerns as we possibly can.

The committee is where that work is supposed to happen.

It's not supposed to happen on the floor before perfection.

That's a really poor way to do that because you can't have folks from you know the various departments that have to administer these uh rules and regulations or the city counselor's office, you know, can't testify and provide their perspective either.

Um there's so many, you know, different things that we should be doing to check off uh appropriate boxes to make sure that we're you know passing legislation that's going to pass muster.

I mean, this body continues to do this.

You know, another example was short-term rentals.

We're still in a kind of holding pattern two years later after short-term rentals because we didn't pass the correct legislation.

Um, and it's being tied up in courts.

And I don't think that that's fair to our constituents.

I don't think it's fair to the city.

I don't think it's fair um to you know, city departments, and I would kindly ask for more time and consideration to have those discussions and you know, make sure that we're legislating appropriately.

Thank you.

I'll address that else to me.

Adam and Browning.

And I'll let you address that uh chairwoman.

Um I was wondering if I could ask some questions of the planning staff.

Uh Maryam or uh I think first let me start by saying I am so grateful to have you uh working for our city.

I I think if you read if you read executive order 92, which was uh issued in September of 2025, it directed uh our planning staff to develop thoughtful frameworks for incorporating data centers.

And I think that's exactly what you've done with these regulations, and it has taken an enormous amount of work, and so I want to just acknowledge that first to say that I really appreciate the thoughtfulness that has gone into this because you are trying to walk a very narrow one.

And so I want to just acknowledge that first to say that I really appreciate the thoughtfulness that has gone into this because you are trying to walk a very narrow line.

Uh but everything I can read in this bill seems to be done to protect the people of this city with the idea that this industry is something that is necessary in some ways.

In some places, it can be beneficial in understanding that, but putting people first.

Yeah, we we did um research it to the best of our ability.

I think number one, uh, I am 100% sympathetic to the public's desire to um have a tool like that.

It's something we see um communities across the country calling for.

There isn't yet a city that's adopted that as part of their zoning regulations.

In our research, uh, it appears that this type of um public consent or signature provision when incorporated into zoning is kind of narrowly upheld by courts, felt like a risky thing.

It may be um that I think it is something we should look at in the other provisions of our code and land use regulation that apply to that, uh maybe in particular uh plat and petition.

Um and so I think between the protections built into the standards and just that it felt like a gray area and something that um again just didn't feel uh strong.

I I also appreciate that um some members of the public that have been advocating for it have put forward a very detailed and very thoughtful um suggested approach.

And I I think um that that was very again detailed and thoughtful, and um especially one that would have not placed a great deal of administrative burden on the city.

They clearly heard that concern as well, which is a concern um and challenge with even our existing platin petition process.

So that was a little bit of a long answer, but the other um that the recommended regulation sought to address that concern, which I know the body has discussed, is requiring that Board of Alderman approval for the public impact agreement as a way to add um a layer of democratic consideration of elected officials and the city's legislative body for any major data center.

I think those are significant decisions for the city in terms of their land use impact and and otherwise.

So I think that was part of the logic of adding that requirement into the process um understanding that it does add some complexity to the process, but it seemed like a a way to strike a balance because we heard this concern and request from so many people in the community.

Thank you.

So this public impact uh agreement assessment, um it's meant to provide that layer of community consent in that major data center is going to require one of these public impact agreements, and it will be an enforceable agreement by law that will have to be approved by both the public board of public service, a majority and then a supermajority of the Board of Aldermen, which is a high threshold.

Uh and I believe it says that public comment is also included in that, that it's required for both public the Board of Public Service and for um the Board of Alderman.

And so that means that if it comes to us in the form of resolution, we will have to send it to a committee so that we can have that public comment.

Is that how you understand that's written as well.

I don't have the language before me.

I would have to shouble check to see if it's just in the conditional use process, that public comment on the board.

Okay.

So yeah, the sponsor has verified that, yes, both during the conditional use hearing comment shall be taken and at the board.

Okay.

So I I know that's not exactly what some people are asking for, but uh it's also again, this is these regulations are going to be a little bit of what people want and then a little bit of what people don't want um on every side.

Uh but I I do think that public engagement opportunity with both the Board of Public Service and the Board of Alderman.

Uh so people will be able to come and yell at us as much as they want.

Uh, but at the same time, you know, I think there's a level of public commitment there to say that as a representative elected by the public, we are uh going to be in a position that we have to answer to voters.

We are always in that position when we're making these decisions down here.

And so there is an element of public consent in that that if your Alder um you know approves and votes to approve a data center that you're really opposed to, you can always vote not to have that alder anymore.

Um I know it's not a direct democracy, but there's there's many things, especially when it comes to zoning that are not a direct democracy because of how zoning works.

So I I appreciate that, and um I appreciate you taking the time to address that because I know that's been a concern of the public.

Um I don't have any more questions.

Uh I'll just uh take the last of my comment to uh address that um one, I I do think we should pass this today out of committee, and I do think we should move this before we go on break at the Board of Alderman.

I do not think that's an arbitrary deadline.

I think that it's recognizing the urgency that this requires.

Uh we already have a major data center that's been approved that will undoubtedly have negative effects for our city, and that happened because regulations weren't in place.

And so we have to be responsible and ask something uh now.

Uh I'll also say that I think what these regulations do is address legitimate concerns around data centers.

They're saying that if they're built in our city, they're built on our terms, and that they must be done according to our regulations and our rules, which, as I've said before, are thoughtfully designed to protect our most valuable asset, our people.

So I am supportive of this today.

I really appreciate the efforts by everyone who's worked on this bill, all the staff involved.

I know it's been a huge lift.

Um, and especially Alderman Schweitzer, who I know has been having all these conversations with people, trying to make sure that we really do have everyone at the table.

And I appreciate everyone who's come to the table uh as we've tried to get this right.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee.

Um I think there's a Rihanna song, and is it goes like, how about a round of applause?

And then it goes standing ovation.

That song uh is dedicated to the the planning uh department uh uh for all the hard work that you guys have done on this.

Um this has uh not been well, not the whole song, just that section of the song to be clear.

Um have done so much great work on uh trying to figure out you know how to make regulations work.

Uh I think in the city of St.

Louis have done um way more um work on this than we've probably done on um other pieces of legislation, and I think that speaks to um with this new developing um data system data centers that are coming that is so much nuance to it, but we must like act now.

So I do appreciate the work that uh planning and zoning and Miriam and the whole team has done as well as uh you Alderwoman Sweitzer, Alderwoman Sun Ye.

And I want to be clear that sits on uh the planning commission um as members of the board as well as Grimindia, who's a staff of the president office, not the whole office sits there, but a staff member.

So I'm very thankful for uh the work that you all have done.

And I want to commend um Alderwoman Schweitzer, you know, one of my concerns that uh I brought forward was um making sure that the current data centers that are here um not so much are being protected, but that uh as we're creating uh new rules that they're at least able to fit into uh that progress or that process.

So um, and I know you've been getting a bunch of phone calls from not just existing ones, but from a lot of people, and I do appreciate uh the work that you have done on that and the the conversations that you've had, at least with me and I've had with you to be educated on uh the nuance of all this data center uh stuff and definitely understand that we need regulations.

I definitely I don't uh believe anybody on this committee, at least after talking with everybody is not against regulations.

With that being said, I do also agree to some sentiments of Alderman Cohn.

Um and I know I've have or have had conversations with you Aldwoman Schweitzer, at least if if we can get this amendment, at least for me personally, the amendment with the existing data centers um that you know I could uh I could see myself being in support of the bill, which I'm already in support of, but that was a concern uh that you brought forward or a concern I brought forward to you.

Um yesterday when the amendment came for the recs, I did vote present um on that because I think that is still an outstanding, at least for myself, and uh still outstanding of what exactly does that mean.

It seems like you and Aldwom and Sanye had meetings with uh like Amran trying to figure out that language to see how like the renewable energy could work.

Um and it doesn't seem like I guess the language that maybe you all have with Amran is the same uh language.

Would you yeah, if you could speak to that?

Okay, so uh we met with Amran and some of the um different stakeholders in the bill last week.

Uh after that meeting, they provided some definitions, which we took verbatim for bundled and unbundled recs.

Uh they also provided a um guidance that they didn't believe that um that they had a a belief that they could meet the 10-year goal if it was a combination of bundled and unbundled recs.

And the unbundled recs is previously stated are without any retirement of credits, which means that it's sort of um, well, you have the definition in front of you probably, but um it's just a much less um actual renewable energy credit.

It's it's very it's very different than a bundled rec in that way.

Um that is not good enough for what we need to do in the city of St.

Louis when it comes to meeting our sustainability plan.

So while I appreciate the definition they sent over and the information that they provided, we we do not, we will not, we will have never regulated Amran or any um utility besides our our water division.

That's the only utility that we have any control over.

Um what we do have control over uh in this case is land users in this um zoning board bill.

So what this what zoning needs to consider is adopted plans of the city of St.

Louis, including our comprehensive plan, including our sustainability plan, so that if a standard or a major data center wants to come into the city of St.

Louis, they are meeting the goals that we've set, the plans that we've adopted.

And so that's what this zoning bill strives to do.

At no point did I say Amran signed off on this, this is what Amiron wants to see happen.

That's not even something that I would have ever said because that's not what happened.

One and two, um, we don't regulate Amorin.

We can't tell everyone what to do.

They can do whatever they want, they can build whatever they want, um, subject to the public service commission.

That is who they have to, that is that is their um, that's who tells them what they can and cannot do.

Um, you know, I think that when we see data center bans in other parts of the state, I would think this is a lot friendlier and a lot less of a ban than a ban.

Um and I think that's really important.

Um, if people choose to think that that's not good enough, then that's that's on them.

I'm looking out for the future of my child and the future of the city of St.

Louis and our adopted sustainability plan, and I hope that others choose to do the same.

Yeah.

Earlier you mentioned um that you know, if five data centers can be able to um if five data centers are able to, I guess, follow the recs, okay.

But if the other five can't, then maybe they shouldn't be here.

It did you did could you kind of elaborate?

Oh, we have uh if we if this board bill becomes law, we have a we've set up an application process where a potential data center wants to come into the city of St.

Louis, they have to submit, you know, various documents, plans, show what they're going to do and various uh requirements.

They would have to submit uh the scope and the plan for how they would meet the renewable energy requirements as outlined in the bill.

Um, and so in doing that, they would need to communicate with their electric service provider in our case, obviously that's Amoron.

We have a monopoly um in the city of St.

Louis and in the in the region.

Um and so they would have to meet with them and and say, you know, this is how big a facility we want to build build.

We're qualified as a standard data center.

We want to do X number of megawatts.

Amorin would say to them whether or not they can meet that and how long it will take them to do it.

That's how I assume that conversation would go.

Um that is their you know, relationship as a as a customer anyway.

They have to go and say, you know, we this amount of megawatts, can you provide it?

Um as we've talked about many, many, many times for many, many, many months.

Uh, this industry is going to require a large amount of new energy production.

Those new that new energy production will be nuclear renewable, natural gas, but it will be new energy production.

So right now, and a utility that we do not regulate or have any control over, is trying to figure out how they're going to meet the demands of their customers.

This is yet another demand of their customer, if the customer wants to do business in the city of St.

Louis.

We regulate industries, we regulate different things in the city of St.

Louis all the time to meet various plans or goals or you know, historic districts or what have you.

This is uh a zoning piece of regulation.

So it it strives to address uh adopted plans by the city of St.

Louis, things that have moved through the planning commission, things that have moved through the Board of Alderman and have been adopted.

Um I I know I sound like a broken record, but a sustainability goal is nothing if not followed up by the actual policy.

Those policy decisions are where we have to decide whether we actually care about what we say we care about.

Um I understand that there's a lot of different things to care about in this issue, and I I've tried to be um, you know, open-minded to all of that.

Uh and I do care about all those things as well.

Um, but there's always going to be a reason to not meet a sustainability goal if someone's going to say, but taxes, but jobs, but development.

There's always going to be that reason.

But I hope that we can all agree in here that climate change is real and the decisions of elected bodies and the people of the world are how we are at this point now.

Um so if we don't start making more um uh brave steps to actually meet those goals and to actually do something about it.

I mean, I don't I don't know.

I don't think they think climate change is real, but that's that's on them.

Um so um that is not my my my concern though.

It's definitely real, definitely happening.

We definitely need to be concerned.

Uh and if uh you know our jobs here is to do something about it.

So yeah.

Well, I believe in climate change, and I I definitely think it's a real.

Um and I've personally seen you uh behind the scenes working on this legislation.

Um, and I know you've put a lot into it.

Um you have also I think from probably where you want the bill to be, have really adjusted a lot um and got in a place where it is not ideal as the sponsor of like where it started.

But I guess my fear of why I would not be opposed to having more time on this is um if there are if there's still folks on this committee to have questions as is a van through the board.

What I don't want is it to get to the board of ultimate and we don't either have the support and I'll be straight up, or it looks like for the Channel 2, 4, and 5 or the people that won't be happy if it don't get passed that we couldn't pass regulations at the board, which I don't think we're that far from uh being able to do it.

Clearly, there's already gonna be special meetings call.

Um, I think you're down to have special meetings.

It's not like the president is down to have special meetings.

Clearly, this committee is down to have special meetings because we met as of today quickly to make sure we get some of this adopted.

And I don't want this to um yes, there's an urgency of getting it done.

And yes, there's an urgency that we need to have regulations.

I don't believe uh a few more, I don't even think we need like a few more meetings, but a a slowdown on the process.

And this is something that I said in the very first meeting to you is that I do think this is moving uh quickly, not quickly where we shouldn't be doing some, but as the legislative process is going quickly, where hopefully we get it done and we don't get to the floor and it become where it don't get passed.

And I I don't think anybody wants that.

And I wouldn't hope the goal is to say, well, we tried in committee and we got it to the floor and we try it.

Like I think what people would like me to do is to continue to weaken the renewable energy requirement so that no one else has to make that amendment.

And if people want to that they can bring that forward.

I'm not people.

What I would like is I think there's clearly other folks outside of this committee, which it will go to the floor, they would have the opportunity, but I don't, I don't I don't think the pathway is there yet because there has been so new so many nuance, literally as of like yesterday, we did adopt like eight amendments, and then we came in here and we adopted some more amendments.

Literally, as of like yesterday, we did adopt like eight amendments, and then we came in here and we adopted some more amendments.

And I know you don't plan to suspend the rules uh tomorrow to fast track it, but I do think with more conversations, it could be I believe a pathway to be able to get it done on the floor, which I don't see now.

Um, especially with some of the amendments that did come.

And I don't want the goal to be that we don't get it done at the full board.

And that is just my opinion.

I know we may disagree, and I know we have been talking about this uh several days, and I really do appreciate the open dialogue and conversation.

I just don't want it to uh get to the floor and it become um I'll be straight up like a circus.

Not necessarily not necessarily because of the work that you've done or the work that planning has done, but just because of some of the nuance of all of this in ignorance.

Ignorance in a way that people don't understand and not educated on it.

I've been getting educated during this process literally because of these last few hearings.

And I think there's gonna be a lot of that on the floor um to try to get it done before summer break.

Um, and I would ask uh for you to, you know, hold the bill um so that we can work out as much as possible in committee before it does go to the floor.

Uh other members also may have those same concerns.

What do you feel still needs to be worked out?

Well, me personally, I would love to have that's why I voted present on the amendment.

I don't feel comfortable on the renewal energy one.

Um you prefer the stronger um language and the I prefer me and you having a conversation and figuring out like exactly and maybe even MCE that has been doing this work, or as you've been having meetings with uh other experts, or like you had the meeting today in the mayor's office with that group, or when you and all woman Songye had a meeting with Amran, you know, as trying to pull it all together.

I would love to get a little bit of better understanding on the the recs or recs, something that I think I just mentioned um yesterday, and that's why I voted present.

Um so being able to get that uh that at least for me would be helpful.

Maybe you can get it to me for the floor.

I just wouldn't be voting it out today with knowing that is a concern uh for me with not having that information.

So uh it is in the uh the definitions, um the bundled and unbundled recs are in the definitions that we amended yesterday.

Um would you be willing to have a conversation like you've been having with others offline so that we can so I can get an understanding of what the recs are and how they are used and how this would implement in the bill when you are trying to do this with not existing data centers, I guess new data centers.

Or do you just want me to read the bill and then get my answer that way?

No, I I definitely want to have the conversation.

We've talked about this many times, and um, but if the committee, if the work happens in committee, then I think we should talk about it in committee.

Yeah, I think the work happens in committee.

I think the work has been happening on the phone calls and meetings that you've been having.

Um if you want to have like a working group where we can like talk about it right now, I'm totally fine with doing that.

But I'm telling you as of today, and my answer is not going to change that like I'll be a present.

It's not that I'm not for uh regulations.

Um, but I do have concerns with that rec part.

Just like you called me yesterday or you called me uh last week on the bill.

I think that's a conversation as you've been having off record with all these different groups, or I see you in the office, or you see me in my office, the easy conversation that could be had.

And I think we can get past that and hopefully move it to the floor and be able to get it across the finish line.

Yeah, I think uh, you know, I appreciate that.

I think that uh I I'm definitely someone who always counts votes.

I like to know where I stand on an issue.

I like to know where the the bill that um as it's moving is.

Um I feel pretty comfortable with where the votes are on the floor right now.

Um I think that there are uh efforts from people to say that this is a ban, which I hope that I've explained it's not.

Um, and I think that there are efforts to undermine our city sustainability plan um by saying that somehow that it bans data centers, um, and that therefore it is not um I want to take out the the side noise.

I'm not talking about what people are saying.

I'm talking about what the Aldman of the 14th is saying.

I know there's been phone calls going back and forth.

I'm not talking about who's called you or who's called me or who's called other auditors.

I raised this concern yesterday of just not being aware of it, how does this work?

And what I'm asking is to be able to talk with my colleague about it to get educated so that I'm comfortable with that part of the bill to be able to move forward on it.

That's what I'm saying.

Okay.

Um well, so the so it's on the record um for for anyone listening.

Uh the definition for bundled renewable energy credits that's in the bill.

That means renewable energy credits that a customer received from a renewable generating facility where the attribute is provided with the actual renewable generation from renewable facility located within the utility service service story territory, the state of Missouri or uh the MySale Service Region and retired on behalf of the facility.

An unbundled renewable energy credit means racks that a customer received from a renewable energy generating facility where the attribute is provided without the accompanying renewable energy generation.

However, the attribute must be from a renewable gener renewable energy generating facility located within the utility service territory, the state of Missouri or Mice Out and retired on behalf of the facility.

So the big uh change there is um there is with actual renewable energy energy generation within bundled, without from unbundled.

Um, and if these uh definitions weren't clear enough, um Alice Schaefer is here and can speak a little bit more on um that's how long have you been knowing about Rex, Alderwoman?

Um a long time.

This conversation has been.

So you but you learned about it being a member of the planning commission that you said about it.

Uh no, I I'm pretty familiar with energy uh use in in general, Alderman.

Um Elise, would you?

No, I don't I don't need Elisa come up.

I'm talking to you, Alderwoman.

I think uh I think you you're missing the point of you you're not like helping your case, I think, in my opinion, at least with me.

Um, but I appreciate the work that Elise is doing.

I'm not trying to include again, I think I just said I think you're missing a point.

Uh I'll be a present.

I do no disrespect to Elise.

I got her number, uh, I can easily reach out to her and have your number and hopefully you'll reach out uh since I got a concern on your bill, but I'll be a present today.

And I'm done.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Sany.

Uh uh, you know, Alder Woman Schweitzer, I know that you're not in an easy position.

Um, I know that I feel like this has been probably even more of a difficult and nuanced conversation than around the series of shelter bills and unhouse bills that I've done and five of them.

Um, and this I think has been like just even more rigorous than that.

Um, I think that I'm very aligned with Alder Woman Schweitzer.

Um, I think that's very clear.

Um, I do hear colleagues who are saying, you know, you guys have been on a planning commission, you've had access to this information for some time.

You've been a part of processes.

Um I know that there's been meetings to have conversations with several alders and several offerings for conversations as well.

And I just want to be honest with my point of hesitancy, and I only speak for myself and for the seventh ward.

Um I do not trust the city of St.

Louis when it comes to data centers.

And I wish that we could be honest about why that's the case.

I think that if we were having a conversation about like pausing this bill, but there wasn't a major data center that had already been approved, then I think that there would be a lot more appetite for that.

But to be clear, as an alder woman, I have to be able to speak to my residents and tell them about the processes in place.

And there is a major data center that was approved by the city of St.

Louis that the border ultimate was given notice of at 9.15 a.m.

And then at 145 p.m., a hearing happened.

And so many of my residents do not trust anybody within city government around these data centers.

I am doing the best I can to keep them abreast to keep them educated.

I think that with my public actions, I have perhaps earned some of that trust.

But it is a very difficult needle to thread.

And I think it's important that we all acknowledge just why that gap and why the distrust is there.

I think data centers in itself is one of the controversial, most controversial issues across the country.

But then when the city of St.

Louis had an opportunity to at least create a process that was actually transparent, that was actually inclusive.

Um I don't think that we did that because we're having this conversation while a major data center is approved.

Had there been to me proper respect to the planning commission to say we will hold on approving this until you guys get your recommendations in place, then I think you would have a lot more time for this conversation.

But that didn't happen.

And that's not the case, and that's not where we are.

And so in that regard, I think that that is some of um Alder Woman Schweitzer and I's frustration on this matter is that we really did beg and ask, can you please wait and hold on this?

Can you let the planning commission complete their work so that we could avoid a situation like this?

I really do not want to see um a board bill.

If it is to make it out of committee, and we've got two presents, I don't know what that looks like on the floor, but to be honest, at a time where public trust for government is at the lowest, if there is a situation where this board fails to pass regulations, take a vote on them.

The headline will say the border alderman, regardless of the positions that we individually take.

I know the headlines are the border alderman fail to pass regulations for data centers, and the public's distrust of us is going to increase even more.

And so I, you know, just feel like that is all very important to put on record and to put into context.

Um I do deeply um, I will say I know that Ottawa Schweitzer is usually, I think she's been quoted on the mic several times saying, I I really appreciate when we're able to have you know conversation and we're able to work this out.

And I think that there has been many offerings of meetings, many offerings of conversations.

Um I understand that folks are saying, Well, I didn't get the chance.

Planning commission's own conversation.

Yes, and respectfully, as an alder person, you can email Maryam Keller at any moment and tell her that you want to meet and you want to talk about things.

You can email any staff member of the planning commission and they will likely email you back and say, Thank you for reaching out to me, Alderman.

When can we set that up?

Um, you know, some of it is kind of proactively on us as alders.

If it's a conversation that's happening, in an email, I know I have across the city to kind of take that up.

Um, and at the same time, I think where we are in this moment.

I I don't I am my goal this entire process has been to get some regulations in place.

And I'm really nervous and unsettled in my heart right now because I don't know that we're in a place where if folks are not comfortable right now, we're going to get there on the floor.

And I think if we get on the floor and it doesn't pass, it is going to just further sink um and and hurt relationships with the public.

So I'm not really, you know, I I'm clearly a co-sponsor of the bill.

I'm supportive of the bill.

I do think a lot of work has gone in to get us to somewhere that is plausible.

I do think that saying that no type of renewable energy requirement is feasible is um, you know, to be honest, I think that's just much more aimed at the interest of folks who want to be build these facilities.

And I think that it neglects the part about human impact and how it impacts the people of the city of St.

Louis.

And I think we have tried, we have asked, I have still asked right now.

If this is not feasible, what is feasible?

Does somebody have an amendment that they want to bring forward so we could talk about a number that's feasible?

Because I think Alder Woman Schweitzer has done it, and I think her amendment yesterday was an attempt to bring us to a point that was a little bit closer.

So if that doesn't work, like at what point all of us really kind of dig in deeper and get an amendment.

If there's an ax for time for more time, I would love to know, you know, and I know that can be a discussion with the chairwoman and a discussion with the president board of Alderman.

What does that time look like?

Because are we saying that the timeline is um, you know, when we come back, are we open to having special meetings?

You know, I I just I think there's just a lot of distrust and a lot of lack of clarity on kind of next steps, but at the same time, like my core interest is making sure that we get regulations.

And I am concerned that where we are right now, it doesn't seem like I'm not sure where the numbers will be on the floor, but I just think we have to start to be really honest about again the way that the approval of the major data center because a lot of my colleagues, to be honest, have not commented on that matter at all.

And that is a part of where the distrust is from.

And then I think we have to be honest, if we're asking for more time, what does that look like?

Can we uh can we give a timeline?

You know, there's a planning commission meeting that has to happen.

This has to go to planning.

So do folks want to meet again after planning, uh, which is this month, you know.

I I just really want us to figure out what it looks like to get there.

And I think we can get there.

I think we're really close.

I think people are open to the conversation, but I'm not interested in a continual kicking of the can and the continual delay without specific feedback on what the next steps are.

And I think a lot of specifics have come from the alder woman, a lot of specifics have come from the planning commission.

If you know folks need more time to get comfortable, I understand that this is a nuanced conversation.

And so my axe to um just my colleagues would be like if there's an additional timeline, what does that timeline look like?

Are we committed back?

We're supposed to go down July 10th, or we committed to having special meetings, or we committed to you know, meeting right after the planning commission, like what does that look like?

And I think that the alder woman for all of her work, I think she deserves clear timelines.

And really, I think that the people of the city of St.

Louis deserve some clear timelines, if that is the decision that we're going to make here.

Um, and yeah, I that is just the heart of it.

And so, yes, thank you again to everyone for participating in this um conversation, Alder Woman.

You know, I'm um very supportive of you.

I'm a co co-sponsor of the bill for a reason.

I plan to vote for this bill.

Um, but I also do want to make sure we are being mindful um of where we are and where we're gonna be on the floor, because I can only speak for myself, but I am gonna go back to my community after we have our meeting.

And I know that if I go back to my community after we have the meeting and we have failed to pass regulations, my constituents will be very unhappy, rightfully so.

Um, so I'm just very concerned about you know where we are and would like some more specific specificity with some of the acts here.

Um, but again, I am supportive.

Um, and if there is a vote called, I will vote for it.

And I do understand they ask for more time.

If the axes for more time, I think that we should get a clear uh timeline.

And I would love to know that you know we are all committed to figuring this out and doing what we can to get this right, um, which might mean delaying our summer break that we go down for.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I'll speak to some of that.

Um for when this bill goes back to planning commission, it's needs to go back uh before third reading.

So it goes um, you know, it could go back before perfection or it could go back now, but if there's any changes made at perfection, it would have back again.

So the idea is that it goes back to planning commission just once.

Um I don't know whether there'll be changes at perfection or if we were to hold further committee meetings, whether there would be changes suggested then.

Um I'm certainly I don't want to say happy with the bill where it is, um, but I am uh I feel the bill has made many compromises.

Um and I have personally made many compromises for what I would have liked to see in order to um get to you know the number of votes that we need to have to pass the bill.

Um that's how it works down here.

We have to get to eight.

Um so that is something that is you know always part of legislation and something you have to deal with.

Um in communicating with members of the committee, I know at least two, possibly four members of this committee are interested in having another committee hearing.

Um, and that is something that you know we could do um and continue to have in committee.

Uh, you know, I I'm aware that if we have another committee meeting, I don't know that I'm not gonna hear the same things from the same people saying that they haven't had enough time, that there's a new you know goal post that's set.

Um that is something that that could happen.

Uh so and the president of the board of aldermen has committed to holding uh additional meetings as this moves um out of committee.

So uh while I didn't plan to suspend the rules tomorrow to move to perfection just to allow that further, you know, a week and a half of time before we move the bill to perfection to talk again with all of you and all the members of the board of aldermen that we would have perfection next Friday if this was moved out of committee today.

Um, and then we would have to have had a special meeting, you know, the following week or a week after that, um, depending on when the planning commission can get their meeting scheduled.

So we are sort of dependent on when the planning commission can meet.

Uh they have 45 days uh once we make a request for them to hear uh the the bill when the amendments, the sponsor I'd have to make um a request to the planning commission and have to provide in writing why all of the amendments were made, uh, and then they would have the ability to vote up or down.

So that does delay the process in terms of when third reading would be.

I think the planning commission would be very interested in moving it quickly.

Um, you know, our board, this body passed a resolution that said we wanted to, you know, move quickly to get regulations in place.

So I believe I am acting at the direction of our board to move quickly.

Uh the planning commission didn't pass this out until the middle of June.

And I introduced it at the very next opportunity uh without having to suspend the rules.

Um so, you know, we've been trying to move quickly.

Um true, but also have had a lot of time on this um in the in the background.

Um, I will say that uh the public is is crying out for these regulations to be in place.

Um those are the people we represent um and the people that we're supposed to be listening to.

Um but as I've said a million times, if I always keep saying it, I know I need to count to eight.

Ideally have um more votes than that on the floor.

Um, and I think that on a bill this complicated, this nuanced, and with this many stakeholders who are um you know, wanting it to be a weaker bill.

I think that sometimes there are going to be people who are just trying to find reasons to vote against it uh in order to, you know, appease those stakeholders.

Um so I'm not trying to provide reasons to do that.

Um, but I am trying to um represent my constituents.

Um so if this committee would like to meet again this coming Tuesday and have further discussion, um that works for my schedule.

Uh I would love to have a commitment that people would vote to suspend the rules to have perfection on Friday, um, so that it doesn't actually change our ability to deliver for the people we represent and get regulations in place along the same timeline.

So that is where I'm at with it.

Adam and Browning.

Thank you.

Not to delay things further.

I just asked for it to come back to me because I'd like to add myself co-sponsor to this bill.

And I'll add I'm not in favor of having another committee meeting.

I mean, I'll be here if we do, but I'm not in favor of that.

I need your vote, so please show up.

Yeah.

Uh yeah, I will.

I'll be here as long as it takes and as many times as it takes.

But just a reminder for everybody, we just went through a really hard process with the Rams settlement bill, and we found compromise.

That was a lot of stakeholders to meet there too.

And we found compromise and we're on the verge of actually passing something, and I'm really proud of the board for doing that.

There are those of us who wish these were stronger.

So we've got to find something that eight votes can agree on so that we can deliver for the people of the city.

And I think this board is capable of that because I've seen us do it recently, and I'd like to see us do it again.

Thank you all.

So Adam is leisure, your call.

Yeah, I I am.

I hope that we're all working in good faith here.

Um, you know, if next week people still say they need more time, uh I think that the that um I don't even have to say that.

Uh uh that that'll be a situation in which the people need to answer to their own constituents.

I'm certainly answering to mine.

So you ask and you want to hold it into committee.

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

So, madam clerk, we're gonna hold um 49 as the mandate in committee again until next Tuesday's hood committee at 11 a.m.

Thank you all for your time and I appreciate the the conversation and discussion.

Um I will be calling you.

And do you have any resolutions or review, Madam Clark?

We have no additional committee decisions?

We have no any additional written testimony.

We have seven written testimony for today's meeting.

Okay.

Any announcements?

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

So moved.

Second.

It was moved by vice chair sign and seconded by Adam Alders.

If we adjourn.

Everyone have a blessed day.