[0:29] Excuse me. If anyone would like to speak during public comments, please fill out a yellow card located by the door. Thank you.

[3:27] Okay. I hereby call this meeting to order. Please. I would ask that anyone have their cell phones on you that you mute that. Meet your cell phones and have that muted throughout the duration of the meeting.

[3:39] Miss Boyer, would you please call the roll.

[3:47] Councilman Crowe. Here. Councilwoman Aaron's present. Councilman Groticki.

[3:53] Thank you.

[3:53] President.

[3:55] Councilman Tullich.

[3:58] President.

[3:59] And I see you.

[4:00] Councilman Browns.

[4:05] And Mr. Clinton-Bride.

[4:09] I believe he's on his way in.

[4:10] Okay.

[4:11] Mr. Bobby K.

[4:12] President.

[4:13] And Mr. Chris Howard.

[4:15] President.

[4:20] Okay.

[4:21] The attendance being called.

[4:24] I'll accept a motion to approve the agenda as ordered.

[4:27] move that we approve the agenda. Do I have a second?

[4:34] I have a motion a second. All in favor say aye.

[4:36] Aye. Any opposed?

[4:40] Okay with it. I's have it. New business discussion. Discuss draft ordinances. As you see before you we've got

[4:50] kind of a rough draft of a summary of what we've been discussing over the last three months and I guess

[4:58] So, Mitch, you want to run with this, or?

[5:01] Sure.

[5:03] I will be as gentle as possible, council personnaires.

[5:11] Members of the council, members of the EOC, thanks.

[5:16] We'll go over and review the draft regulations tonight.

[5:20] I want to start, I'll kind of move through this.

[5:25] Based on some, a lot of the input I've gotten

[5:28] and then some discussions over the last couple of days.

[5:31] We're still gonna stay on point with the project schedule.

[5:34] However, I think what one of the things will change moving forward,

[5:37] my recommendation, obviously, if the committee wants to do this,

[5:40] is have the discussion on the regulations.

[5:43] I got a lot of great input from members of the committee.

[5:45] Had a lot of great conversations.

[5:47] And I also found a few things that I missed.

[5:50] So you'll see some mea culpa within this.

[5:53] But this was a really big lift as you guys can all see.

[5:56] I want to make sure we get this right for the residents of this county.

[6:00] So that being said, I'd recommend we go through the conversation tonight and then based

[6:06] on the feelings of the members of the committee, Schedule A, another EDOC meeting on Wednesday

[6:12] February the 18th, to go over a final draft that reflects your conversation, your input, your

[6:18] comments tonight, any resident input that you feel appropriate and meritorious to include

[6:24] in the draft so that we can get a revised draft out that hopefully is 98 or 99% ready

[6:31] and that would allow us to stay on track to make sure that we have a draft posted and available

[6:37] by Friday February 20th in the playing zoning office and available online and to keep that

[6:43] public hearing before the planning commission on March 12th and then the following

[6:49] county council schedule as well. So you can let me know your thoughts on that at the end. I'll

[6:54] bring this slide up once again so you can see where you all think appropriately this is.

[7:00] A couple really important notes that I feel we need to clarify, especially given some of the comments

[7:05] that were afforded to me, these regulations in this project to create regulations represent a

[7:11] proactive approach to regulating data centers and then incorporated areas of Jefferson County.

[7:16] There is no project. There is no application. This is being done proactively, but we've said that and we've said that and we've said that, but we're going to keep saying that.

[7:26] The regulations and discussions only apply to the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County. Specifically, they do not apply to Festus. They do not apply to Pacific. Only the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County.

[7:39] just very important clarification again as I believe you've all witnessed as we've gone through some of these discussions and some of the input you've had.

[7:48] So the regulatory overview, the first thing I want to start with is, I'm going to quote a great movie, a great country song.

[7:58] We've got a long way to go and a short time to get there tonight.

[8:02] I'm going to go over the highlights on each area.

[8:05] I have some comments that are recommended changes for staff, from staff, as well as recommended changes based on the input and comments I've gotten.

[8:15] If when we get through there, there are comments that you don't see reflected that you have that you want to see reflected in the change, then please jump in and have that conversation.

[8:27] This is a lot to get through, so I want to make sure that we don't sit here and dwell on every single word.

[8:33] We found some typos and some editing issues, so we'll move through this quickly.

[8:39] Obviously, the draft reflects the discussions that we've had at the four previous EDOC meetings on December 3rd, December 10th, December 17th, and January 7th.

[8:49] What you'll see is our recommended use approach in the zoning matrix, Table 5-1, as well as a new article, article 10, not article X, so everybody knows that it is actually article 10, of Section 400, which is 3660 through 43790, data center regulations and performance standards, and we'll go through, you know, obviously the draft, as I mentioned, includes your comments and edits we've received.

[9:16] I have also added a section on air quality, most of what we presented within that section was in the draft or a few items or not, so I will have a slide that represents what we believe that language of items that we didn't address.

[9:29] Again, that is on me totally. And then we are, I think it's always important to know what we're really focused on here.

[9:35] We're here to protect any adjoining uses to any potential data center development, primarily residentally zoned and used properties.

[9:43] And we are here to ensure that we get the maximum community benefit from data center development

[9:48] should one be approved and occurred.

[9:50] And I think that's something that is really important as we get into that.

[9:53] That will probably be a lot of your discussion, deliberation on how you want that structure

[9:57] because I've got a lot of input on those community benefits agreements.

[10:00] And again, one of the most important parts is to make sure that we are absolutely getting

[10:05] for our community and our residents what we need out of these developments should and when

[10:09] they occur.

[10:12] Number one on the zoning matrix. Again, we are putting forward a recommendation that this is

[10:19] per approved plan and both planned business and planned industrial. You can see both of those

[10:24] are highlighting red on the screen. To clarify, we've started implementing the use of the NAICS

[10:31] definitions from the Census Bureau for this, so there is no question as to what a data center is

[10:35] what it includes.

[10:39] A couple of notes on as these proceed is if you already have an existing

[10:44] PB or PI zone property but you want to do a data center you're still going to kind of have

[10:49] to come in here and get legislative approval of a development plan that meets all these performance

[10:54] standards. And if you're not zone PB or PI then you're going to have to come in and get a

[10:58] rezoning and development plan approval that meets the performance standards within that section as well.

[11:04] both of those, either way, require public hearing.

[11:08] So those will always come back to the county council

[11:12] for legislative approval.

[11:14] Mitch, could you quickly talk about the difference

[11:16] between planned business and planned industrials?

[11:19] Like, why would we do it in planned business?

[11:22] So we didn't plan business because planned business

[11:25] is a mix of industrial and business uses,

[11:28] like a business park where you could see a lot of really

[11:31] well-done business parks would have a more intense use

[11:34] on the inside and kind of blend out on the periphery.

[11:37] So our thinking was it's planned, it'll have to be considered to come in here, but there

[11:41] are instances where you know, ideally if we saw a thousand acre proposed development for

[11:47] plan business, one of the uses in there on that plan could be data center or other industrial

[11:54] uses.

[11:54] You see those intermingled throughout and a lot of time when you see business parks, those

[11:58] uses are typically classified actually as industrial already.

[12:01] So we felt that based on the typical criteria that you see are some of those standards and operational ideas that fit with that plan business.

[12:14] Well, the standards would be the same.

[12:16] Exactly the same.

[12:19] So again, it's a planned use.

[12:21] They'll have to meet the structure.

[12:22] All those performance standards for data centers, whether it's in a plan business or a plan industrial.

[12:30] I hope the next one is the easiest, the purpose and intent.

[12:34] I think that's pretty clear from plan on dwelling there, the applicability.

[12:40] I think we had a lot of conversations about the, you know, a couple things of highlights here.

[12:47] Number one, we wanted to make sure that the terms applicant, developer, owner, and operator all are used interchangeably

[12:53] and applied to each regardless of the term used here, and so there's no confusion.

[12:56] and there's no opportunity for somebody to say that does not apply to me.

[13:01] The other one is these are minimum standards. As we go through this we need to understand we're establishing minimum standards.

[13:07] So while I believe we are setting a high bar they are minimums and so given the context and the use of planned as we go through this,

[13:18] It could be very likely that increased standards are included to mitigate other impacts based on again the context of the development, but these are your safe minimums that we're recommending.

[13:29] I think the other one that is interesting and that I got some feedback on item six is the enforcement interpretation to the discretion of the director of county services and code enforcement.

[13:39] The one item that was missing in there, Mr. Grotiki, thank you for this, because I'll make this clarification, and this is something that is included everywhere else that I've been around the world doing planning to other places, but it's not a better to say it like that is we recommend that we add language into that that allows an appeal mechanism by either the developer or a specific defined number of number of the county council.

[14:09] which is always in those jurisdictions been one less than a quorum.

[14:13] So if there is a decision where a developer feels like the director,

[14:17] and again, these have to be survivable if Mitch gets hit by a bus tomorrow,

[14:21] that if the developer feels like the standards are too hard,

[14:26] then they can appeal to the county council.

[14:28] Or if the county council doesn't feel like the director made a good decision,

[14:33] three of them can request to see that and overturn that, okay?

[14:36] So that's a very common appeal mechanism that you see within here, which provides protection

[14:42] on all sides.

[14:44] Quite frankly, I would imagine that would never are rarely come up because any deviations

[14:49] or changes would have to be approved within that development plan that comes forward and

[14:53] gets approved legislatively.

[14:54] but it may come into if you know a developer believes the director is being

[14:59] heavy-handed.

[15:00] A enforcement of something or something like that, those are all items to be appealed. Or if the county council believes that there are violations occurring, they're not be addressed, then that would also allow you to appeal mechanism. Hey, Mitch, I'm just thinking through this. We should probably make that consistent though with the voting requirements for approving, approving the development plan to begin with because if not, you could, if that's requires four members. So if three could always so to clarify this understanding, it's only three that requires that come before and be heard by the council. Okay.

[15:29] Your legislative requirement is still the same to overturn or affirm being a majority of so you just need three three to four to not voting on changes correct that's just three to raise the appeal question right so three of you get together.

[15:43] We want to we want to review this. It takes three to review but it still takes your normal legislative majority to approve it and I so Mitch that would fall basically the same process that we go through if we want to have a new public hearing on.

[15:57] a rezoning or something of that nature.

[16:01] I can't say I'm real familiar with that,

[16:03] but I would.

[16:04] I don't think we've done that since you've been here.

[16:05] No, thankfully, no, you have not.

[16:07] But I would imagine you have some time under your belt

[16:11] and have some familiarity with that.

[16:12] So I imagine that's pretty much the same.

[16:13] Yeah, it sounds like it's pretty common.

[16:14] And again, it's a real common thing that you find in codes

[16:17] and that provides protection on both sides

[16:19] should one party feel grieved.

[16:21] Generally, that's the wording you see.

[16:23] Shouldn't agree party have that,

[16:24] then this is their mechanism, right?

[16:27] Again, I think part of what you'll see is a lot of this we are looking at too on bringing

[16:35] into when we do UDO changes holistically that are just systemic improvements that will

[16:41] help us all have a little bit of comfort and again, really it's those checks and balances

[16:45] as we go through this.

[16:49] Mr. Bear, one of the questions that I had asked earlier, I want to make sure we have a clear

[16:54] for the record that these will not require a conditional use permit?

[16:57] No, so it's a development plan.

[17:01] We don't get into any conditional use permit approach here, and I know that was a question

[17:04] that you had earlier today.

[17:06] So they're all planned uses, which require a development plan to be approved or rezoning

[17:11] to one of those two plan districts, but there's no conditional use permit, especially use permit

[17:15] or any other process.

[17:17] Can you walk through the process?

[17:18] How would that come in?

[17:19] It's going to go before PNZ.

[17:21] It would be a public hearing before the planning commission.

[17:23] They would make a recommendation to the County Council and it would be like any other you you have development plans now that meet that

[17:31] Anytime you see a PR rezoning those come before you it's the same it's the same legislative approval process

[17:37] So we'll have a public hearing that'll be made a recommendation and that would take a majority of the County Council to the approver deny

[17:43] I guess the site plans included in it. That is the development plan. Yeah

[17:49] Yeah, trust me. It's a different term of art everywhere. I always say site plan. That's a very easy default for us. It's technically a development plan.

[18:00] Can I click and it's good to ask these questions because I think it's very comfortable to understand what this process will look like.

[18:06] Should we get to that approval point? Obviously, I hope that's the path wrong because I feel like I've wasted eight weeks of my life if not.

[18:13] Thank you.

[18:15] It's good because it's only joke of people laugh. So thank you everybody that I apparently owe money to.

[18:21] definitions. We've included several definitions, most of which we don't have within our zoning

[18:27] code a couple we do just to make sure we reinforce that as you see through this.

[18:34] The environmental

[18:35] and community impact analysis, we feel like this is a very important component. Along with an

[18:41] application and the development plan, we also want to see basically an analysis of the environmental

[18:48] mental and community impacts, you know, it includes the narrative, the mental of a site plan,

[18:53] evaluation of impacts of improvements, and any potential environmental impacts.

[18:57] So it's just a companion document with that development plan and additional requirement

[19:01] that makes sure we're evaluating and coming to terms with any potential environmental impacts.

[19:05] That again, may need to be mitigated above and beyond the minimum thresholds

[19:09] we're establishing within the ordinance.

[19:11] But there is a rational nexus there, and this is objective to kind of get to that point.

[19:23] I'm going to go through this one carefully and deliberately, because this is one where

[19:26] when I proved it out, there's a couple of conflicts in here.

[19:32] The first one, you know, I want to hit a couple.

[19:35] We had a lot of comments about these developments not being on public water.

[19:40] There is a requirement for connection to public water and public sewer utilities that is throughout.

[19:45] If it's not public then it would have to be extended to the development and the side benefit of that is that opens up the opportunity to extend public water to other users who may not have that opportunity.

[19:57] We'll get into water in a little bit because then we'll have a conversation about impacts on the aquifer and some of those other questions right that if it's a use can the district do it.

[20:06] So again, as we've had all of these conversations,

[20:08] I'm gonna see a lot of intermingling between these,

[20:11] which I think made my brain hurt and made me miss a few, right?

[20:15] So I really wanted to spend some time talking

[20:19] about the buffer yards and screening,

[20:21] setbacks for principal and accessory structures

[20:23] as well as parking.

[20:24] And then after we get through that,

[20:26] a little conversation on building design,

[20:29] massing, facade, materials, building colors,

[20:32] I won't spend a lot of time on the rest.

[20:34] Next, mainly where I want to have this conversation and get the input is, is it necessary?

[20:42] And these are questions from the IASG units now, because I want you to follow along and

[20:45] have some examples set up.

[20:47] Is it necessary to have separate buffer yard requirements based on total building square

[20:50] footage?

[20:52] If no, then is there a preference to use 100, 150, or 300 feet or another number?

[20:57] Is 50 feet acceptable when adjoining non-residential uses?

[21:01] Setbacks are included as a blanket 200 feet from external property lines, but then we have

[21:08] buffer yard requirements are established, and if you notice, when we did it on building

[21:12] size, that buffer yard's 300 feet, which conflicts with that 200 foot setback.

[21:16] So that was the presentation.

[21:18] What we wanted to do was refine this and make it a little easier and go through a few examples

[21:22] so you can see what that looks on different pieces of property and building envelopes.

[21:26] And then I can give you a little bit of a teaser here that we, staff is not the professional

[21:31] opinion that we need to include a minimum water district area.

[21:34] We don't really include that in a lot of our zoning districts anyway.

[21:37] We don't think it's necessary because when you play the development scenario, many of you

[21:42] have heard me kind of go through how all of these things intermingle on to, if a development

[21:45] is going to be able to happen or not.

[21:47] And part of that is that when you overlay the buffer area and the setbacks, the minimum

[21:55] or development just kind of comes to its own fruition and I'll start small going big.

[22:00] So the first one is if we have setbacks, we have a 10 acre lot, a proposed development.

[22:06] The lowest setbacks in buffer area we've got, which I will tell you at the end, we believe

[22:11] is appropriate for the larger ones, but ultimately it's going to be up to the guidance and preference

[22:15] and pleasure if you will of the county council to the side doesn't give direction.

[22:18] But if you have a landscape buck for a hundred feet, which you can see on the edge there

[22:22] and I took that great little graphic that I will say AI helped me to regulate itself on just

[22:29] to replicate what those buffer yards are included and then we have a parking setback of 150 feet so

[22:34] that parking setback goes 50 feet beyond the 100 foot buffer and then we have a structure setback

[22:40] of 200 feet which goes 50 feet back on that 10 acre property which is 660 by 660 you see I just made

[22:47] it easy and took it to 600. What you get out of that on net building envelope is 200 by 200,

[22:54] which is right at about an acre. So if you take a simple net, and when you see me say simple net,

[23:00] I take a 70% of that because you're not going to put a building on the structure setback,

[23:05] structure setback, you're going to be looking at a 28,000 square foot building, right? I don't think

[23:12] anybody's going to find it financially feasible to put a data center on a 10 acre lot.

[23:17] And if they are, it's going to have such a minimum impact, it'll be essentially inconsequential, right?

[23:22] So let's raise our stakes a little bit and go to a 50 acre lot.

[23:25] And again, that middle represents your building envelope with the exact same buffers and setbacks, 100 foot for the landscape buffer.

[23:31] Then you've got initial 50 for the parking and additional 50 to 200 for the structure setback.

[23:36] What that does on your building area, and again, this is about 1,400 by 1,400 square foot by foot.

[23:43] But we get a net building envelope out of that about 1,076 by 1,076, right?

[23:50] That gives us a gross of about 26.6 acres or 1.1 million square feet.

[23:55] So just going from 10 to 50, dramatically increases that size and ability.

[23:59] And then you're simple net on there again by using about a 70% is about an 810,000 square

[24:04] foot of building space, 18.6 acres.

[24:08] And so you can see, you still have a really good setback there when you're talking about

[24:12] residences of 200 feet now if we go to 100 acre lot that gets really I mean

[24:19] dramatically larger I won't go through these setbacks again or by sick of me

[24:22] talking about it but the your building area you know is reduced within their

[24:26] you know is increased in there to about 1687 by 1687 are about 65.3 acres so

[24:33] we're looking at about 2.8 million square feet on gross which takes that net at

[24:38] 70% down to about 1.9 million are 45.7 acres.

[24:44] So that's kind of the representation here and as you saw that you can see that buffer

[24:48] and that scale still says the same.

[24:51] The question is as I went through this and you start playing this out is does it really

[24:56] matter on how much building is there with the setback or does it really matter on the size

[25:01] lot?

[25:02] And those are the two things that you know if you decide okay well all things can be

[25:07] treated equally and we're comfortable with a 200 foot setback fine or is there a threshold

[25:12] where the council would like to see a higher setback and we can make adjustments to those

[25:17] numbers accordingly.

[25:21] We do believe the one buffer requirement 100 feet which is a lot,

[25:26] I mean that's a pretty big buffer works very well with a 200 foot setback and as we did research

[25:33] on model ordinances that's the 200 foot seems to be the very common setback regardless of

[25:38] size with also that 100 foot buffer. The question and it may be rhetorical if you don't

[25:45] have any common is, you know, is it okay to change that when you join non-residential

[25:50] uses in another spoiler alert, you're going to see a conversation on should we alter some

[25:56] of the other standards if the property line adjoins a non-residential property line or should

[26:03] We hold the same standard and that's that is you know, I at least need head nods when we're the other when we get there to move forward with our draft

[26:12] Because right now the standards are one size fits all and we need to understand if this happens in the middle of industrial park

[26:17] And I'm surrounded on all four sides

[26:20] By industrial property and non-residential property and I'm on a public road not county maintained but public

[26:26] Industrial road that may one day be connected and still be a county maintained road

[26:32] It's still industrial nature. Does that require a different treatment if you're in that environment, right?

[26:42] Trying to, I'm trying to read here. Sometimes I put a little too much on here, but we don't believe a minimum

[26:46] ladder district areas necessary as we discussed. We also don't believe we need any internal setbacks.

[26:52] Any side yard, we've given one blanket yard setback, which normally we give a rear front

[26:58] aside. We're wanting to apply that all the way to all four sides of the property and if you have a

[27:05] multiple building development the way those are separated or per building code and the fire code

[27:11] quite frankly. So since it's an internal development much like an office park that's what you see are

[27:17] you know a lot of connections as a campus with canopies and a closeness for buildings for ease of

[27:21] maintenance or even if there's an internal subdividing where you would have let's say a hundred

[27:28] or development, they're 10 acre lots.

[27:31] We're really focused on the external outwardly facing

[27:34] property lines, not ones that are inwardly facing

[27:36] within that development.

[27:39] And you see that elsewhere, an easy one that I was at

[27:41] where you have that and you have no internal setback,

[27:43] road requirements, this river port business park.

[27:46] That's a very common practice.

[27:48] And there's more urban environments

[27:49] where you have these types of developments.

[27:50] I think, again, what we need to be concerned about

[27:52] with the council needs to be concerned upon and give input on

[27:55] is, you know, it's the buffer or appropriate and are those setbacks appropriate.

[28:02] Hey, Mitch, what's the format here we're going to follow because you're going to put your

[28:06] view guys want to jump in, or if you want to wait, it may be easier to give me some input

[28:10] and guidance here.

[28:11] That's what I'm thinking is.

[28:12] If you're explaining these things, we should probably talk through each of these and give

[28:15] you the feedback.

[28:17] Whatever works the best for you guys, I am as accommodating as it gets here.

[28:22] I mean, at the end of the day we all have to be comfortable with this, we have to be

[28:25] comfortable with the conversation and yeah I'm fine with doing it as we go through this.

[28:30] I'm just thinking you have a lot of questions here and we're going to figure out what these

[28:33] questions are when we actually get to the section of the code of what all the questions that you

[28:37] want to answer here so maybe we should just go through your questions and get an answer from the

[28:41] committee.

[28:44] So unless you get one I'll get started. No go ahead. So you were talking about the different

[28:53] And possibly different setbacks for, and we're digging into the construction of the

[28:59] sides and what it looks like and all of that.

[29:02] Those pieces, do you have the idea of it being different for different what it buffers

[29:09] up to is that I think really important because this is planned industrial and if there's a

[29:15] concrete plan on the other side of it or a junkyard on the other side of it, I don't

[29:18] think they're really going to care what that building looks like or how loud it is because

[29:22] they're probably going to be just as loud as not louder.

[29:24] Granted, if it backs up to a residential and it's just we re-zone some agricultural land

[29:30] into plain industrial and there's residential around it, that's a different story.

[29:35] Do you have any ideas on what those differences would be, because I mean like some of those

[29:40] like when we're down the 10 acre lot, right, like you know, I mean you're taking 95% of the

[29:45] usable land there.

[29:46] If that's something that we can, is in the middle of, plot down in the middle of industrial,

[29:50] like in the middle of industrial, not backing up to any residential, can we create a situation

[29:55] where that becomes economically feasible for the developer to develop that.

[30:00] In a place where no one's ever going to notice it's there. And that's where we already built in those reduced setbacks in there for adjoining non-residential, I think it was the 50-foot buffer yard. And so I think the easy part to do that is probably to reduce those, you know, in proportion to that, holistically, and then keep one set of standards for setbacks, because again, if you've got a 10 acre sit alone, then, you know, I think that kind of defaults and sets it's probably not appropriate for a data center, just market feasibility. I mean, if somebody can make some

[30:29] the work on their grade form. It's not going to be a large data center. But yeah, I think, I mean,

[30:36] I'm a believer in the contextual approach in a pragmatic manner. I think on the aesthetics,

[30:42] if you're asking what would my opinion be, I would say, there's high standards in there. Keep

[30:47] those for adjacent to residential. And then what you'll see throughout is three of these

[30:53] different elements, three of these different elements. I would recommend you still keep that in,

[30:57] but reduce it to one element so you don't just get a big gray box because even our industrial

[31:02] buildings, you want a little bit of differentiation as opposed to just some walking into a gray

[31:07] box and I don't know what side's blood, right?

[31:10] And so, and keep a facade treatment for one facades facing the parking lot.

[31:14] That's my preference again.

[31:17] My role here is to guide you to what policy direction and decision you want me to implement

[31:22] in these regulations.

[31:23] So that's why you know you guys get elected to do this and is to provide this to make that decision and our role of staff is always to give you our best advice and I will certainly give you my opinion as I just did.

[31:39] As that's part of it but it's ultimately up to you to say yeah I think we need some reduced standards or I think we just have a high standard no matter what and that's where we're going to be.

[31:48] You know, again, good, matter and different, you heard Al-Tunai, well, I don't know what

[31:53] their standards are.

[31:54] They asked to ask for high standards, but I do get down to a level of, you know, what

[31:59] I rather have a developer save on that and, you know, potentially maybe get more out

[32:03] of your community benefit agreement.

[32:05] So I don't know that's, and I don't even know if that's the zero sum game in my opinion.

[32:09] I don't know.

[32:10] And that's up to you guys again to give me the direction on what the majority preferences

[32:15] wrote to go down.

[32:16] I think just a point of clarification of what's behind that for me is because I think there's a big difference between the importance of like public safety

[32:22] Whether it's like protecting the aquifer or the electric rates or emissions versus like just what a building looks like and that's just my opinion or what type of fencing they use, right?

[32:31] So thank you, and I believe the other component to that that we consider and we've all discussed is the preservation and enhancement of a joining property values, right?

[32:40] We don't want to do anything that I've always told developers that we want to take actions around you

[32:47] You know developers want to invest in a place where their property values aren't just maintained

[32:51] But they're increased by the actions that the local body takes regarding land use, right?

[32:56] And so that's where that decision needs to happen. Does that matter if you're in a non-residential environment?

[33:02] probably not

[33:04] If you join residential obviously it matters a lot. I think we can all agree on that

[33:08] You just need to let me know what direction you all want to go on that.

[33:13] Okay. I'm not so worried about the facade either, depending on where it's located, right?

[33:18] If it's, and even on what side of the building that you're looking at, depending on what it's facing,

[33:23] I think to asking the question about this total building square footage matter,

[33:29] I think it more depends on what kind of noise is coming out.

[33:32] It's a larger building, equal more noise, right?

[33:36] And that's where I would say the controls we've got

[33:38] Keep that constant. So no matter what your size your development is the noise restrictions and when we get there again

[33:45] We're it's impossible to have this conversation without some of those. Yeah, that those regulations are constant and keep that to a minimum

[33:53] Right, right, and that's where I would say you know, you and I talked about that briefly was you know

[33:58] It really doesn't matter when you talk about how much it is because we're still we're still

[34:03] still regulating what it could be that impact on public health and safety, as you indicated, Mr. Crow, to those other items that would relate to.

[34:13] So you're saying there's a building that requires two generators, or a building that requires ten generators.

[34:18] They're still going to have the same noise standards when those generators are operating from the property line.

[34:24] Okay, yes, but then will the generators, if those are put outside the building on the side, will those be counted as part of the square footage of the building or will those be allowed into the like, so we're not sending a cap on a limitation on you can, you know, we're not going to cap people at the square footage there.

[34:42] So, you know, we're, you know, in a lot of, you know, we could, you know, you can put a flora ratio requirement on there.

[34:47] you can say no more than 70 percent of the buildable area can be covered in a

[34:51] pervious surface. We weren't really recommending that because of the stormwater

[34:56] controls and the way we've built that not to be into the buffer areas. So what we've

[35:00] done is we've forced that to the interior which is going to limit that

[35:03] developerable site because you're going to have to use that for infrastructure. So

[35:07] I mean, that would answer my question. No, I'm just thinking if they put generators

[35:10] outside the building along one side of the building. It doesn't count against anything

[35:14] Is that's not considered part of the building?

[35:17] It has to be within that 200 foot.

[35:19] So that's a different question.

[35:21] It's considered part of the building if it's structurally connected to the building.

[35:26] So if the requirement has been a sound,

[35:30] and you'll see on the air quality,

[35:32] we've added a little bit more standard than just the sound quality on the generators,

[35:36] but they're going to be in a sound attenuating enclosure.

[35:40] And so, you know, if that's connected to the building, that enclosure needs to be, you know,

[35:45] meet the building code to be actually part of that building or meet its code as to be a standalone in a parallel manner.

[35:52] Mitch, do we have, if then, kind of situation where the display that we just saw with all four sides being equal,

[36:04] do we have something that would say if the building backs up to industrial, we can reduce it if then-

[36:12] Well, that's what I'm asking you to-

[36:13] Do we-

[36:13] Do we want to do that?

[36:14] Yes, I can go through all those imponderables but yeah, okay, you know, it'd be real easy.

[36:20] And I think I can go backwards.

[36:21] Oh, can, thank you.

[36:23] Right.

[36:23] Probably easier on the 50 to say okay, you want to let's say that the opposite side of where I put

[36:28] the buffer rendering, let's say that's non-residential, then that 100 can go down to 50.

[36:33] the one fifty could go down to you know a hundred right do we have that written

[36:39] in to where it's like if that I'm asking you do you want me to do that yes

[36:43] because if it's backing up to industrial and it's a you know gravel pit or a

[36:49] junkyard or something that's already industrial it'd be a waste of space

[36:55] to require so much as if it were you know if it backed up to a cliff or backed up

[37:03] to something, then I think it should be able to be reduced so we're not wasting land useable land.

[37:12] So I was wondering if we had those if this then we can do that.

[37:17] You just hit you said the question I was asking a completely different.

[37:21] Okay, so you don't have that written out though.

[37:23] We had the reduced when you look at that on the buffers what we did was that buffer was 50 feet when

[37:30] So what I'm thinking is if you join residential, we say we keep it at 100 and then the recommendation we had and there was 50 feet for non residential, we keep that.

[37:39] Then I would ask to apply the setbacks the same way we have a bulk setback of basically what you see here with one exception.

[37:46] I think we had when you went over a certain amount of square footage of building then the buffer area went up to like 300 feet where your setback was 200 those two don't work because you can't have anything in that buffer area.

[37:58] So that's what we would ask is to be more consistent when you join residential no matter

[38:02] how much buildings on there because the intent of the buffer and those setbacks is to mitigate

[38:07] impacts, right?

[38:08] 100-foot buffer is big and that landscaping requirement is big.

[38:13] And so that's why we would say, and I want to keep it as simple as possible because then

[38:19] we start getting into all these if ends or buts.

[38:22] The simplest manner is to say okay, when you're joining residential it's 200 feet.

[38:26] if that's acceptable and we go through that,

[38:28] but if you would join anything non-residential,

[38:30] then these all get reduced essentially by 50 feet.

[38:36] Is that already written in the draft?

[38:38] We would change that.

[38:39] We would change that.

[38:40] That would be reflected in the draft.

[38:41] If it was in next two hours.

[38:42] So part of it's in there, like the buffers, right?

[38:45] That's in there, but the setbacks are not.

[38:47] We would make that consistent and revise that.

[38:49] And then say, no matter what the size,

[38:51] here's what your setbacks are.

[38:53] And here's what the buffer is.

[38:54] Okay.

[38:55] Mr. Ferris.

[38:56] You're still gonna have to do that same buffer requirement

[38:58] in that 50 feet, they would have to do that 100 feet.

[39:01] Mr. Barrett, do we see anything in here that's got the minimum impact on, I'm not concerned

[39:06] about commercial and not concern about other adjoining industrial, but I am concerned

[39:11] about the residential.

[39:13] Even though that we put a distance, let's say 200 feet, but they still have a problem

[39:19] with noise.

[39:20] I mean, you could take something like a single generator, it's not going to create the

[39:24] noise and vibrations as 10 generators as an example. So if you have 10 of them at 200 feet

[39:30] that's going to be much louder and much more of a problem then.

[39:34] Again, decibel levels are a constant. Okay, so if I have 10 or 100 you still have to

[39:39] meet that minimum decibel level at the property line.

[39:42] Okay, well then you also have frequencies that you have to be concerned about.

[39:47] Which are exactly why we included the low frequency requirement as well.

[39:50] Well, and the requirement for a long down residential property line is continuous monitoring.

[39:55] And then what happens if one of these go over, I think, a triggers an automated violation

[40:00] and corrective action?

[40:02] Okay.

[40:02] But at what point does that trigger that?

[40:04] Are they given, just like any sign wave, is it, you're going to have a nice and low?

[40:09] We've worded it that it's immediate and it has to be addressed immediately so that they take

[40:15] action and sure that it's how is it tracked or traced or monitored in a

[40:20] center up for a second because I think we should probably separate these from

[40:23] what standards we want versus what are the enforcements of that and how we're

[40:28] going to measure those as we get through let's first maybe agree on what

[40:32] standards we want and then we can come back and figure out how do we monitor and

[40:36] an enforce and penalize or whatever is it so we're not diving into too many

[40:43] topics on each one of these. Because I think the enforcement and how will

[40:46] monitors probably going to be similar across many of these? Correct. All the way.

[40:52] And again, when we get there, just so you know, so I can let everybody know, we

[40:56] have up to and including the disconnection of power to the site for for a

[41:00] day. Yeah. It's a heavy stick for noncompliance, but I don't think, you know,

[41:05] personally, I think given the protections we've got in for all those things.

[41:09] That's what I'm saying. The setbacks only matter on the land use you've got

[41:12] that it doesn't matter what's going on in there because we have the environmental protection

[41:16] and controls in there, whether you have a million square feet or a hundred thousand square

[41:21] feet or whether you have one generator or 50 generators.

[41:25] Because they're all required to be in a sound, detainuating enclosure and meet these minimum

[41:29] decibel thresholds including DBCs which are those lower frequency components that, you know,

[41:34] everybody's kind of talked about the hums and some of those items.

[41:37] So Mitch for just coming back to the top of your hand rather than doing an adjacency type thing and I think this might cover what we're talking about.

[41:49] Could we just do if the property lines within a thousand feet of a residential zone or agricultural zone thing or 500 feet?

[41:57] Because that seems like it would cover if it's surrounded by a business park or something and then there's a residence on the other side.

[42:05] I mean, we certainly can, I think that's a little problematic, but I mean, I think you're

[42:10] setbacks or you're setbacks, but yeah, I mean, if we want to say, you know, you can...

[42:17] Because I would say go for the lower setback, put that in, and then it can trigger a higher

[42:21] setback if it's got residential agriculture.

[42:24] If that property line's still within a thousand feet of residential, so if you have an industrial

[42:29] a lot and then residential on the other side, then if that's 1,001 feet away, then we want

[42:35] to trigger a residential adjacency requirement.

[42:38] Yeah.

[42:40] It's just like a thought that I had, I don't know how you would implement it.

[42:44] I would personally say that I think because of the the immensity of the buffers, we have

[42:48] in the already the amount of usable land that we are requiring them to give up.

[42:55] the idea of a chase like it's touching it is a more I think more efficient way to do that because

[43:04] we've already got these huge buffers in place if it is within a residential we've already got

[43:08] sound restrictions if it's next to residential so to arbitrarily say if it's just within a thousand

[43:14] feet or 500 feet even though it's in an industrial park again if it's an industrial park it's an

[43:19] industrial park but if it's on the edge of it and it backs up to residential property where

[43:25] You've lived there your whole life, and you don't want to see it right up next to you

[43:29] I think that's a different story and it's just in my head as a consistency factor

[43:34] because

[43:37] Especially as things possibly get rezoned and stuff like that we can have all kinds of

[43:42] problems, I think and

[43:45] You know we're trying to make sure these things are consistent and we'll stand up in court, right? That's big part of it

[43:51] Lee Lee defends.

[43:52] William.

[43:53] Mitch, looking at your buffers, so this would just be my recommendation to the council

[43:57] members.

[43:58] I think councilman Aaron brings up a good point in terms of if then what if next.

[44:03] And that is, you have the minimum whatever that you decide to set it at, say just for argument

[44:10] sake, it's 100 feet.

[44:12] But then as the project takes place and obviously most people don't build them in squares, they're

[44:17] in rectangles.

[44:18] There are more than a few hills in Jefferson County so you can back up against hills if you're in a valley.

[44:26] So I think then it becomes a matter of the legislative process.

[44:30] As you go through what those exceptions might be rather than you're not doing a CPU type thing, but what the individual.

[44:37] So you leave it as not as prescriptive as possible so that it gives you the legislative body the most amount of flexibility in what you're going to do with that project when the time comes.

[44:48] Well, in your right, we can't cover, I mean, we can't cover every single thing, but the point you bring up is this very hilly in Jefferson County, and if the back of this my piece of property backs to a piece of residential property, and I got a mountain go hill.

[45:00] Well, behind me, that's never going to, I mean, as infeasably we had developed, then that development plan could come in and say, you know, they could ask for, and this is what we do now, a deviation with that development plan, and we would consider the merits of, okay, you know, I know I'm backing to residential property, but I want a 50 foot setback because nothing is ever going to happen on this side of that mountain, right? And that's something we would, again, consider contextually within the seminal development plan, absolutely.

[45:30] And yes,

[45:31] Yes, very few times are these perfect squares, but I had the time nor the patience to go

[45:38] through all the other rooms.

[45:39] It was pretty.

[45:40] I just had to give you a heart.

[45:41] So complicated it was now.

[45:43] So I'll just say this simply, I just think we just need to make sure we're protecting

[45:47] the residential sides of these.

[45:50] And it might even be not just a residential side, but the two sides that would be closed

[45:55] and maybe so many feet even on that.

[45:57] So just protect the residential sides or that's the key to me.

[46:00] Thank you.

[46:01] That's my preference.

[46:03] Everything else is kind of all seen in the same business.

[46:05] It's commercial, it's whatever.

[46:07] So we'll do that.

[46:08] So what we'll do is rule revise two separate standards.

[46:11] Obviously, as everybody knows,

[46:13] there's opportunity on any of these,

[46:15] for the applicant to seek a deviation

[46:17] with that development plan,

[46:19] so middle which is analyzed just like we do now.

[46:21] We go through and analyze America recommendation

[46:23] to accept or deny that.

[46:25] And I think you've seen us come down on both sides

[46:27] of those based on as long as I've been here

[46:29] for two and a half years that we, you've seen ones we have supported and ones that we

[46:33] are like absolutely not that is not make any sense whatsoever.

[46:36] So, so to go along with that though, it makes sure that we're protecting site sound,

[46:40] air quality.

[46:41] Yep.

[46:41] Everything else has met, you know, max and again that will all apply no matter what you do

[46:46] you still have to meet those standards.

[46:48] Correct.

[46:48] We're not changing those standards except, you know, again, I hate to be like, I feel like

[46:53] it's going to be easy when we get to noise now because, you know, we do have a joining

[46:57] not residential add five, that's add five for each one of those, which is what we discussed within the context of those, those presentations.

[47:05] We good?

[47:10] Okay, thank you.

[47:14] Yep, sorry, the bottom one that we talked about.

[47:20] Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, Dr. Azam, Mr. Groeke, comment two.

[47:25] I think we had everything set up the bottom one and it was a really good requirement to add in

[47:30] that the landscaping and including the other standards we put in be native Missouri species.

[47:37] That was kind of an easy one. Yeah, there was two native and not or wasn't it considered a new

[47:42] sense? Well, I think we already had the prohibition in there. We carried that. If not, we'll bring

[47:46] that forward. So we have the hearty zone, which has been redefined actually within the last two years

[47:51] for, you know, we used to be split. Now they've given us a weird number. But yeah, you know, it needs

[47:55] to be obviously if it's native, then it's going to be acceptable in that heartiness, but we want to

[47:59] keep native and keep out invasive. So good. Thank you. Thanks for bringing me back to that.

[48:09] And Mr. Grotiki did not pay me to keep giving them credit for the comments. So, so there

[48:13] really knows that. Going into the lighting requirement for lighting photometric plan, again,

[48:19] 0.1 foot candle at residential property lines 0.5 at non-residential speed. You see this

[48:25] standard throughout differently. Dark sky requirement, sight lighting to comply with

[48:29] IES Eliminating Engineer Society Standards.

[48:32] We have differing requirements for the lighting of horizontal and non-horizontal surfaces,

[48:37] as we discussed.

[48:38] Put a cap on light pole standards, which is pretty consistent business parks and industrial

[48:43] parks at 20 feet.

[48:44] It prevents us from having a lot of other problems.

[48:47] The required reduction in lighting after hours, automated lighting controls and security emergency

[48:53] lighting requirements.

[48:55] the operational requirements for operational maintenance standards.

[48:59] One of the items we had in there, and I'm going to see how I covered this real quick,

[49:04] if you give me one second, so I can catch up to my notes here, is we've capped that maximum color at 3000K.

[49:14] And you remember we showed that. That's a very soft white. That's the standard,

[49:18] not to make sure that we're really helping control that. You've got the automatic controls after hours.

[49:23] you see a lot of those things built in and those should remain no matter what you're adjacent to.

[49:28] The only exception again we had was that one minor increase in foot candle lines at non-residential

[49:33] properties which you wouldn't even notice. We don't need and this was something we talked about.

[49:38] We had a lot of language in the presentation talking about sensitive environmental habitat area

[49:43] protection for lighting standards because all of those protections already built into the high

[49:49] standards we've said. And a lot of places struggle to define, you know, what's

[49:54] habitat protection areas. So the default

[49:56] head seems to have been moving to the contemporary approach of

[50:00] treat everything as a sensitive habitat and have these high standards built in.

[50:06] Noise before you move on because I just found another one that I don't think we

[50:09] just like making me want to. I do like that you use that other button on your

[50:13] screen. I figured out how to use it. Because this was brought up in progress through

[50:16] through five meetings. And we talked about, you know, when we do the

[50:19] buffers and the plants that we should make sure that this year round opaque and you said well that

[50:25] would be all evergreen if it was plants so we needed to have supplemental types of wheat buffer

[50:29] requirements. And so in that buffer requirement we built in a requirement for ever greens and if

[50:34] you want to supplement the taller conifers versus a normal evergreen requirement at planning and then

[50:39] for maturity of I believe it three years. Okay, so it does deal. So we've got that. Yes absolutely

[50:45] correct. And then, you know, to take it one step further and not rewind my slides, but the

[50:49] conversation to the aesthetic controls was, you know, we're requiring those to be fully opaque,

[50:55] 10-foot enclosures around, like, your utility stations and stuff like that to make sure

[50:59] that we're screening that visibility and minimizing those impacts, which is standard now anyway.

[51:06] I mean, that's a very standard practice. Again, what we're doing is, I feel like in a lot of these

[51:10] instances we're starting to upgrade our standards to where everybody else is on some of these basic

[51:16] industrial large scale development standards. So okay on noise we'll go through let's talk about

[51:23] where we're at on noise and again this one should be pretty easy we've got the separate caps for

[51:28] daytime and nighttime, separate caps on both the maximum DBA and the low frequency that DBC so

[51:33] Mr. Talk I believe that addresses your question as you can see we put those daytime limits 7 to 10

[51:39] at 55 low frequency at 65 and again you can see where we add on 50 generally that's like when

[51:48] you're looking at 50 55 range that's moderate rainfall so I guess the noise will be a level that

[51:54] if you do live next you're going to have a good nap and then the night time from 10 to 7 we've lowered

[52:00] those by five, from 50 DBA to 60 DBA.

[52:05] And again, those limits apply to adjoining properties

[52:09] being zoned or uses residential, institutional,

[52:13] agricultural with the dwelling,

[52:14] or adjoining property is non-residential.

[52:18] Those can be increased by five DBA.

[52:20] Again, you see that sliding scale applied there.

[52:22] So even if you take that maximum during day from 55 to 60,

[52:26] you're at basically normal conversation level,

[52:34] joining to non-residential during the day, highest level.

[52:39] The noise limits on emergency generators include the requirement for enclosure and a stand on detaining enclosure.

[52:44] We noticed we had one mess in here, again, that we're asking the committee to amend it to include all emergency diesel generators

[52:52] shall be fully enclosed in sound and emission attenuating housings.

[52:57] So again, a little bit more environmental control there.

[52:59] That's the common practice now.

[53:01] As designed to reduce noise, particulate and gaseous emissions escaping into adjacent properties.

[53:08] We do have limits on the cooling system noise.

[53:11] We have post-construction compliant testing requirements included, as well as that ongoing sound monitoring

[53:16] required when you are adjacent to residential property lines.

[53:22] questions on any of that. Where do you add the stuff about the tier four? That's

[53:27] supposed to be here. Later. Later. Okay. In energy. See, it's all over. That was my

[53:34] mess. We had that the whole time. I hit it 30 times. And like I said, I looked at

[53:37] this. I did a word search and I couldn't believe I messed that one. But yes, that's an

[53:40] energy. And if I didn't address it, I'll go back and tell you where it is. But I'm

[53:44] I'm pretty sure I'll put this on as a note.

[53:46] Mitch, look right here.

[53:48] Boom, on cue, thank you, Councilman Brown.

[53:53] We have a great team.

[53:54] Do you want me to go back now?

[53:56] Are you gonna make me go back?

[53:57] I have a question, but the last one.

[53:59] I do have a question with the last.

[54:01] You know, you're talking about noise and peak levels.

[54:04] I'm assuming you're talking about normal conditions.

[54:06] What happens if something goes wrong with the motor or?

[54:09] So in an emergency situation, you do suspend those.

[54:11] So if they're all fully operating, I'm not aware of anywhere setting limits on that because

[54:18] they always have the clause.

[54:19] Every single ordinance I've seen, I haven't seen one that has, here's limits in emergency

[54:23] situation if they're all running a full capacity emergency situation that those go on.

[54:28] Which is why within that energy requirement, when we move to the next one, you need to first

[54:35] explore the utilization of battery energy storage systems, buses, and you need to prove to

[54:40] us that's not feasible to even go to generators, because that eliminates those problems.

[54:47] But yeah, I'm not aware of any low jurisdiction, I'm not saying it's not out there, but I'm

[54:51] not aware of any that regulate in those emergency conditions, because those are very limited

[54:55] in duration.

[54:57] But do we define what an emergency situation is?

[55:01] If you want me to, I think it's self-evident, because of everything else we say you can't use

[55:06] generators for.

[55:07] I just want to make sure whose emergency maybe is the, well you can't use it for, you

[55:13] know, you can't use it to not pay, you know, not use your power, you can't use it for

[55:17] shaving. You know, I think we say non-emergency situations. So, you know, in the event of,

[55:24] you know, a power outage to the site that is not caused by the operator, I think, you know,

[55:28] if you want it, would like us to put clarification language in there, it's a simple thing to do.

[55:32] If I could piggyback on that, I'm less concerned with what is an emergency rather than

[55:38] Defining an allowable duration of an emergency. Well, I mean, I don't know. Talk to I was just in Nashville and

[55:45] You know their schools that have been out for seven days because they don't have power

[55:51] I don't know I mean I would be there to engine on the kind of emergency obviously. I think there's a difference between like equipment

[55:56] About function in the data center versus the the external conditions right versus what are they saying act of God right because they're

[56:05] internal, I mean, you know, I work with one of the other.

[56:09] Manufacturing company that doesn't maintain anything

[56:11] and them not maintaining things does not necessitate it.

[56:15] The employers not watch, which is what.

[56:17] Well, it's been in all my employers in the sheet metal industry,

[56:20] they don't like to maintain anything, so.

[56:22] You're right, which is why I was saying,

[56:23] who's emergency, right?

[56:24] It's like, who defines the emergency?

[56:26] I can help you with the resume, if you need to,

[56:28] after that kind of, that's fine.

[56:30] I mean, we can do that.

[56:32] And I think what we can do is a couple limits

[56:33] and their number one can't be an act of, you know, the operator, okay. And, you know,

[56:38] an emergency is defined by a situation where the operators control essentially an act of

[56:43] God. That's why I said, I think, you know, I don't know, I'll go personally if I had a generator,

[56:48] my power went out and you told me I could only run it for eight hours, I'd probably tell you,

[56:52] well, I'm not saying. But I think that's legitimate and that's what these are all based on,

[56:57] which is what you see. So I think what we'll do is we'll narrowly construe what an emergency is,

[57:01] Right, and in the revised draft and leave it at that with those two items if that's a satisfaction of the committee

[57:13] That addressed a number of my questions the only other concern that I had really was was the average noise for instance

[57:19] If it's if you have one if it's if it's at 60 is the limit and it goes for 61 or 62

[57:26] Just for a split second. That's one thing

[57:28] But what happens if it goes for another you know 10 minutes is that is that a big deal?

[57:31] Well, that's an exceedance and if it goes back it's a corrective action and I mean

[57:35] And if you want to and we go into enforcement, we can be a little bit more detailed in how

[57:40] that is so that you don't have the opportunity to go 10 minutes over 20 times a day or something

[57:46] like that.

[57:47] I get it.

[57:48] Well, there's a difference between going 20 times a day and then going 20 minutes and once

[57:53] a month.

[57:53] What happens with the, it's easier to say if you go over, it's a violation and here's what's

[57:58] going to happen versus, okay, well, we're going to give you so many bites at the apple until

[58:03] we have a problem because then you always have a reset and everybody plays really smart.

[58:07] That's why we wanted the ongoing sound monitoring so that we would essentially, you know, we

[58:13] would be notified if there's an exceedance on the noise, right?

[58:17] And that's the thing we had was the implementation of the constant sound monitoring at the property

[58:24] lines that are non-residential.

[58:25] So, you know, we can look at that if there's some places that have that to find it, just

[58:30] the more we do the harder it is for us to deal with these items when they happen.

[58:33] It's easier to just be cleaner about that.

[58:35] Someone very much smarter than me suggested that when it comes to these like defining

[58:40] emergencies, like the EPA and their Clean Air Act already has an emergency engine rule for

[58:45] backup generators, so maybe that might be a definition that we want to go ahead.

[58:50] Yeah, I mean, it's easy to punt to an emergency as defined by the EPA, and...

[58:54] Right.

[58:54] I mean, the stipulations are already there of like what it, I mean, that's obviously

[58:59] easier.

[59:01] Yeah.

[59:01] So then it's another entity that's defining us and not us.

[59:04] A forward is to.

[59:05] Yeah.

[59:06] Thank you.

[59:07] And what is the standard for just like a regular plan industrial warehouse or manufacturing

[59:11] facility or whatever?

[59:13] I mean, are these, are we setting the same limits as we would with the, not right now, but

[59:18] my recommend days when we go through the EDO is a lot of these will be applied to that.

[59:22] right now, it's generally, I mean, pretty wide open while, while west, hard to monitor

[59:28] that. So, you know, I would say a lot of these will apply to new and then I think, you

[59:33] know, we would, you know, as you've all noticed, we have had an issue with dealing with noise

[59:38] complaints. So, parallel to this would be, and this is, again, something I did when we were

[59:43] in Maryland Heights was, we set, you know, noise limits for these generators because they

[59:48] became a big thing in the early 2000s associated with office buildings.

[59:53] It was in an environment that was adjacent to another community's residential areas.

[1:00:00] So, Maryland House was a very good neighbor, and they set these requirements for the emergency generators, and then they adopted a revised noise ordinance. It made a very, very objective to enforce, right? And it brought those two items together. Now be something that you would see us take action for moving forward when we talk about UDO amendments.

[1:00:24] I mean, please, let me know. I'm just kidding. I mean, the noise is big. I mean, that's what we're on. These ones that are a lot of concerns.

[1:00:32] and there are a lot of concerns for the residents of this county.

[1:00:36] I mean, we've all gotten impacts on that,

[1:00:37] but it's also concerns related to other matters

[1:00:39] that we quite frankly don't have very good controls on.

[1:00:42] And you've seen that.

[1:00:43] I think you've all brought a complaint in the frustrating manner

[1:00:46] that I've seen that, you know, we have loose controls

[1:00:50] that it's not the Sheriff's Department,

[1:00:52] nor my department's fault on code enforcement

[1:00:55] that we just don't have what we need to enforce that, right?

[1:00:58] And that'll be a conversation for a different day,

[1:01:00] but related to these.

[1:01:01] I think we have very good controls on noise.

[1:01:07] Energy. Again, here's your tier four. That's the one we're asking go in.

[1:01:11] It's the management of peak loads, renewable energy requirements. I didn't know if anybody had questions about that.

[1:01:18] I saw, you know, I know there was one question about that, you know, what if the power company wanted to say,

[1:01:26] no, well, they don't, they don't have that because that's off grid. So, you know, if we set a standard and again,

[1:01:33] and it was simple, I think the 40% was a standard

[1:01:35] we included in the ordinance upon opening

[1:01:40] and that's solar panels on the building

[1:01:41] and maybe a couple in the field.

[1:01:43] You know, I think it's reasonable,

[1:01:45] I also think it provides protection to the grid.

[1:01:47] It's not that tall of a hurdle to get over.

[1:01:51] However, again, that's up to the purview

[1:01:53] of the Council on the committee to provide,

[1:01:56] if you believe that's to high or just right.

[1:02:00] The specific question I have with respect to that

[1:02:02] It's who is ultimately who ultimately makes the determination and con Jefferson County imposes as a condition if the utility provider does not agree or unable to go

[1:02:11] The utility provider has no purview over that

[1:02:14] The hammer can't say you can't use renewable in fact. I think they'd probably be in trouble if they told somebody you can't put solar panels on

[1:02:21] But we have the right to impose that

[1:02:24] Yeah, I mean we can't tell you who to get power from that is regulated through the state and that we're going to regulate state

[1:02:29] But how you how you provide that with renewables that is a common one across the whole country and regulate and deregulate state

[1:02:35] So it comes to power for these developments as a renewable requirement

[1:02:38] So so

[1:02:42] if you set that 40% threshold then that goes along with that power analysis at the beginning that okay

[1:02:47] Prove to us the solar is providing 40% of

[1:02:51] Your operational demands and again

[1:02:54] Common practice that's the one we talked about and brought in here

[1:02:58] So, but any any any event it would be under our control or under the control of the county. Yes. Okay.

[1:03:05] Okay,

[1:03:10] and really I mean, I think that covered the energy, you know, the evaluation of the

[1:03:14] buses was a big one. We've done everything we can in here to, you know, require the impact, you

[1:03:19] know, have that impact analysis. There's some things we didn't include like, you know, give us your

[1:03:24] annual usage. I think that there's some core cases that says we can't do that. So there were

[1:03:28] items that legally, that are private, that we don't have per view over, but we believe

[1:03:34] we've provided these protections to ensure that energy levels good.

[1:03:39] As a side note, there was information that came out from Amarin within the last week that

[1:03:43] was very specifically focused on large capacity users, and their absolute ability to provide

[1:03:50] power to these types of developments that includes data centers with no adverse impacts to residential

[1:03:56] users and the rates.

[1:03:57] So that was something that Amber and Proactively came out with and I believe that's you can find

[1:04:03] down their website that message. So the

[1:04:08] new question, the new section that we're recommending to add

[1:04:11] in for air quality, the purpose statement easy. First is an air quality impact assessment application.

[1:04:20] You know, it is going to be by a qualified professional that addresses diesel generator emissions,

[1:04:26] cooling system refrigerants and leakage potential, construction phase emissions, cumulative

[1:04:31] impacts from all phases of development, compliance with Modi and R and other applicable EPA standards.

[1:04:37] The county may require modeling of particular matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,

[1:04:43] volatile organic compounds and greenhouse gases, cooling system emissions and refrigerants that

[1:04:48] use refrigerants that have that global warming, we talked about that less than 750, unless

[1:04:54] less technically infeasible, that's a objective finding.

[1:04:58] I don't believe that would be technically infeasible

[1:05:00] because that is possible, but that's now,

[1:05:01] everybody has in their language.

[1:05:03] Facilities maintain a refrigerant management plan

[1:05:05] that includes leak detection systems,

[1:05:07] annual reporting of refrigerant uses and losses,

[1:05:10] and immediate corrective action upon detection

[1:05:12] of a leak that exceeds 50 pounds.

[1:05:15] Reporting compliance facilities,

[1:05:17] shall submit a semi-annual air quality compliance report

[1:05:19] to the county that includes generator test logs,

[1:05:21] emissions data, refrigerant leakage reports, and notices a violations issued by Modi and RAPA.

[1:05:27] And we serve the right to perform inspections and require a third party audit set the expense

[1:05:31] of the owner operator.

[1:05:33] And that was the portion we did just add in, relayed air quality.

[1:05:38] Questions?

[1:05:45] That's what they all say.

[1:05:47] Who's the best?

[1:05:47] My mom and church.

[1:05:50] Water usage.

[1:05:52] Moving on to water, again, we really want to hit public utility, public utility for water

[1:05:57] There is required where available the developers required to extend to the site and thereby providing

[1:06:01] the opportunity for customers to tap on utilize its cell that serves from well water.

[1:06:06] We also have the requirement for disclosure that proposed cooling technology and maximum

[1:06:10] daily water demand, requirement for the use of liquid, cooled, closed loop, limited evaporation

[1:06:15] cooling systems.

[1:06:16] Here's a question and direction I think I know the answer but to ask it, do we add in the requirement

[1:06:21] or the most advanced efficient cooling system at project development and upon any system upgrades

[1:06:27] are improvements. So that we have that requirement. I've seen every nod and yes.

[1:06:32] I think though it needs to stipulate as long as that advanced efficient cooling system

[1:06:36] does it mean that you move from a closed loop system where you start consuming water?

[1:06:41] Well, that's the efficiency we need on the water usage. That reduces the water.

[1:06:45] So you're talking about efficiency? This isn't a water efficiency, but they might say,

[1:06:49] hey, this is more efficient at cooling, but it means more efficient water use.

[1:06:54] The goal here is to say, yeah, quit using water.

[1:06:58] Don't use water.

[1:06:58] So thank you.

[1:06:59] Very simple, right?

[1:07:00] Don't use water.

[1:07:01] Yeah.

[1:07:02] And again, that's, I think, as we've gone through the,

[1:07:06] you know, each session, the discussion of the items,

[1:07:09] the information, the pros and cons,

[1:07:11] the approach to minimize, you know,

[1:07:14] any opportunity for these to have negative impacts, right?

[1:07:17] The water aquifer along with, you know,

[1:07:19] the energy grid and everything else.

[1:07:21] So that's why you're seeing that.

[1:07:22] So that that's I mean, it's simply stated. Don't use much water. Well, we can kind of we'll clean that language up and add that in there, then.

[1:07:31] The other one is we the developer to provide verification from the public water supply district regarding adequate supply capacity and adequate treatment distribution system capacity given the comments we got.

[1:07:43] You know, would you like us to add an requirement for that they also need to demonstrate no adverse impacts to the supplying aquifer be utilized by the public water district.

[1:07:52] because that was a big conversation. The water does come from somewhere, right?

[1:07:56] And if you're not on the river, it comes from down in the ground. Again, you know,

[1:08:00] part of a community that had their water treatment plant that you could pump

[1:08:05] almost 8 million gallons a day and it would never even drop by one inch the

[1:08:09] aquifer level because of the rich supply that went up that side of the river

[1:08:14] along the Missouri River. And so that would be, you know, an idea that if you guys

[1:08:20] are interested. We can clean that up a little bit and include that as a requirement as well.

[1:08:25] I do have a comment are we going to be requiring hybrid systems because that's what they're doing.

[1:08:28] They did the last I think three or four up in the Altoona's head, water and air because during the

[1:08:34] summer, summertime, summertime they use water but during the wintertime they bring in most of their

[1:08:38] wheelings. We're just requiring it to be the most efficient, you know, and that's where I think if

[1:08:42] you put in put that in with the air cooling, again the noise impacts and all that apply again.

[1:08:48] You know, I can look at some language, if that's what you want, or we can say it needs

[1:08:52] to be closed lit, most advanced water efficient technology, which I think brings into those

[1:08:56] hybrid systems.

[1:08:58] They're going to want to use those anyway, you know, they want to use the most efficient

[1:09:02] models they can.

[1:09:03] Obviously, the more water they can see, the more they pay for the operation, so it's in

[1:09:07] their benefit to bring that down.

[1:09:08] So, if that's a pleasure we can add that in, you know, kind of, or include that within

[1:09:13] the most efficient technology.

[1:09:16] I'm just don't concerned about that it states limited evaporation cooling that we're

[1:09:20] even allowing, even if it's limited, it's unefaporation.

[1:09:24] I don't know if it's possible to have no evaporation, but again, those start to get

[1:09:28] into engineering technical specifics that it's really hard to find out what the truth is.

[1:09:33] So I don't know if that's true statement.

[1:09:37] I don't mean you're going to have evaporation, but it's not evaporation that's being consumed

[1:09:40] out of the system.

[1:09:41] If it's a closed loop system, I think we said this before.

[1:09:44] If you're evaporating water out of your closed-loop system and you have a problem, I mean I can look at better language

[1:09:52] That's what's out there. So let's go up to you guys if you want me to look and see if there's something better out there

[1:09:56] We can certainly do that because it's those evaporation those kind of kind of

[1:10:01] Their hybrid systems they might be closed loop but they're also using evaporated methods to cool those and that waters evaporate

[1:10:08] That's water. You have to constantly replenish for that system and those closed-loop take it from like we said about three to five million

[1:10:14] gallons a day done about a half a million gallons. So I mean I can look and see what else is

[1:10:20] out there if you want me to bring some other kind of language in there and again provide it

[1:10:24] in their revised draft. Mitch should we include something like a prohibitation of once-through water

[1:10:31] cooling in there. So it's plain. Say that again. Once-through water cooling. I think we've already done

[1:10:38] that in here but if we want to, if we want to overtly say that, it never hurts. You know what I mean

[1:10:43] I mean, that makes it plain that you just can't flush the water through.

[1:10:46] Because I mean, I think I saw some language unless it's been removed.

[1:10:49] I talked about blowdown, which talks about cooling towers, which then is not a close,

[1:10:55] that kind of means that you're using a lot of water.

[1:11:01] Yeah.

[1:11:01] We can look at that.

[1:11:02] I can tighten this up and see what you guys think.

[1:11:05] Like I said, the engine here, I don't believe any of us are water engineers or understand

[1:11:09] the aquifer fully.

[1:11:10] No, that's why I think you put the best, but there's a lot of information there that you know

[1:11:15] Where's the technology at and it's always improving the one thing you always see is you know the most advanced

[1:11:21] efficient technology kind of as a as a throwaway on all this right

[1:11:25] um, and you know

[1:11:26] We can clarify that and it certainly never has hurts to be overt in a prohibition as well. Can we?

[1:11:33] Go ahead. Oh, can we add to that most efficient

[1:11:37] technology that is the least affects the public.

[1:11:47] So like they said, if there's a better technology but it's not as good for the community,

[1:11:53] that if you're going to say the most efficient technology, but the least negative effects

[1:12:01] on.

[1:12:02] So again, here's all I would say on that because, you know, no matter what you do, you

[1:12:08] stuff to meet all these other things.

[1:12:10] So if it's going to have an adverse impact, then it's going to either be noise or whatever.

[1:12:14] It's going to have to fall within the parameters we've set on these other items.

[1:12:19] So right, and that's what I think, you know, when we say the most efficient technology, they

[1:12:23] have to put something in there that is also going to operate within the parameters of these

[1:12:27] other limits that we've set on the other, and I'm going to call them environmental impacts.

[1:12:32] This is what we call light air, you know, all those things, so we can do it.

[1:12:38] We're able to add something where I'll kind of say the spirit of what I'm thinking.

[1:12:43] You can figure out the language, but in the event of like a disruption to the available

[1:12:47] water supply, residential use, shall take priority.

[1:12:56] Yeah, I mean, we could we could certainly do that.

[1:12:58] I think you've already got that in there with the demonstration that you can't have any adverse

[1:13:02] impacts to the residential supply. Just to really clarify that, I mean, I mean, up to, you know,

[1:13:11] balance of the committee, but doesn't the Missouri State Statues now require that? Yeah, yeah.

[1:13:15] And on the electric as well. Yep.

[1:13:20] Anything else? So, Mitch, I mean, just get into this second. So,

[1:13:24] if a site gets approved and say the developer wants to put in their own well,

[1:13:31] Well, we're going to put any kind of prohibitation on that.

[1:13:34] They have to connect the public utility.

[1:13:37] Excuse me?

[1:13:38] They have to be connected to public water.

[1:13:40] So, so they will not allow any wells on.

[1:13:43] No, I mean, we're saying that.

[1:13:46] It doesn't mean that they can't ask for a deviation.

[1:13:48] I would tell you not to approve that.

[1:13:50] I don't know why we would say that.

[1:13:52] You know, that's the intent is to make sure they're being served by public water

[1:13:55] and they don't have those other adverse impacts.

[1:13:57] But yeah, essentially what we put is you have the fundamental requirement

[1:14:00] to connect to public utilities, water and sewer.

[1:14:06] Okay, because the concern has been brought up about penetration

[1:14:08] into the aquifer below the ground level water

[1:14:11] and draining the aquifer.

[1:14:13] And that's why we're telling that.

[1:14:15] Okay.

[1:14:16] Now again, it doesn't stop somebody from coming in here

[1:14:18] and want to make it as for deviations

[1:14:20] from every single thing you share.

[1:14:21] There's a proof here.

[1:14:23] Right.

[1:14:23] We have developers I feel like they'd like to do that.

[1:14:27] But, you know, that's up to our role to evaluate those requests

[1:14:30] for deviations.

[1:14:31] and for you guys ultimately make that decision, but yeah, as this stands now, we would allow

[1:14:37] that to pass mustered. Mustered?

[1:14:42] Well, I think the, you know, the prohibition or restriction

[1:14:46] should be such a real high level because this board changes. And that's what we have been

[1:14:50] beginning. You know, you're very beginning. It says, it's required. We have that up front

[1:14:55] and then we've reinforced that throughout on the wastewater and the water side.

[1:15:00] We haven't got to the meat of the steak yet, which is your CBAs. So the other requirement we put in, so we've got a requirement for monthly water consumption and then a requirement for utilization of reclaimed water to the maximums that are practical. Normally, where you see that is your stormwater to be reclaimed for any irrigation system systems you have for your landscaping. And so that's really, you know, we want to make sure that's included and that we don't have an additional water consumption.

[1:15:29] that it has to be provided by a district for irrigation or other on-site items that you could use reclaimed water for.

[1:15:38] With wastewater, we have a requirement for wastewater impact assessment provided by a licensed engineer.

[1:15:45] Again, at the end, we want to add in a requirement to clarify licensed engineer be professionally licensed PE in the state of Missouri with a specialization of wastewater.

[1:15:55] There isn't a wastewater engineer, but there are engineers that have a focus in water, there's engineers that have a focus in wastewater, so we would want them to have a demonstrated practice area of that.

[1:16:05] That's a question I had throughout this document where you're requiring qualified engineer are in another part licensed professional.

[1:16:14] I think all those different areas should be a third party and an engineer that's specific study.

[1:16:22] We don't go to a brain surgeon for hard work, you know, things of that nature, but I think it should be specified for that particular type of engineer out where we can.

[1:16:31] Absolutely.

[1:16:31] Yep.

[1:16:33] I won't get into what all goes into that impact assessment, but there's pre-treatment requirements, cooling system waste water requirements, brine and high salinity waste water requirements.

[1:16:47] floor management requirements addressing the reduction of peak discharge rates and

[1:16:51] surcharges prohibited discharge requirements and requirements for semiannual reporting.

[1:16:56] And we always clarify when we say semiannual that's every six months a lot of people like

[1:17:00] to think oh that's by annual every two years it's semiannual reporting to the county and

[1:17:05] and respective wastewater district storm

[1:17:12] water management the requirements in here we have

[1:17:17] to have a stormwater management plan to be submitted,

[1:17:19] requirement for stormwater quality control includes guidance

[1:17:21] on best management practices,

[1:17:23] ground water protection, and spill prevention.

[1:17:26] We will also put in here a good comment.

[1:17:28] We got to clarify that BMP inspections are conducted

[1:17:31] by a third party entity selected by the county

[1:17:33] and paid for by the developer.

[1:17:36] Requirements, we already have included requirements

[1:17:38] to guard against extreme storm impacts

[1:17:40] and provide flood resilience.

[1:17:43] Requirements for the prevention

[1:17:44] and non-stormwater discharge.

[1:17:46] That's referred to as infiltration so that we don't have any discharge going into the public waste water system utility integration requirements, and that's those downspouts and other items so that we don't have that we're treating that separately requirement for fire suppression emergency water management in the event there is a fire and it has to be fought to make sure that those things do not get in the storm water system, and then therefore get into the greater watershed and our creeks.

[1:18:14] There are construction and phasing requirements, mainly that they all have to work together

[1:18:17] holistically as any phasing happens.

[1:18:21] Long-term ownership and operations and maintenance, so on in requirements.

[1:18:25] As you can see, I left municipal from county because I will tell you, I stole some of this

[1:18:32] language from other places and I at least caught that I left commonwealth in at one point.

[1:18:37] So, but again, Virginia has a lot of really good requirements that we're easy to take so we'll change the municipal to county and then we'll change county storm drainage system to any again good catch that we don't really have a storm water system like MSD but we don't want that going into any storm drainage system.

[1:18:58] I mean, I got a quick question that where it says in erosion and sediment control storm

[1:19:05] right managed at design manual, should we include something in there that states any revision

[1:19:12] of that manual automatically goes into effect or something of that nature system?

[1:19:17] We can do that.

[1:19:19] Initially, when I thought that it'd be like, well, if we revise that, that's applicable,

[1:19:22] but what I want to make sure happens is in some cases, if there's a revision, then that

[1:19:27] may change some redesign of that stormwater management system.

[1:19:31] So that's a conversation that, you know, if you want it to always be consistent with the

[1:19:36] most current version.

[1:19:37] Those typically don't change much, and I can tell you that I've had a lot of conversations

[1:19:41] with Mr. Cook, you know, we have a really good set of drafts that we're just itching to get

[1:19:46] forward on these, that really put us in a really good position, a much better position

[1:19:50] where now we're, we've come a long way on stormwater management on the new development

[1:19:54] versus the stuff that happened 10 years ago versus when I was here from 97 to 99, which

[1:19:59] was pretty much nothing, right? But it was the way it was everywhere. And so we think that

[1:20:06] usually once those standards are set there around for 10 or 15 years, but we can provide a note

[1:20:11] in there to be compliant with the most reasonably adopted version or however we want to do that.

[1:20:17] Mitch, speaking of Mr. Cook, I couldn't refine it just now, but I took a note here that he mentioned

[1:20:25] and in your presentation that you mentioned,

[1:20:27] stream channel grade protection,

[1:20:29] and that was a great thing from him,

[1:20:32] and you wanted to see more of that.

[1:20:34] In the regulations, was that added?

[1:20:36] I don't think it was.

[1:20:38] But Mike did review the storm water section,

[1:20:40] and gave me some really great input and revisions

[1:20:43] that you see in this draft.

[1:20:44] So what I'll do is, quite frankly, I'll punt to Mike

[1:20:47] and ask him to give me some draft language for that,

[1:20:49] if that's the pleasure of the committee to include.

[1:20:51] I think it's in section C4.

[1:20:53] Was it on page 19?

[1:20:56] That's so much blind faith, I have a mic, probably not good, but I don't know where it

[1:21:02] mentions this.

[1:21:02] Which section?

[1:21:03] It does mention that one time there.

[1:21:14] I'm sorry to make it.

[1:21:17] It says the county may require additional detention, downstream system improvements and stream

[1:21:22] channel grade protection, if modeling shows adverse impacts.

[1:21:26] There you go.

[1:21:30] Well, I mean, Mike's got a really good command on this, and that's why I had him look at it and give me some changes that we integrated.

[1:21:39] So, I'm glad that was in there.

[1:21:41] So,

[1:21:47] site closure, decommissioning and remediation.

[1:21:52] You know, what are we defining as closure, requirement for a plan, standards for remediation and closure.

[1:21:58] We require a timeline for completion of the closure and decommissioning,

[1:22:01] the owner operator provide financial assurance,

[1:22:04] performance bond letter, credit or cash escrow that the required actions could be taken,

[1:22:09] provision for the kind that have right of entry and enforcement,

[1:22:11] requirement that I know it should be any transfer of ownership shall not relieve

[1:22:16] any of the requirements or responsibility of this section.

[1:22:19] And the other comment we had, which is these closure plans as well as the financial estimates

[1:22:26] It's may not be very valid in five years.

[1:22:29] So if it's your pleasure, we can add in that these plans

[1:22:33] and the estimates need to be updated every five years,

[1:22:36] similar to what we do when we have an escrow extension

[1:22:40] for subdivisions, which doesn't happen that often,

[1:22:42] but it does.

[1:22:44] And so on this, it's almost like a perpetual escrow

[1:22:46] and a plan.

[1:22:48] If you guys think that's meritorious,

[1:22:49] we'll definitely add that into the draft language.

[1:22:53] Now, this commissioning was actually one of my major questions that I had in repurposing.

[1:22:58] If, for example, a data center becomes obsolete after five years, would the end user be permitted

[1:23:03] to repurpose the building without major modifications?

[1:23:05] If the new use is similar, such as manufacturing processing or another plant industry use.

[1:23:11] If so, how would that process work under the proposed code?

[1:23:15] Not a simple answer, but the simplest I can be in answering that is if you have five

[1:23:22] years go away, and it's no longer a data center, but it's another user that can operate

[1:23:27] within that box, and it's a permitted use, as long as that use has the same operational

[1:23:33] considerations, which I can already tell you generally wouldn't because there would be

[1:23:37] higher parking requirements, right?

[1:23:39] right? Most likely what that would require is a revised, resubmitted for the council's

[1:23:45] consideration development plan, meeting whatever that's going to be moved to. So it's a but.

[1:23:50] Only if they could, every single operational impact would be exactly same as a data center.

[1:23:55] And primarily what I'm talking about is parking because everything else is pretty high.

[1:23:59] That then they would have to come in and come into compliance. And that's the one area that

[1:24:04] when we get into parking, you know, these centers don't have a ton of people there. And

[1:24:07] And you can see what our parking requirements were as went through that.

[1:24:11] And so, yeah, obviously they can repurpose, but most likely that is going to require a

[1:24:16] revised development plan for legislative consideration.

[1:24:21] Make sure it can comply with what's there.

[1:24:24] Can we just back up a second, Mitch?

[1:24:28] Back to the previous subject of CE violations.

[1:24:32] I did a little study and I think I sent you a note on that section 400.

[1:24:37] I just wondered if that was set back in 2008 that fine, and if that should be addressed in this particular code.

[1:24:49] I don't think we'll address that section, but what we'll do is include maybe a different schedule of enforcement fines.

[1:24:56] I think we talked about fines and that the fines weren't stiff enough to act on.

[1:25:02] So, I think that's something important that needs to be looked at for this week.

[1:25:06] Absolutely.

[1:25:08] Yep.

[1:25:08] And on that topic, I'll say that this little sheet that you guys have, if you didn't

[1:25:13] see my email earlier, this was my edits to the CBA, which is almost all of it.

[1:25:17] And on the third page, I had something related to that that would be separate.

[1:25:21] So, but we're not there yet, but just mentioning that.

[1:25:26] Well, you've specifically mentioned this section of code that applies to that.

[1:25:29] Correct.

[1:25:29] That's why I brought it up here.

[1:25:30] Yep.

[1:25:31] It was easy to go through that, and we can put in accordance with that with the same penalties or I'll talk to Mr. Kim on the best way he thinks to get that and make it enforceable like we talked on one of that to be a pretty clean easy process.

[1:25:46] So, community benefits agreement, I'm sorry, keep going back, I'm sorry.

[1:25:51] Yeah, on the decommissioning and maybe it's kind of included in here and I need to get a chance to read through all of it this morning.

[1:25:58] You know, I had mentioned maybe an exit fee, so if the project, if it's supposed to be a 15-year project, and in your eight, they're like, yeah, we're done, we're out, right?

[1:26:09] There should be a penalty for that. It can be paraded over the period of the development.

[1:26:14] That's where you have the clawback and the CBA.

[1:26:17] But that's, again, I think somebody else had the thing, what if there are no abatements or incentives offered?

[1:26:22] Well, then we're not clawing back anything.

[1:26:23] Right.

[1:26:24] So you just would not get the continued benefits of whatever you've agreed to into the

[1:26:29] CBA.

[1:26:30] That makes sense?

[1:26:32] Yeah.

[1:26:36] Community benefit agreement.

[1:26:38] Again, we really want to make sure that this is one of the most important parts of this

[1:26:43] as we've discussed.

[1:26:44] This is what the opportunity to enter into the benefits of the county and its residents.

[1:26:49] On these, we've got those purposes required there that we've put forward on the CBA to

[1:26:56] six items and kind of moving through this, and I know you all have some comments as we

[1:27:04] get through this, the applicability, it's, again, incorporating a legislative approval

[1:27:08] of the development, failure of the developer to comply, shall constitute a breach of zoning.

[1:27:12] The CBA starts upon issues of the first building permit last for the life of the facility

[1:27:17] or 30 years, whichever is longer.

[1:27:18] I know some people had questions about that.

[1:27:20] But obligation to CBA run with the land and survive any and all ownership changes.

[1:27:26] I know somebody had a comment about the term.

[1:27:30] I think you, Bobby, didn't you have a conversation about how long the term lasts 30 years?

[1:27:36] I think you wanted it to go to like help my grandma as 80 years.

[1:27:39] So it was 50 and my thinking behind that is the straight line depreciation for commercial

[1:27:43] property is 39 years.

[1:27:45] So that's already in their thing.

[1:27:46] If it takes 10 years to build this thing, you're at 50 years right there.

[1:27:49] So that was my logic.

[1:27:51] So we got 30 or the life of the facility, right, whichever is longer, so I think that kind

[1:27:56] of covers it.

[1:27:57] But I mean, I don't know if the embassies comments if that's appropriate and you're

[1:28:01] good with that generally.

[1:28:03] Again, the issue with the CBA as I went through this was we don't want to so narrowly

[1:28:10] construe it that we limit the contextual negotiation about what needs to happen offset and provide

[1:28:16] the benefits, but we want enough to make sure that the minimums are covered, so I always like to

[1:28:20] call this. I like to name my rules. This is my prom dress rule, you know, long enough to cover

[1:28:25] the essentials, we're sure enough to keep it interesting. And so, you know, that's where we

[1:28:31] fought this. The one thing we had when we moved into the requirement for an annual community benefit

[1:28:35] payment agreed upon. We also provided that that be indexed to the CPIU, all users. We have our own

[1:28:42] and St. Louis Regional Federal Reserve that establishes a CPIU for this region.

[1:28:47] And the reason for that is $1,000 today in 10 years is not going to be $1,000.

[1:28:53] So that was where we thought that was very reasonable to apply that to.

[1:28:59] If, you know, when you get into, we can provide into the language and narrowly, more narrowly

[1:29:04] construe this to provide a minimum and a max.

[1:29:06] And I did that in a different form of CBA, collected bargaining agreement, where we provided

[1:29:11] protection for both entities. Number one to the city that there's a cap of 4% and trust me during

[1:29:16] a couple years of the Biden administration, save some bacon and a minimum of 1.5% which helps

[1:29:22] should you be in high times of very low inflation. So if that's something you want to see us do,

[1:29:29] that gives a little bit more surety into the cost of what that would be to the developer by bracketing

[1:29:34] that a little bit and gives protection then to both entities. But certainly that's the pleasure of

[1:29:39] if you'd rather do that when you go through a CBA conversation on a specific project when

[1:29:44] that time would ever come or if you wanted us to provide that within the structural

[1:29:51] approach in the regulations.

[1:29:58] I'll say if you look at my

[1:30:00] My stuff that I had written on the first page, C2 specifically covers this price index. I think what I had proposed, I don't have a cap on it though. I think it caps fair so that they've got some downside protection. I'd suggested using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPIU. That's what I've seen in a lot of contracts that I've done for projects based to the 1984 equals 100.

[1:30:29] and instead of doing it, indexed, do it as a percentage increase each year with a minimum

[1:30:35] of 4%.

[1:30:39] So that's typically tied into the indexes for the region, it's tied to all users and

[1:30:45] it's not just an arbitrary number, so I don't like just one percentage and other things,

[1:30:49] so but it's up to the, you know, the purview of the council actually and the committee

[1:30:53] as well.

[1:30:54] You want to do that?

[1:30:54] I

[1:30:57] think keeping it the, what Mitch has, they're personally with the St. Louis Regional Federal Reserve, it's contextualized and I think that's the way to go.

[1:31:07] You want me to bracket it?

[1:31:09] No, I mean, I think the way you got it.

[1:31:11] I want to just leave it.

[1:31:12] I think it's fine.

[1:31:13] Okay, perfect.

[1:31:13] Thank you.

[1:31:16] Eligible use of the funds for parks, roads and bridges, public safety.

[1:31:19] We specifically brought in here Sheriff's Department.

[1:31:21] I want to make sure that they have the ability to use that one idea that they would use for the funding would be to really help offset the new forensic building in its operations.

[1:31:31] I think that's a benefit to this entire county and so you know reached out and got some of those ideas from the sheriff's department on how they would potentially use some of that funding fire an EMS obviously is easy to get into that and that goes into the training and equipment that also applies to the sheriff's department as well.

[1:31:48] The requirement of one time up front payment from the developer to the county prior to the

[1:31:52] issue of the first certificate of occupancy or what we call the final occupancy of the first

[1:31:57] principal structure, and then provisions for protection of tax incentives and revenue

[1:32:02] protections, so if abatements are given and by any entity which also we require disclosure of

[1:32:09] any and all abatements and incentives to any taxing entity so that again we can have a good CBA

[1:32:15] that guarantees we can offset that and provide those benefits.

[1:32:24] With it in 430, do we have comments or the length of comments?

[1:32:30] Well, just to call it out real quick.

[1:32:31] So we know we've got eight people that want to make comments, so I'm going to allow 20 minutes for that, so we've probably got another 12 minutes.

[1:32:39] I think we should really get to this workforce development part, I think that's a pretty important part of this, if we can.

[1:32:45] The workforce development, I agree, I got a lot of input on this, at least 50% of construction laborers performed by residents at Jefferson County.

[1:32:53] Should the labor be unable to be attained, then this number may be reduced by mutual agreement.

[1:32:59] The remaining 50% of labor or the balance that that's changed has to come from the St. Louis metropolitan region.

[1:33:05] Should either of these minimum thresholds prove unattainable, they may be reduced at the discretion of the director.

[1:33:10] and upon demonstrating proof and support thereof, if you are more comfortable with that,

[1:33:14] that reduction can be at the discretion of the county since that will be within the context

[1:33:18] of the CBA.

[1:33:18] And I would recommend we probably make that decision.

[1:33:22] I had a question as it pertains to some of this work is highly specialized work.

[1:33:27] Do you see that causing any sorts of issues with sourcing?

[1:33:32] You know what?

[1:33:33] You guys are the experts in the labor side, right?

[1:33:36] That's where I would look for you.

[1:33:37] I think that's where you have a lot of this.

[1:33:39] The workforce training and everything to happen so you can get there. I think if you do have that difficulty

[1:33:44] That's where you have that provision to reduce that through the agreement

[1:33:49] and

[1:33:50] Yeah, I had a lot of concerns about those numbers like his 50% really attainable

[1:33:54] I think we'll have a high goal, but you want to have the ability to drop that down if okay

[1:33:58] We really don't have this level skill, but yeah, oftentimes the language that's used would be a good faith effort

[1:34:04] Yep, and I wondered if that might make sense to add a good faith effort language with potentially a definition that would

[1:34:10] I have include some criteria that would we use that a lot on good faith effort, you know

[1:34:15] That way we know we both really tried. It's on then we call it kind of unattainable

[1:34:19] We've tried right because that's the biggest concern is that we are setting up potentially setting unattainable goals

[1:34:26] Because I do know that some of these jobs are are pretty difficult and there's not a lot of people clearly

[1:34:30] There's not many data centers here, so there's not a lot of people that have done that work here, and we just want to make sure we're not blocksing ourselves out.

[1:34:37] Again, this is our real opportunity to kind of make up for the loss of all the labor jobs we've had over the last 25 years.

[1:34:45] Being in Nashville, the guy driving the shuttle at the hotel was from St. Louis, and that was his conversation with him and his wife moved to Nashville because there's no opportunity for jobs here anymore for somebody who doesn't have a college education.

[1:34:58] You know, it's very hard to get those labor jobs really interesting conversation with Tony

[1:35:04] I mean about that and really kind of was like man, I really need to make that this is our real opportunity because as we've heard

[1:35:10] These conversations naturally it is the opportunity kind of get back to you know that ability for local labor to have these opportunities

[1:35:16] So and I think that part of what people might look at is, you know

[1:35:21] Because the way that it's written it kind of sounds very subjective and if there were a bit of objectivity applied to that like

[1:35:27] Okay, these are the criteria.

[1:35:28] This is what would satisfy good faith effort.

[1:35:30] This is what doesn't.

[1:35:31] These are the steps that you need to go through to attempt

[1:35:33] to get the local workforce to do this work.

[1:35:36] But if you're not able to, I think just providing that

[1:35:39] assurance might.

[1:35:40] Well, and that's where I think it would I aired on the side

[1:35:43] of less is more so that then, you know,

[1:35:45] that can all be hammered out when you actually get in.

[1:35:47] Okay, here's what this development is.

[1:35:49] And let's go through this conversation on what it's going

[1:35:51] to take because if you get a big development,

[1:35:53] it's going to take a lot.

[1:35:56] And so those conversations happen differently and there's a much larger size of investment in the development of that workforce and that skilled labor through those, you know, we go into the registered apprentices shall be required where available.

[1:36:09] I know I had a lot of conversations and specifically with Mr. Brown had some concerns about, you know, is this language prohibit a local contractor who may not be big and having a apprenticeship program.

[1:36:20] Well, we don't want that to happen, that's why we said we're available and have proven unavailable developer make efforts to developer said registered apprenticeship programs will kind of figure out we don't want to have this be exclusionary want to provide those local opportunities so and I know this is different but just to provide a little bit of reference so in Montgomery City they're talking about this data center now and I think they said there would be 700 electricians on that so it's just we're talking about massive amounts of manpower which would be 350 of those coming from Jeffers

[1:36:49] and county if it's here right do we have that tall order along with all the other projects

[1:36:55] going on right I mean all the other yeah that's absolutely right you know I I know that

[1:36:59] the many projects in St. Louis city and county have a similar like requirements for workforce

[1:37:05] from certain areas and stuff like that and Clint are there like I mean you know more than

[1:37:10] I do because you are a little more in the weeds with those agreements what does like what

[1:37:15] is what does theirs look like compared to ours?

[1:37:17] Is theirs a 50% or is different?

[1:37:20] What I've seen typically is 23%,

[1:37:22] where they came up with 23, I don't know what that is.

[1:37:24] It sounds like a 25 or 20, but 23%.

[1:37:27] That's because it's Michael Jordan's number.

[1:37:28] Should we, I mean, well, that's the question.

[1:37:30] Should we have 50% or should we reduce that

[1:37:32] or should we leave it there?

[1:37:33] And then I would say that's a reduce it.

[1:37:35] This is a community benefits agreement.

[1:37:37] And our community is Jefferson County.

[1:37:39] So we should be ensuring we can do everything we can

[1:37:43] And for this community, bring in what you can, and only when you can't bring any more

[1:37:50] from this community, do you go elsewhere in the region.

[1:37:54] And that's another reason why I asked the questions about the apprenticeships, because

[1:37:57] we should benefit all of our businesses in our community, and not just those that decide

[1:38:02] they want to have an apprenticeship.

[1:38:04] So it should be open to all of our community, right?

[1:38:07] It shouldn't be a detriment to any person.

[1:38:10] because if somebody decides how they run their business it shouldn't be able to

[1:38:14] participate and benefit from this agreement so I'm for whatever we need to do to

[1:38:18] keep the jobs the work here as much as we can and make sure everybody equally

[1:38:26] qualifies for it so I think the prevailing wage is a good thing because that

[1:38:30] prevents you know that low wage low skill low trained type of thing that you

[1:38:37] You know, you're going to have to pay a good wage, which means you're probably going to want to bring in the best people to do that if you're going to be paying them, you know, the top wage.

[1:38:45] So I would just push back slightly on that because if the point of this is workforce development, that's what the apprenticeship is, is the development part of the workforce.

[1:38:55] Well, and maybe we can reword that to not put the burden on a narrowly

[1:38:59] construed. Okay, well, it's this contractor developer. Maybe we can say then the project.

[1:39:05] You know, that way it's on more the owner operator to us in that workforce

[1:39:10] development than the burden of a local contractor if that makes sense.

[1:39:14] Because the only way to increase the pool of skilled workers is to get folks trained

[1:39:19] up and get the appropriate way.

[1:39:22] It might even be like a split, maybe 50% comes from Jefferson County, 25% of that must

[1:39:28] be registered apprenticeships or something to figure out the balance there too.

[1:39:38] The other thoughts on that?

[1:39:42] I mean, what we're talking about is workforce development.

[1:39:45] I think that we should be emphasizing apprenticeship programs because those are, this is the difference

[1:39:50] between jobs and careers right here right what we want to be providing folks with is a career

[1:39:56] the profession and I think that that's what you get with an apprenticeship so I'll figure out

[1:40:00] how to word that so it's not limiting but we still are achieving that you know because I think that

[1:40:04] is our goal as development that's the key of this component right the the one on here also is a PLA

[1:40:12] submitted to the county partitions of the first building permit we're not saying what has to be in

[1:40:15] there. I know I've got an input on both sides of the spectrum on this and the you know

[1:40:22] the the to keep that in there if that's necessary or not. Obviously we have it in the draft.

[1:40:30] Just real quick, part of the reason for that was, you know, we remember the mayor of Altoona saying

[1:40:35] that what they really want is stability and if we can guarantee that there's going to be no

[1:40:39] work short, no work stoppages and things like that of nature. I mean, that is the greatest stability

[1:40:44] that we can offer.

[1:40:48] Okay, included within here we have requirements for the

[1:40:50] developer department with Jeff's College of Local High Schools to provide support for

[1:40:53] workforce training and development. See how quick I'm going here as well as

[1:40:55] internships, job shadowing and other programs, requirement for when any

[1:40:59] expansion of technology or the physical plant structure or any system modifications,

[1:41:04] operational or physical plant upgrade workforce training are made that new

[1:41:09] workforce requirements are triggered focused on the provision of opportunities for

[1:41:13] Jefferson County residents.

[1:41:14] That's a long way of saying whenever they make any

[1:41:17] automatic modifications, structural changes,

[1:41:20] internal operational changes that then we make sure

[1:41:23] that that's incorporated in that workforce development.

[1:41:26] If we reached out to school districts and to Jefferson

[1:41:31] College about the possibility of what this will look like

[1:41:35] or are we going to rely on the developer to reach out

[1:41:38] to them and say, hey, we're going to be introducing

[1:41:41] Using this new technology and I haven't yet because I think part of how that gets fleshed

[1:41:46] out is like you heard from Altuna, I think that's a good example is let them work that

[1:41:52] out based on what that project needs are and what the workforce development is.

[1:41:56] You know, you heard Altuna that, you know, you had met a fund, a vocational program for

[1:42:00] the high school.

[1:42:01] I would imagine that you're going to see a lot of opportunities funded at Jefferson College

[1:42:04] based on the needs of this and the workforce development requirements.

[1:42:07] But yeah, we didn't want to narrowly consider that.

[1:42:09] but they're just excited about the opportunity

[1:42:11] to have this conversation at this point.

[1:42:13] I mean, this is a really great opportunity.

[1:42:15] This is part of the meat of this social for our resident.

[1:42:18] Ms. McCaffrey from Jefferson College

[1:42:19] is fully aware of this and she's aware.

[1:42:22] I know she's aware, we just haven't.

[1:42:24] You know, it's hard to get into very specific conversations

[1:42:27] about how these play out without having any project parameters.

[1:42:30] Like I said, it's hard to project cost and benefits

[1:42:32] when you don't have a project.

[1:42:34] So that's another conversation for a different day.

[1:42:38] The requirements for infrastructure and public service provision focus on these highlighted

[1:42:42] development responsibilities.

[1:42:43] We've got construction of any all necessary roads intersection signal improvements, coordination

[1:42:47] with all applicable public safety entities, including Sheriff's County Sheriff's Department and

[1:42:51] provision of funding for any all required and necessary specialized equipment training, upgrading

[1:42:56] our extension of utility infrastructure serving the project without cost existing customers.

[1:43:01] Duplication duplication, say it again, say it again, here everybody knows exactly what we mean.

[1:43:05] Then requirements for the creation of a community investment program funded by the developer

[1:43:09] on an annual basis for the provision of the following.

[1:43:12] STEM education schools, community facilities and nonprofits, youth mental health programs,

[1:43:17] and social economic grants for county residents, qualifying based on income level that would

[1:43:22] be if you set a grant program where you could, if there's a low income person that can't put

[1:43:28] before their roof or other issues like that, there's an ability to apply for funding that's

[1:43:32] a very common component in these community

[1:43:35] both benefit requirements.

[1:43:36] On that last one, Mitch, should we do language similar

[1:43:38] to what we did on that last part

[1:43:40] where it wasn't meant to be so first

[1:43:42] that these are the only things,

[1:43:44] but it said, including the following,

[1:43:47] so it gives you an opportunity if we need to expand

[1:43:49] that we can program that.

[1:43:51] It's not mentioned here that it gives us that opportunity.

[1:43:53] Yeah, and that's what the intent was,

[1:43:55] so we can clarify that.

[1:43:56] Okay, yep, absolutely, look at that.

[1:44:01] I had a lot of comments on the CBA, I didn't in a terrible format because I couldn't go to Dobie to work last night, so I couldn't redline it.

[1:44:09] But what I'd like to propose is that we meet again on the 18th to discuss the CBA a little more in detail.

[1:44:16] And I'd like to have the opportunity to redline it, send it out to all of you, because the workforce development stuff I think is good, but it's the shoulder topics that I'd like to delve into a little more.

[1:44:28] as far as the payment structures go, just to tighten it up a bit.

[1:44:34] Well, the constituent feedback is coming up next and then we'll set the next meeting date.

[1:44:38] I think everybody seems like they're okay with the 18th.

[1:44:42] Any other questions or comments?

[1:44:44] We move on to public comments.

[1:44:46] Okay, the first public comment will be from Allen Leader Brand.

[1:44:50] The next person will be Clarice Eaten.

[1:44:55] Mr. Leader Brand, go ahead and come on.

[1:44:57] We've got to have two minutes.

[1:44:57] Yeah.

[1:45:00] My name is Alan Leeter-Brenn. I live in 1562, Romain Spring Drive. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. I like the part where you're talking about, instead of the different, three different categories, you're narrowing it down to just one with the standard setbacks. My only concern is we've only been talking about existing, you know, business area that was zoned. What happens on new zoning? So if you got somebody we're hearing where a developer wants to buy a 400 acre

[1:45:29] or farm, but it's right next to residential. Well, I think the setbacks then need between

[1:45:37] the data center and the residential ought to be bigger because the people that currently

[1:45:43] live there never expected it to be switched to business. So I think maybe like a 500 set

[1:45:49] foot setback between the residential and the building. If you're going to have to re-zone,

[1:45:55] I don't have a problem with what you're doing on existing, but when you're going, you know, next to residential because it's already been there, but if you're having to rezone something, anything that needs to be taken into account.

[1:46:08] Also, like that, you know, the rules, you know, what happens, you know, for fines and all this, I didn't see anything really in writing. I'm hopefully that will come in at the same time because sometimes

[1:46:23] penalties aren't addressed and they get put to the sideline because you've got a billion

[1:46:28] dollar corporation and a thousand dollar fine is nothing. I mean they could care less

[1:46:35] on that. So I think the fines and all that need to be established as well so that the

[1:46:42] person knows what's going on whoever comes in. Also has CGR or any other company started

[1:46:51] looking at property. I know there hasn't been any official, you know, for rezoning or anything else.

[1:46:57] But is there, are they asking questions about property? I think it'd be nice for the public to know

[1:47:03] if there's interest, you know, that they're looking at companies, you know, at properties. Thank you for

[1:47:08] your time. Thanks, Mr. Leader Brown. The next speaker is Clarissa Eaton. The next speaker after that

[1:47:13] will be Sean Casey.

[1:47:19] Thank you for your time. I kind of threw this out again. Can you speak in the mic, ma'am?

[1:47:25] First of all, I'm very proud of you guys.

[1:47:28] You seem to be holding them to the fire,

[1:47:30] and I hope that continues.

[1:47:33] I would implore you the commission

[1:47:35] to enforce clear and extensive impact analysis,

[1:47:39] in fact, independent impact analysis at their cost.

[1:47:44] I would hope that you would do everything in your power.

[1:47:48] And I think what you were trying to say

[1:47:51] about the filters, and correct me if I'm wrong,

[1:47:53] where you're looking for state-of-the-art filtration systems,

[1:47:58] HEPA filters, these kinds of things.

[1:48:01] And the reason I say that is that's very important

[1:48:04] that we have state-of-the-art, the most up-to-date,

[1:48:07] any kind of environmental protections,

[1:48:09] they got the money, they need to pay it.

[1:48:12] They're coming to our yard, okay?

[1:48:14] And the reason I say that, you know, look at Amrin,

[1:48:19] we pay for their infrastructure, we subsidize them,

[1:48:22] all year long and we build all their power plants and what do they do that come

[1:48:27] long keep raising our rates that's never gonna stop okay maybe we should all

[1:48:31] buy stock and utilities but anyway what is concerning is like a data center in

[1:48:37] Texas they release 12,000 tons per year of formaldehyde soot ammonia carbon

[1:48:43] monoxide volatile organic chemicals in an addition to that they can also release

[1:48:50] these 33 million tons of greenhouse gases.

[1:48:54] Again, I would implore you to demand

[1:48:57] that they give you an analysis ahead of time

[1:49:00] and they have to be in the vicinity of that at all times.

[1:49:04] I think we also need a non-spudzman

[1:49:06] for all these companies coming into the state of Missouri.

[1:49:10] Thank you, Mr. Keeho, not a fan.

[1:49:14] These are our communities.

[1:49:15] I'm just a mom, I'm nobody special.

[1:49:17] But I do live here. I was born in the state. I own property in Missouri. And I hope you fight for us. I do not support data centers. I think they're bad. And they're definitely bad for the country.

[1:49:32] Thank you.

[1:49:32] All right.

[1:49:35] Thank you, ma'am.

[1:49:35] Mr. Sean Casey.

[1:49:38] Next speaker, we met Brennan.

[1:49:42] Thank you for letting me speak.

[1:49:43] My name is Sean Casey.

[1:49:44] I live at 4.005.

[1:49:46] Rolling Stone Lane.

[1:49:47] I am here.

[1:49:50] I am a little worried about the language of the CBA, especially when it comes to project labor agreements.

[1:49:57] I think that what they may do, I think there's a lot of people in this county that are very opposed

[1:50:03] to these data centers.

[1:50:07] And I think what is going to happen is that you're going to have regular people that are

[1:50:11] going to come in here and they are going to be in opposition of these but then they

[1:50:17] are going to be overwhelmed with artificial support.

[1:50:22] And this artificial support is going to be created by people who are in this CBA and benefit

[1:50:29] ahead of time and know ahead of time that they're going to benefit.

[1:50:33] So for instance, project laser agreements, those things are benefiting large unions.

[1:50:39] And those unions have the ability to have PR firms, they have ability to have members come

[1:50:46] in that are paid, and the regular people that are here are not paid to be here.

[1:50:51] They're not professional speakers, they're not professional PR people, and what this

[1:50:58] CBA does, and I'm not opposed to the CBA, I understand its benefits, but we have to

[1:51:03] be very careful about the negative effects upon just the regular citizens.

[1:51:10] And for instance, any of the things that are in the CBA are so nonprofits, for instance,

[1:51:17] or the schools or any of those, I agree that they should benefit, but the fact is, if they know

[1:51:25] ahead of time they're going to benefit, then they are going to be more apt to want these data centers.

[1:51:33] But they're not, they are going to, so what you're doing is you're creating stakeholders

[1:51:38] that get the benefits with none of the drawbacks, especially with the 50% coming from the metropolitan area.

[1:51:46] Thank you.

[1:51:47] Sorry.

[1:51:47] Thank you very much.

[1:51:49] Thank you, sir.

[1:51:50] Next up is Matt Drennan.

[1:51:51] The next speaker after that is Mr. Chris Borgensen.

[1:51:57] Hi.

[1:51:57] Good afternoon.

[1:51:57] My name is Matt Drennan.

[1:51:59] I'm a fastest resident and work professionally in economic development and large scale infrastructure

[1:52:03] and industrial projects across the U.S.

[1:52:06] I regularly evaluate public-private development structures and incentive policies and long-term

[1:52:11] and community impacts in 2025 alone,

[1:52:14] my firm negotiated over 15 CBAs nationally.

[1:52:18] I commend the council and the county

[1:52:22] on getting in front of this

[1:52:24] with a robust draft of ordinances,

[1:52:26] but I do have some comments

[1:52:27] and I'm not gonna get through all of them,

[1:52:28] hopefully I can send them afterwards

[1:52:30] only a minute and a half now,

[1:52:32] but I will go through some high level stuff here.

[1:52:35] The long-term expansion oversight, I have a concern there.

[1:52:38] There's ordinances regulating impacts,

[1:52:40] but does not address overall project scale or phased expansion.

[1:52:44] Data centers often expand significantly over time.

[1:52:48] There should be some mechanisms requiring renewed review with large expansion when those large expansions occur.

[1:52:55] Another point I have is utility and infrastructure impacts.

[1:52:59] The ordinances relies heavily on utility capacity confirmation.

[1:53:04] Utility capacity does not necessarily evaluate long-term reliability risks

[1:53:08] impacts of potential rate-payer impacts. Independent impacts should be reviewed to be appropriate.

[1:53:18] Bills like SB-FOR, if anybody's really read that bill, it doesn't have a lot of teeth,

[1:53:22] it's nebulous, we really can't hang our hat on that and how it's going to impact the community.

[1:53:29] I do have concerns with long-term use planning. A big parcel, let's say a 600 acre parcel.

[1:53:38] place an industrial scale infrastructure immediately adjacent to establish residential areas.

[1:53:43] Jefferson County should consider designating and master planning appropriate industrial

[1:53:47] or technology, technology campuses rather than converting areas near subdivisions related

[1:53:55] to that physical separation from homes while the ordinances do include setbacks.

[1:54:00] Okay.

[1:54:00] Well, I'll email other thoughts that I have.

[1:54:03] All right.

[1:54:04] Thank you, Mr. Gerrano.

[1:54:05] Mr. Drummond, could you send your comments to our executive assistant so that she can send it to all of us?

[1:54:11] Yeah, because I'm in the 5th district, so I don't have representation currently, so I didn't know where to.

[1:54:15] Okay, thank you.

[1:54:16] Okay, thank you.

[1:54:19] Mr. Borgensen, you're up next.

[1:54:22] And speaker after that will be Ms. Linda Lyons.

[1:54:29] Good afternoon.

[1:54:31] I'm Chris Borgerson.

[1:54:32] I live in rural Festus at 102 Glenfield Drive.

[1:54:36] I have two concerns concerning what we're discussing this afternoon, and then I brought

[1:54:43] something that passed out to give you for your consideration.

[1:54:49] My concerns first is miniaturization of these computer centers, but you've addressed that

[1:54:55] because if you build a 200,000 square foot building, the computing power in that building may

[1:55:02] He fit in a 40-foot box trailer in three to five years.

[1:55:07] So what do you do with the rest of the building?

[1:55:09] Well, you've already been thinking about that and recycling the building and bringing

[1:55:13] in new occupants and all that.

[1:55:15] That's great.

[1:55:16] I'm all for it.

[1:55:17] But just beware, it's going to change radically in the next couple of years as miniaturization

[1:55:23] continues.

[1:55:26] My other concern is the safety and security side of it.

[1:55:34] My background is I've had more training than most, but less than others, and between

[1:55:42] the Marine Corps law enforcement and academia, I've got a background in nuclear biological

[1:55:48] chemical warfare and terrorism. I've taught bachelor degree level classes on

[1:55:55] terrorism. Well, people know I'm a marine, I got this sweatshirt and all that jazz,

[1:56:01] but I'm also an infantry officer. So I look at the world through a different lens,

[1:56:07] and computing is going to nodes. You're going to have these huge data centers, but

[1:56:13] is they miniaturize the idea is to have a lot of nodes across our country where they

[1:56:20] can mutually support each other and if one of these is destroyed or impacted, the shift

[1:56:27] of data processing in the economy will go to the other smaller nodes, halon fire extinguishers.

[1:56:36] I hope you put them in these things and we can talk about it later but thank you for

[1:56:41] hearing me.

[1:56:42] Thank you, Mr. Borgeson.

[1:56:44] Next speaker is Linda Lyons.

[1:56:46] And next speaker after that will be Barbara Johnson.

[1:56:50] Good afternoon, my name is Linda Lyons.

[1:56:52] I'm from DeSoto, Missouri, 618 Olive Street.

[1:56:56] And I want to thank you all for all the impressive work that you have done.

[1:57:01] I've attended several of these meetings and-

[1:57:03] Can you speak into the mic, ma'am?

[1:57:04] I think you have done excellent work.

[1:57:06] I've wrote a letter to the leader praising all your efforts in your process.

[1:57:11] us. I'm just going to throw a factor out there. Elon Musk is merging his rocket company

[1:57:19] SpaceX with his artificial intelligence company XAI, specifically to build data centers

[1:57:26] in space. All of these Earthbound data centers are going to be obsolete very shortly.

[1:57:39] I'm

[1:57:40] reusing the buildings because that's going to come faster than you can even believe so all

[1:57:47] somewhat all this work is moved but I just want you to consider that this is a development that's

[1:57:56] coming faster than you can even think and so when you are using all this land for this particular

[1:58:06] usage, it's going to be kind of a waste. And what are you going to do then? I'm glad

[1:58:13] that you're thinking about these things, but I don't know if you should even develop

[1:58:19] these data centers because they're not going to be around here on Earth very much longer.

[1:58:26] Thank you.

[1:58:29] Thank you, Ms. Lyons. Next speaker is Barbara Johnson.

[1:58:40] Good afternoon. My name is Barbara Johnson. I live here in Hillsboro and Highly Baptist Church Road.

[1:58:45] And this is the first meeting I have been able to attend. And I think that all of you folks have done an outstanding job.

[1:58:54] This is very fluid right now. It's a draft. There's a lot of changes and forethought still coming into it. And I appreciate that.

[1:59:00] But I have to totally agree with Mr. Leader Brand. The setbacks. We have eight acres. We have a huge subdivision going in next to us.

[1:59:09] I can only think about all the noise that's going to be generated by that in and of itself,

[1:59:17] but then to have 100,000 square foot building, we know there's noise, there are emissions,

[1:59:25] there's a lot of things coming out of that facility, and we need more than just 100 foot setbacks.

[1:59:32] We need, like he said, a 500 foot setback, thank you, is just not enough.

[1:59:41] And one of the things I love about Jefferson County, I grew up here, I love the

[1:59:47] wildlife, the forests. Why do we have to keep tearing it all down? You know, you see

[1:59:53] all of our animals on the highways and I know this is economic. Everyone's looking

[1:59:58] it more revenue for the...

[2:00:00] County. When is enough? Can we just enjoy what we have? I'm not in favor of a data center because of all the negative effects that it's going to have on our environment and our lives. I really feel it's negative. I can see my time. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. That concludes our speaker's speaker list. The next order of business is set that next meeting date. I would like to make a motion that we set it for next

[2:00:29] Next Wednesday, the February 18th at 3 p.m. in this building.

[2:00:33] This room.

[2:00:34] Second of the motion.

[2:00:35] Okay.

[2:00:36] I have a first and a second.

[2:00:37] Is there any discussion?

[2:00:39] All in favor?

[2:00:40] Say aye.

[2:00:41] Aye.

[2:00:41] Any opposed?

[2:00:43] No abstentions?

[2:00:45] I's have it.

[2:00:47] Let me see.

[2:00:50] Anything else here?

[2:00:52] I guess I need a motion to adjourn.

[2:00:55] You adjourned?

[2:00:56] Second.

[2:00:57] I have a first and second.

[2:00:58] All in favor?

[2:00:59] Aye.

[2:01:01] Any opposed?

[2:01:02] No.

[2:01:02] We are adjourned.

[2:01:03] Thank you.

Council Economic Development Objectives Comm.

Transcript