Regular Town Council Meeting

Thank you for being here. Thank you. Mayor Council thank you. We are asking to request to modify the residential and residential time of use rate schedule to include detached garages that are on the same president premise as a residential dwelling unit but they are metered separately. Currently they are on the general small general service rate and so we are asking them to move to the residential rate. Any questions for Miss Moya? Why would there be separate meters for detached garage like is that some legacy or is that still current practice like what would necessitate two different meters for effectively the same property? It's a very good question. Your ordinance sets that in place so there is an ordinance in place that separate meters for separate buildings on the same premise always done and that is typical in the industry and you will see that however you'll see other utilities probably about two to three years ago they went to putting detached garages because typically those are for residential use it wouldn't be for a non-residential use but it's for detached garages on there so to comply with the ordinance that's in place we do put a separate meter on there but because these are domestic spaces or can be considered domestic spaces we would ask that they move to the residential rate. Thank you. Any other questions? Hearing none we'll open up the public hearing for this item for comment no one signed up to speak so we'll close the public hearing it's back to the council for possible motion. Motion to approve. Motion Gray. Second. Second is Ackerman. Discussion. All right all in favor say I. Any opposed? All right motion carries unanimously. Thank you so much.

All right. We move now to regular meeting agenda, consideration of a one-year moratorium on data center construction within the town of Apex. Mr. Mayor, I'm happy. Thank you, Mayor. [clears throat] Um So, for some context, there's there's a couple recent events that have occurred. Uh I'll start by saying uh Chatham County recently put a one-year moratorium on data center construction, permitting, etc. in their uh jurisdiction a couple weeks ago. And uh at that time we received a number of requests for us to do the same. And although uh I was strongly in favor of us developing our own rules around data centers before we went forward with uh you know, uh considering applicants, the reality was we had an applicant at the time. And I was concerned about uh the look of us trying to put a moratorium in to seeming to try to influence or somehow interfere with that. Um you know, I wanted make sure the purpose was clear. And uh it wasn't entirely clear to me at the time. Since then, last week Netrality Investments has withdrawn its application, and we have no active data center applications in Apex. And I would ask the council to consider at this time putting forward um a one-year moratorium to provide clarity. Clarity to our staff so they know without any future applications they can work exclusively on developing the rules around the UDO for data centers. Uh certainty for the industry to know that this is what Apex is doing. We're developing rules, and then when we're done, it'll be lifted according to state law. Uh but until then, we we need the time and the space to to develop these rules. So, that's uh what why I bring this item forward to you all. Uh I've spoken to the attorney a little bit about it. I I've asked her to sort of There's actually a process here. This isn't something we can just do. We have to go through a process in state law uh to enact one of these moratoriums. Uh and it's my hope uh you know, to begin that tonight with a vote, but uh before that I'd like to turn over to the the attorney maybe inform us a little more on on what's involved in this. Yeah, that's correct. Um, the state law that allows a moratorium

for development of permits requires notice and public hearing prior to consideration of a moratorium. So, you would not be asked to consider a moratorium tonight, but also but essentially to give direction to staff to bring forward um what you would like to see in terms of a moratorium. Um, depending on the term, the length of the moratorium, there are different requirements that you'd have to meet. If you're talking about less than 60 days, only 7 days notice is required. If you're talking about um more than 60 days or up to a year, we'd be talking about um a 2-week notice period plus um both both areas have to have a public uh hearing, but you'd have the 2-weeks notice, public hearing, and then there's uh specific findings under the statute that you would have to make in order to enact the moratorium. And then what that would do is put a put a freeze and a status quo while staff is able to work through um whatever UDO amendments that might be deemed appropriate for the council to consider moving forward with that type of use. You uh you mentioned the 1-year term. Uh it's my understanding that 1 year is the maximum term that we can set for a moratorium like this. Is that correct? Um it I'm not sure that that is still the maximum per the statute. There's a less than 60 days, more than 60 days in the statute, but um I would not recommend going more than a year. Um you can at the end of that year's time or when you're coming close to the end of that year's time, it can be extended if need be. We know that this is an ever-changing field. 1 year may prove to not be um sufficient to determine what regulations you might want to have in place to ensure that the public is protected in the event that this use is brought forward, but um I would not recommend anything longer than a year. Thank you. And it's [clears throat] my understanding that a moratorium has to be tied to a specific purpose.

Right? Like we can't just say no for a year. We have to say uh a year moratorium in this case I'm suggesting so we can finish our updates to regulations. Is that

Correct. Correct. Okay. Yeah. And the course of the year gives us I mean this this isn't just a a number thrown out. This is I think in full consideration of how long it takes for us to get through um considerations such as budget as well as making sure that the appropriate boards and advisory groups are providing the advice to us incorporating the amount of time that it would take for us to ultimately

[snorts]

get all of these UDA UDO portions in into the right position and that's generally around a year. And if it looks like it's more we can always extend more, but we're we're definitely looking at the process as the reason why this is a year. Uh just you know my my thoughts on on the matter. I think one thing that has become or you know was very clear going through this process of the year of the application is that our UDO did not you know does not account for a type of use like this and so we asked staff to do a lot of research. They presented their research to us. Um but we need some time to encode that into you know a formal set of UDO rules so that not every request you know basically becomes a one-off consideration. Right? We have some some guidelines some standards in place through the UDO. So I I'm supportive of of a moratorium uh to give staff the the time it needs to to put those those rules together, update our UDO accordingly. So, that's next time we are better prepared for a application like this. Now, I want to underline something that you said that I touched on earlier. It's not just about the time, it's about the space that staff would have, not having to balance an active application where there's being demands made of them and suggestions made to them from the

applicant about certain content. Like having that distraction, I think is doesn't give the best outcome. So, the moratorium will allow the work to focus solely on doing what's best for Apex, absent in the abstract without having to consider a specific scenario like the situation we were in. I think it's a great idea we pursue a moratorium for data centers. We have in North Carolina, we have about at least 90 data centers, but those data centers are all very small, like 20 MW, 30 MW, 60 MW. Like the other one like, you know, this one, 300 MW, it's rare and it's huge. So, this, you know, a data center at this size in North Carolina, maybe in other area of the United States, no better regulation you um to regulate this kind of huge data centers cause massive electric usage. Um have negative impacts about the air, the environment. So, we need, you know, better regulations to protect our residents. I think it's a great idea we take one year to better update our regulation to be prepared for the future. Okay. I just wanted to say that to Segway from what Council member removed just said I had a question for town attorney if we have to specify anything around data center to your point about there being more modest size data centers and that's not necessarily what we're talking about but also there's crypto mining and things that I'm hearing other municipalities like I believe Canton in in the mountains was

considered I believe also passed is that anything that we need to to discuss this evening in terms of the parameters of what this moratorium defines. So what I would recommend is that you all provide direction to staff if that's what you want to consider is is and get recommendations back from staff regarding all of these types of uses and then they can come back with what they see as a reasonable timeframe cuz that's that's what the statute requires is a reasonableness to this moratorium and so you all will have to make certain findings and so if it's reasonable that it's all data centers opposed to smaller data center or medium size data center there there might be there might be some leniency in there that you want to consider or you might want to say no we need to take a look at the whole thing all of them including the cryptocurrency and other which are all above my head so we'll get we'll get people [clears throat] with knowledge to be able to help us with the different types of uses. Thank you. Uh-huh. All right. Make a motion. I'm ready yeah. I see yeah I would move that we direct staff to begin the process of putting in place a moratorium on data centers and related activities including crypto mining Uh, whether municipalities have done and begin that process. All right, we have a motion. Okay, second. When does it first come back? If there just when it's ready. It It would have to be probably the first meeting in April. I don't think we could get the notice done by the second meeting in March. That would be the earliest. So, first meeting in April. All right, so we have a motion, second, great. Any further discussion?

I like where we're headed. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? All right, passes unanimously. Good job.

[applause]

All right, item one, uh, consideration of a non-standing committee to research impacts and provide policy and transparency recommendations.

[clears throat]

Um, kind of building on what Mayor Pro Tem Mahaffey talked about, um, throughout this whole process. Um, I'll start off by saying when I was first in a meeting about the proposal, I I didn't even know what a data center was. So, it was like a lot of, um, unknowns. And that went through a process as well. And during that time, we saw the red shirts in here. We saw many people, um, speaking out about data centers and uh, one of the things I wanted to to really make sure as we move forward is that there is adequate engagement, community engagement from, um, those impacted. Um, and I'll also I'll also add this, um, Bruce Venable did an amazing job with the town staff and the the entire town staff was incredible in their research and presentation of of information. Um, I remember asking, um, in one of our work sessions, how many hours has been contributed to this and like Ms. Kent said, thousands of hours. So, um, I do want to point that out and I I want to show my appreciation to staff on that. But, uh, we can always look to involve the community more. Um, I've always been an advocate for that. Um, Um there's been a lot of concerns that may not have been noticed by on our side of things because there wasn't an opportunity for that engagement. So, I just want us all to be at the table together and have dialogue. Um it's it's kind of like it's hard on me to me to have members of the community to stand there and speak and I and I can't talk back to them. We can't talk to them at all. So, there's no dialogue. So, I think as we move forward, if we really want to focus in on the impacts of of data

centers in Apex, I would like for it to be a non-standing committee. Now, the question may be, well, what about the environmental advisory board? Totally understand that. They focus on environmental impacts, but I think there are also other impacts that we need to bridge in the process as we move forward with decisions. Um transparency is huge. Um I just learned the other day, and it's just maybe I missed it, but we actually have a third-party consultant. So, I I didn't know that, but I want to make sure that they work with the residents as well and to hear from them. So, um it it is my recommendation that we stand up a non-standing committee to research impacts and policy. Um provide policy and transparency recommendations. But, before we have any more discussion, I do like I would like to call up um Dr. Michelle Hoffman O'Connor. If you would just come to the mic real quick.

[laughter]

She's not in trouble. Singling me out.

What if she used stack of bricks?

Look, I I I I lost at Jenga tonight. I'm I'm sorry about that. Um So,

I just I just want you to um respond to my comments about the involvement of the community and how important that is to those you represent. I think that's important for us to hear from you directly. I I appreciate that. Um I want to be thoughtful about it. I want to be mindful of time. Uh the first thing that comes to mind is the fact that I think the first time I ever stood up here, I said something to the effect of we want to partner with you and as naive as that was at the time, um and I acknowledge that there might have been some conflict with an active application and developer. Um I believe that sentiment is still very much you know, felt by everyone and who's been a part of this movement um since late summer. Um you know, we've written a couple of

ordinances, effectively conditions. I don't know what you want to call them. Do I suggest you use them right now? No, because I would actually like to see something stricter. Um but it's been a little disheartening to not see the two-way communication from that when we submit those to the record. Uh at least I haven't seen anything come through. Um but when it comes to

[sighs]

the good faith, the transparency aspect of it, um I apologize, this is going to take a little bit more time to explain. Um you know, I have some first-hand experience with this. Um when I was at UNC, I think it was 2018, this was the year that the Confederate monument Silent Sam was knocked down by a lot of students. This was the year of a a bunch of I'm going to say firsts. Um I think I mentioned this at another council meeting that there was a a group on the food chain for student fees that basically brought um you know, my group in said, "We're enacting a $65 uh deferred maintenance fee without your input. Um you know, you guys can ask all the questions you want. We're we're moving it forward that we can't rely on the state for money. We need to to maintain buildings. We need to fix buildings." Um and everyone in that room was angry. Um and we made sure that the student body knew that this was moving forward without our consent. Um especially since they were foregoing um fees that were actually needed to actually help students. Um I think it was a couple of weeks later that there was an announcement that the disposition of the now fallen monument was to put it in a a new museum that was going to cost $5 million. So suddenly you have a rumor that that um money for the deferred maintenance fee is actually going to be for the museum. Um and there was nothing anyone could do to to change people's minds about that. There was no goodwill because both of the those instances had absolutely no input from students whatsoever. And UNC especially at that time really did collaborate with students. It was that was the kind of environment that I was working in that

Stephen was working in who who like who comes um to a lot of our meetings. Um I I I think that I think that aspect is important. When when there's no input, there's no trust. And for for better for worse right now we find ourselves in a situation where the communication often does feel one way. Um I I do think there are things that are said on the record that are very valuable. I'm not saying that they're willfully ignored, but certainly I'm sometimes wonder if they're being heard. Um so where I stand, I think this committee can create that opportunity. I don't want to say to repair, but to give you know, to give that voice back that feels lost um for some people. I know a lot of people um as much as I want to commend Bruce for the amount of research he did, there are people who are really waiting to see the responses to the follow-up questions. How is that going to be conveyed and that hasn't happened yet. Um I think the last thing I do kind of want to touch on is the fact that I you know, I respect public service immensely. Um I recognize it's it's a many hours and not everyone um gets gets recognized for it. Certainly, uh you're not an an hourly worker. Um there's no overtime pay necessarily. Um and I think as much as our you know, our planning department is equipped to you know, do research and create UDOs at our EAB and even our planning boards are you know, seated to to help along with the process that to give them all more work and expect it to be of the highest quality is it isn't realistic. I you know, we could we could say, "Oh, we could take a 2055 plan approach to um gathering feedback rather than a a subcommittee." That would take too much time. If we're going to use the year properly, we have to hit the ground

running. It makes more sense to add in people who are invested in this and I acknowledge that that might mean that there are a few pro-data center people out there. Um you know, I stand here not wanting a piece of crap near my home, um but I'm willing to learn that maybe there is a feasible way that doesn't bring that brings something you know, reasonable, safe, um I think a lot of us are looking for those conversations in that two-way street and I think this is the most realistic approach in order to make it happen. All right, thank you so much for that. Appreciate you.

Yeah. So so with that um and and again, I I just wanted to be on record like I I love everything the staff has done so far and it's not to redo the work. That's that's not my point. It's just really to build on it and I want to take a back take a step back to 2020. I think when we were looking at the affordable housing and we heard from Mr. Wells tonight about that and it was a new thing to us. We were trying to figure out how do we move? What direction do we move in? And we we talked about forming a committee to really bring all the information together working with staff and working with community stakeholders to put that together. We eventually dissolved it, but I think it was really great work and I think we have the opportunity to do the same thing here with this subcommittee. Again, not a standing we get the work done. It's it's focused on data center specifically and to Dr. Hopler a council's point we EAB they have a lot to do and they have other things coming, you know, on their plate. So this will be opportunity for people who want to be involved to engage. They want to engage. They want to be a part of what's impacting our community. Why not do this? Why not connect everyone together and we address these things. That's one.

So I would love to support of my colleagues on moving in this direction. That's it. Um So I appreciate the the sentiment. and I acknowledge the the need for having the community engagement, you know, the the two-way interaction that you described. Where I'm a little hesitant here is um we have standing committees and and advisory boards. Uh you mentioned the um environmental advisory board, but you know, we also have the planning board. Um We just went through the process of nominating people that we thought were qualified to these boards tonight. And for the last couple years we've been talking about how do we get these boards more involved in the act of policy making and bringing advice to council. It feels a little bit that is maybe a strong term, but it feels like a little bit of a a vote of no confidence in in in the people that we just appointed. If the very moment that that an opportunity like this comes up, you know, where we can actually actively engage these boards, let them, you know, self-organize, you know, spin off a a subcommittee if they they want, add new members to to committee if if that's recommended. Um so the moment that that's that's something like this comes up that we stand up a a new committee instead of letting the existing boards serve us. And then so um I think this is an opportunity that I think this is an opportunity for the Environmental Advisory Board in particular, but you know, probably with the all and and or representation from the Planning Board to really dive into a topic like this and do all the things that you say, but without necessarily

setting up a brand new committee in in the first place. Uh Dr. also mentioned that we want to hit the ground running. I agree with that. It's like a year or so it's like a long time, but it's not. By the time that we form a new committee, you know, appoint members and all of that, I think we're going to be losing, you know, 1 to 2 months at at least, you know, before that that committee is fully formed and then up and running. And I think that using the structures that we have in place today, um I think we can make quicker work, you know, get out of the gate more quickly. So I I appreciate and support the spirit of what you're trying to achieve. My preference would be to run this through the existing advisory boards that are available to us. I have two thoughts. Um the first, something that I've been wanting to say. The process for amending a UDO and the process for a rezoning is incredibly open and has a ton of public input. It's statutorily defined. The reason people don't believe that or know that is because in this case we didn't get to that public input. We never got that far in the process. They pulled it before they even got to the public input part. This project never came to us. It was it it died very very early in the timeline of what a process is. Had it gone to the thing, you would have seen all them. You would have seen the reach out. You would have seen all the letters. You would have seen the planning board meeting and all the stuff there and the votes there. You would have seen the uh the the council meeting, which would have been a big thing. So, I just want to defend the process as it's statutorily defined is in fact open and does involve a ton of public input. I also want to compliment our staff and all the work they did and the work that they've done to putting this together. I think that um we don't quite know where we're at yet as we heard earlier. Um I'm not sure after hearing from the attorney, I'm not, you know, there's still some questions about the scope and the timeline. So, we need to answer those questions.

Also, as the representative of the Environmental Advisory Board, I can tell you guys they are dying to get another bite of this apple. Because what happened last October uh whenever the when was it? September? The Environmental Advisory Board meeting? What that meeting was and what their scope was severely misunderstood to their detriment. And really bothered a lot of them and it really hurt the morale of the Environmental Advisory Board because it was represented in the media everyone believed they were voting on the data center. And they were not. They were voting on a set of recommendations to the data center, which is an entirely different thing. And it was represented like they approved the data center. And I can tell you the bull back they got from that uh position really bothered them. And now I I do want to say, if you guys have been watching the past couple meetings, I've been trying to empower that board. I've been talking about them bringing back rezonings and having actual votes on the merits of the matter, which is not what they did today. Um and there's issues with that that we have to work through. And we've added public hearings to their meetings now as well. We've added their minutes to the board. There's stuff we're trying to do to empower them. And um I'll just say, I'm comfortable with saying on their behalf, they would love to have another bite of this apple and do what they were empowered to do. Or rather chartered to do. Put it that way. And and and I and I I just wanted to like respond to that. And and I I totally understand we have some very qualified um passionate members on that board. But I do want to talk about the transparency part of it as well and and the process itself with data centers. So, again, that input having a group that's focused on data centers would really help us. Um it'll it'll support the AB and the planning board. Um another opportunity for community members to be involved. But I I hear your points clearly. Anyone else? Got you. Okay. You sure? Yeah. Uh I was I was

going to say um first off, I greatly appreciate not only staff, the public, being get incredibly engaged public, um the folks down in New Hill. I mean it's one of the most inspiring things for me personally as an idealist, a community building idealist, I love seeing people put slight bits of [snorts] difference aside in order to work together. Um I think that's been incredible. I mean, they were they had committees. And so, I mean, the teamwork and collaboration uh I think is commendable. Um and uh and I'm I'm proud that those voices are in our town. Though one thing I see a bit differently uh Mayor Gilbert is um and I appreciate the spirit of um the proposal. One of the thing as I thought about it over this weekend um and I talked with a few folks and I reflected on some of my experience in my day job and and around the country in standing up committees is you actually there's a bit of a law of unintended consequences with with these committees. What sometimes happens and some of the people I just actually talked with over this weekend are incredibly knowledgeable on this stuff. They are the people actually doing it and then have concerns about how it may impact their own um their own community and they say I am traveling 50% of the time. There's no way I could be part of any committee. I can't even apply because I simply just don't have the capacity the the bandwidth and that's incredible knowledge that they might be able to provide when they get off the plane, land, get home and on

that Saturday afternoon they're able to submit to a public comment portal or some of these other things. So that's the one thing I wanted to point out there. Um the other is that from what I've learned from looking at what other municipalities here in North Carolina from Canton to Fayetteville have um taken on this issue with uh varying uh degrees of success. I know that in Fayetteville actually created some conflict between committees that they have. So uh that's another thing that I think is is a challenge when it comes to gaining that feedback. And so, I absolutely agree with and one thing I do want to address also is is the um the precarity of this situation through these last few months and why you've had to see staff be so incredibly sharp and and not respond directly to this application even though we all kind of knew that it was at least referencing some the possibility of of that project. Um But, one of the concerns also is is how we can optimize that feedback process without reinventing the wheel. We've got I mean, this is absolutely a huge issue here in Apex. It's even bigger than Apex. It's bigger than the triangle. It's bigger than North Carolina. It's bigger than the region. It's a global issue. As was addressed earlier this evening talking about some of the Scandi- Scandinavian models for data centers. But, my position is that we do want that transparency. We do want that feedback. There's I think the possibility of staff not only assessing what how other municipalities and counties I know that wouldn't necessarily directly translate to what we're doing, but to assess how

those moratoriums are being rolled out. So, again, we don't reinvent the wheel on that and also optimize that efficiency. There's troves of studies that the public forum perhaps we were able to archive some of the great things that have been presented to us for the past few months. Perhaps that's something that staff could do. Um and uh and I I think that especially since it's been 120 hours since we received official notice that this project is um has been pulled and we're now just adopted the process for instituting a moratorium. Um I think we should see what this process yields in the short term. Um taking that knowledge. But I really appreciate the um the sentiment and the the spirit. I'd hear from others. Anybody? Anybody else? Want to jump in? Right.

[laughter]

You want me to say like unless she looks like she wants to go. You go ahead.

All right, good. All right. I and I mean what I I love about this idea is that it does provide another aspect for public input and to be clear the reason why that application was pulled was because of public input and I think that's a that that's something that to have a full understanding of. You know, it died as Mayor Pro Tem Mehaffey mentioned early in the process because there was a significant amount of public input and we've heard you know, meeting after meeting about the impacts that are that data centers are going to create with regard to to noise, with regard to particulate matter and air pollution, with regard to water and and our our water impact. Electrical

lighting you know even down to just the impact of how it will impact how impact traffic and things around the community. And as I look at each one of those areas, I see a big area you know, when we look noise, water particulate matter air um these are things that we've already pushed towards EAB. So, when when Council member Zagerman mentioned that we, you know, we do have the EAB, I I I like that idea. I hadn't thought it through in the sense of the idea of allowing a committee to be stood up under the EAB because I do think that that would be a good flow. It would provide an opportunity for a citizen-based group. But, I think that placing that under EAB might be a good solution set for them. And I don't need to go through my Every single person up here knows my stance on committees. Um this is I may be going a little bit beyond uh my past practice of talking about my feelings on committees, but I will say that I think that the empowerment of the committees, the fact that we reduced the number of committees that we have was really important. Um because I felt like as we started making more and more committees, we started to dilute the effectiveness of other committees and unnecessarily create inefficiencies as we start to relate things. But, I like the idea of being able to have that additional community voice. I mean, it's been there. It's the reason why they don't have an application. And it's a big reason as to why um we want to make sure that we have the time to build the right UDO. So, I think in getting that right, I think maybe having this sort of organization underneath EAB where you've got that expertise already, where you've got a group that have a process and a procedure in place would

be good. Um it's it's an idea It's an idea I hadn't really thought through until my colleagues started talking about it. And I I'll tell you I'm I'm in I'm intrigued by that. This is I I I like that. I I do. I think I think it would also give and yes, I've talked to many folks on the EAB and they they they they've got feelings about how this went the first time and this might give them an opportunity to have that redemption moment that I think many of them want, but I think larger picture all of the issues that we know we're going to need some subject matter expertise on and that is going to be developed when it comes to creating what's the appropriate vehicles and issues we need to make sure are addressed by the UDO. I like the EAB. Um, and I like the idea of maybe placing a an organization like this, you know, letting them create and manage and utilize them as a way of getting the input so that when we eventually get their input it's got a really solid basis. I don't think it takes away from the from the voice of any resident who wants to be on it. In fact, I think it to be honest with you as we've all said, the number of topics that we've received during the course of the weeks with you know, from from studies ranging from the the quality and amount of particular matter that is being ingested and possibly brought into someone's lifespan at the age of three all the way up to the age of 40. Um, that's a really technical area and I'm glad that we have that sort of ability to have that sort of technical area be researched and ultimately narrowed down by an EAB. Um, that knowing that the mayor thoughtfully picked those folks gives me a lot of impression that they're a good group to to be able to help streamline some issues for us. So, I I think I'm leaning

towards that. I like the idea of a student I mean of a of a resident committee. I do like the idea of it being under EAB though. Okay. Um, let me be clear. So, and you are proposing that we have a kind of like, um, resident uh, committee, like sub-committee under EAB, right? Yeah, and I'm not sure how that looks. I mean, honestly, I'm I I I I sit here and I'm like trying to figure out like, what does that look like? How does that happen? Just just going to clarify my my position. So, um, my preference is So, again, I agree with the the spirit of of of the proposal and I I do want to invite, you know, that interaction with with the public, right? Um, my preference would be to refer this to the EAB and let the EAB figure out how they want to handle this. If they want to handle it as as a full committee, if they want to spin off a sub-committee, that they they want to, you know, focus on on on this topic. I think that needs to be the EAB's, um, decision, right? My preference would be for us to take this proposal, refer to the EAB and tell them to go make it work. Uh, you know, we have existing, you know, structures set up there. There's existing practices and and and and authority already delegated to that to that board. Uh, so, I'm not I I don't think that we need to necessarily prescribe how the EAB is going to do it, right? I'm, you know, I just want to refer to the EAB, let them chew on [clears throat] it, right? And come back with a proposal on how to do this and do it quickly. Can I Can I add one thing to that? Um, I really like Councilman Gray's idea. I can definitely live with that. Um, we heard from, I think it was Miss Martin, yeah, talking about economic impacts and and how this really touches the community in that way. That's not an EAB function. Um, there's also the other side of transparency and the process. Not saying that

there's an issue, but I think there's opportunity to enhance that. So, that was another purpose of allowing that resident voice to come in, who've been very active, by the way. They're going to give you a lot. I know I was talking with the town attorney, as well, and I think one of the questions was, "Did you envision this subcommittee um having perhaps people who are pro-data center?" Absolutely. And And these will be everybody at the table, um and stakeholders. So, I want Apex to be the model in this situation. Um And this is an opportunity to do that by getting those voices all together at the table. I I don't I don't see any issues with it. We always talk about transparency. We talk about public engagement.

[clears throat]

This is a golden opportunity to get that done. Um right now, we have a public forum at the EAB meeting, right? Yes. So, uh just like council meeting, it's open. It's uh to public. Um just like all these incredible red shirt folks, I appreciate you. Yeah. Um It's not a one-way conversation. Uh-huh. I apologize for being out of turn here, but we're talking about Yeah. the potential for a two-way conversation to provide expertise in economics, in health, and other areas of Again. Yeah. This will be the last time, so we got to move on. Yeah. I can only listen to the speaker.

[laughter]

Okay. You know, I stood up here. I acknowledged what the EAB voted on that night in October. I was disappointed that when they pushed on the developer regarding renewables, they then backed off. I was disappointed that there was a discussion regarding the amount of diesel fuel that would be stored. And there was virtually no pushback on it. I would also like to point out that the developer misrepresented the amount of fuel fuel that there would be there, or the amount of generators.

I am not saying that means the EAB is unqualified. I think they deserve an opportunity to do their portion of it. But as we have demonstrated in this room, this is engineering. This is health science. This is so many other things aside from, you know, water and things that we would attribute to the environment. So, I implore this group to ask yourselves, is every aspect covered? And if the answer is no, then those people need to be incorporated somehow. A substructure, the nuance of it, that's not my area. That's not my place to debate. But the thing that I have been primarily concerned about throughout this is the concept of you don't know what you don't know. We need people who are going to be innovative and forthcoming and excited and energetic. And I acknowledge that the EAB is part of that. But there are other people in this community who are capable of providing the things that isn't fair to burden them with, it isn't fair to burden planning with. It's it's no different than hiring more third-party consultants. Except that's pretty expensive. So, I do think it needs to be fair. What you put, the responsibility that you give boards, has to be within their realm, their wheelhouse. Not everything is going to be. And what happens when that What happens when that happens? I think you all need to consider what it means for citizens with those backgrounds to provide that information. Thank you. I have two more. Thank you. that I was going to respond to that and let you go with me pro tem. I just have one question about the No, you're fine. You can go sit. Thank you for Thank you

so much. The third-party reviewer, what What um How have they been involved in the process? Can someone speak to that and uh who What is that name name of that? Or

[snorts]

So, I will ask uh I don't know if Diane has anything to add, but as staff researched and recognized um as we got feedback from council and different questions came up, uh there were some skill sets that we did not have the expertise on. And so, we reached out to a third-party and engaged them. I don't know how far that research is yet, if it's begun. Um I think it was in response to a lot of the questions that came out of the work session. Yeah, as far as I know, we have a contract. That's how far it's gotten because we were waiting to hear if we're going to have another work session. Um we just we've been in limbo waiting to hear about what was going to happen. And so, now, you know, we'll be able to engage with them. Okay, thanks for that, Mayor Pro Tem. Thanks. I I have two more points I want to make after the discussion. Um the first and just like again, I needed to implore everyone that the rezoning process that we never actually went through is incredibly open and community involved. The UDO process is incredibly open and community involved and we can add more meetings. Um I know people haven't gone through that cuz you may not be aware, but it actually is it's defined by state statute. There's laws about having these meetings. When you see earlier when the mayor forgot to do the open close thing, cuz there's a law that says we have to physically say those words. Okay. Um I also want to say when our staff goes off and does this stuff all the time, they consult with the community. They have design meetings. They have stuff in the hell like the way that we're speaking about this is like it almost presumes that staff is not going to do those things. And they are and they do. And we should let them do their job. Unless we don't think they can do their job, then we should handle that. But they're able to have these meetings. They bring together advisory groups of citizens all the time. There's other structures here if we let them do the work. Um so I just want to say that in defense of the work staff does and observe with everything else, all the

other projects that staff undertakes, there's plenty of groups that they bring together, there's plenty of meetings, there's multiple public forums that they have outside of us to gather input um in that way. Uh the other thing I wanted to point out is we don't know at all what we're doing right now. You heard the conversation earlier. We don't know the timetable. We don't know the scope. We don't know when staff is going to come back and do that. Like tonight, although we gave direction to begin the moratorium, we have so many unanswered questions that got brought up about the law and what we had to do to jump ahead and start empowering boards to work on something when we don't know what that something is yet, I think feels a little premature to me. So. Well, I I do want to respond to that. Um the premature report, we'll start there. This was building on what you just recommended with the moratorium as part of the process when we start really taking a deeper dive into how data centers will impact Apex and building those UDOs. Um I'll say this is the third time staff has done an amazing job. I'm not taking anything away from them. They're very capable. I was a staff member for 29 years. I don't want I didn't want anybody to veto me either in my job. But this is new. This is something different. We have never dealt with this. So why wouldn't we consider bringing in residents? It It's just It's just And And I understand EAB is focused on environmental impacts. Clear. We have staff, too. But what's the problem with having an organized group that roll up their sleeves, they're working together with staff, community members, and even other stakeholders to just try to do our best work for Apex. I think it's a it's a great move. I think it's great for transparency. It's it's a again a model and it sends a message to our residents that they were part of the process.

I'm not understanding the implication that if we refer this to a standing committee that residents will

not be involved. Like that's that's kind of what what I'm hearing from the comments being made. That's not the case. Like you know, to the mayor pro tem's point, like you know, we can schedule oh you know, information sessions and public you know, input sessions and you know, stand outside during uh Peak Fest and and and all those things can be done as part of the proposal. If and if EAB is is too limited then let's give it to the planning board and let them go cross-functional and and get it you know, get it all done. And so I I I just I just don't see the need to stand up another committee if we already have established committees that's that are chartered to do these things for us. And then I want to give them this opportunity. We've you know, rarely do we get an opportunity of of this kind to put these these boards and committees to work for us the way that we've been talking about. Um I think this is a golden opportunity, like you said, but I want to give that opportunity to one of the existing boards that we have instead of spinning up something brand new. I I totally hear you. Um I'll go back again to um we have people coming here every single council meeting talking about engagement, transparency. And and again, this is mayor pro tem, you know, totally agree. Staff knows what they're doing. I'm not trying to to uh interfere with what they do. This is to support them in their work. It really is. Why wouldn't we? Again, environmental planning. They got other things to focus on as well. This group would be super focused, laser focused on this item alone. It's more efficient. Yes. I just wanted to reiterate that I laid out I think it's too limiting. I don't think it's I don't think it's broad enough. Um and I think we have an opportunity to I mean this is a pretty big sandwich to you know, find a place to

where to take a bite and um I think standing up a com- committee at this juncture again um optimizing what knowledge we already have. I hear I transparency issue. I've I've spoken with folks about the transparency issue. Things were very different when we had an applicant at the table. Um and also I mean in terms of public forum when folks come up and speak I mean we're not supposed to respond. So I mean the two-way conversation this isn't the venue for that. This is the venue for residents to bring those things. Um and then I think an additional layer is is uh entrusting that those communications are being built into the reports that staff are going to be uh assembling and also are going to be coming to your members of council who are going to be vetting this. I mean this is a data center committee. So who's data center committee? This right here. This this di- the folks at this dais. I mean I trust I trust it. The folks at the dais. Again, I'm just trying to give the community members an opportunity to be a part of the process. Can't you just weigh in on Council Member Gray's maybe recommendation to to have a subcommittee under environmental? What are your thoughts? Do you want to talk more to what that idea is? I My My forgive me. I It was my understanding that you were inferring from Council member uh Zeg- Zegerman's and Council member Zegerman said actually Let me clarify. So, I just want to see if that was

Right. No, and and that

This is a new idea? Yeah, no no. That because as Council member Zegerman was talking, the idea of All right, you know, because I I don't think that a just a free-standing citizens resident

committee is going to be efficient for us. I do think that we have EAB. And if they stand up a committee under them, and they have the ability to basically create because I don't think there's a problem with having that input from the residents. But, I do think it's should be routing through EAB. I think that is the mechanism that we currently have in place. Resident committee under EIB, that to me seems like an easy an easy fix on this one. Now, I hate to say it, there's a lot of pieces that we don't have in place. Size, composition, how to get there, who gets on it, all those sort of things.

[sighs]

Re- realistically, I mean, do we have a I would punt that to EAB. Uh Let them figure it

effect,

[laughter]

are we taking the over/under on this coming together by May and we're already, you know, June, July? I mean, this It feels It feels to me like we can be even more nimble through some of the current processes. Again, it was 20 minutes ago, 25 minutes ago that we gave direction for uh initiating the moratorium. I feel like that's It And I And I do, you know, I don't I don't want to compromise the quality of what this resident advisory this subcommittee could do just by rushing rushing rushing because we try And I'm not I'm not saying you're you know let's take the time and and stand up this subcommittee and let them be a part of the process. I I just don't see how it would hurt anything. I just I just haven't heard that at all tonight. Well, I here's here's what it's not that it would hurt. It's just I don't know if it optimizes. Um and it may actually drag put a drag on our ability to move as swiftly as we need to. And so my one of my things as I'm thinking about what Council member Gray has just laid out, perhaps there's an opportunity again, I don't uh Mayor Pro Tem, you're overseeing or you're the um appointee to the EAB.

Is there a way where EAB can essentially bring in star witnesses? And and vet what those folks have to say. I mean, I feel like there's already again to some of the structure conversations that we've had. Um and I also want to say that um I I think we I don't know how many folks I know a lot of the folks in red did. Um I don't know how many folks in the community got a chance to see and I hope they didn't spend too much time, but we had several work sessions where we talked about these issues at length. And were vetting layers of this and I only um I can I expect that that would be a process that we would be going through yet again. Yeah, and a work session is still not community community participation.

I wasn't saying that. I was talking about the EAB offering start bringing star witnesses to ensure that we have folks um in that two-way. EAB can do whatever they want. Um I have some more thoughts. Uh I just want to reiterate what I'm trying to say earlier. I I think the problem that makes me uncomfortable here, if I could if I could try to articulate, is it almost implies like it does imply that staff was not already going to do this. Take a look at Peak Plan 2055. Take a look at all the design things we did for the downtown plan. Take a look at um the tunnel under Tysons Bridge. There were tons of advisory groups and design charettes and community outreach is an integral part of what staff does every day. Um and I think that's the important message like the the idea we have to set up this committee for public input. It does sort of imply they weren't already going to do that and I think they are. I think they'll do what needs to get done and we should let them at least try to do their job here. Um so so that's kind of where my frustration is coming from. I I think if I could that what I was trying to articulate earlier to reiterate. Um I want to point out we have no data centers applications. I will

Wait, say that again. I'm sorry.

I'll point out we have we have no data center applications today.

Oh, okay. I will say it is not likely we'll get one again. Like I I know we're all excited, but it's not likely we're going to get one again. That's just the reality. Staff won't say that, but we're thinking that. Like no one's going to see what just happened say, you know what? Next year as soon as more time has gone I'm going to jump right in. And as I'll say that as a politician cuz I think I can be a little more for a little more uh now that we don't have an application, a little more frank with you all. We're probably not going to get another data center application and if it would come it would be after you put this UDO in place. Uh so please consider that. I've been telling people that. That's my opinion. Uh one more point I want to make. You asked how it could hurt. I I would say the difference between what you're suggesting and what I'm suggesting with a staff led process is the level of formality. Uh committee first and foremost will be something staff has to organize and support and staff and respond to and get the meetings together. Uh staff led process they have a lot more flexibility in how that's organized. Second problem involving us politicizes the process. If we're making appointments to a committee, it's not a political committee that we're appointing. And then we're going to have to photo the applicants. And what what are the What's the range of applicants? And who's appointing them? And what's the vote going to be? That's not necessary here. If staff does it, we're not involved. The process is actually cleaner. I think we should let staff do their job. I hear what you're saying about the EAB. I don't think we should do that either. I think we should tell staff, go do this. And if we think they're doing a bad job in 3 months or 6 months, or in 13 months when the moratorium is off and and the next day we get 27 data center applications, you could immediately at that point stand up a committee and do it. But I think it's premature at this point. We should at least let staff try to do this job. They're very good at it. They've done it for many other projects that have gotten a tremendous amount of public input. The statutorily defined process has built into it. We haven't ever gotten to it, but it has also a tremendous amount

of public input with multiple public forums where they're actually speaking on the subject matter. We've all been coming and and and listening to our regular public forum cuz it's never actually gotten to us. Once it gets to us, there's processes and public input that's required as a part of law that would happen. Um Bringing it back home. I think staff can do this. They're really good at getting public input. They're hearing that the public wants to get input. They've always been responsive to doing that. I think we should let them try. Thank you. All right. I'll I'll go back again to This is number five. I'm not saying staff can do it. Staff can definitely do it. This is different. This is This is the This is data centers. And as far as us being involved as a politician, I'm I'm I'm totally okay with people knowing that was part of the process. Right? Cuz there there were no applications at this time. And that's that's what we're elected to do. Represent the residents. They elected us. And we advocate for them. So, we could we could probably spend ano- another hour we're about this. Um Again, I'm asking for support.

[clears throat]

Um Again, I I appreciate the the sentiment. I also appreciate the sentiment expressed by Mayor Pro Tem that this, you know, is within staff's wheelhouse and we do solicit public input through various means on the regular. Um Again, my preference would be to stand up a or the refer this to the Environmental Advisory Board, let them chew on it, see how they can can do it, work with staff on on this. Um you know, if that doesn't work, then, you know, we can find another way, but we have the the existing structures in place. Again, like in terms of how it can can hurt, I think it it feels like if if you are an appointed board member

today and the moment that something meaty comes up, like a different board gets gets set up, like that feels demoralizing to me, right? And and so, I want to give our existing board a a chance here. So, I will make a motion to refer this to the Environmental Advisory Board uh for their review recommendation back to council on how they think they can organize a committee with the intent of the public input that you're suggesting. So, just so I understand, so you're more aligned with Council Member Gray. I So, Council Member Gray goes a little bit further than by prescribing a subcommittee to to the EAB. Like, I'm I'm just asking to refer to the EAB, let the EAB decide how they want to self-organize. If that results in a subcommittee, I'm perfectly fine with it. If they think they can do it, you know, as as an extending or um part of their existing mission, that's fine with me, too. Who who would research the economic side of things and They they they can they can pull in those those those stakeholders, um you know, from from staff or from from the the residents. I I do think that there's other areas beyond the environmental aspect that that's I agree, um, are uh are relevant here, um, but by and large the concerns that we have heard from the the residents have focused on environmental impact, you know, and that includes uh you know, energy use, water use, uh noise pollution, light pollution, uh air pollution. Right, I I think this is predominantly within the EAP's wheelhouse and that's why I'm not choosing kind of that committee. I understand. Just just a quick question legal and and I'm I'm just I'm not saying I'm going this direction, but I do want to hear. Is there anything that prohibits a a council member or member of elected body of forming their own group in the community to get information and to work together? It would not be a town committee. It would be

um, it it could not be funded or supported by the town unless it is something that is authorized by the town council. Okay, thank you. I may have some concerns from a different perspective. We don't have a clear rule or procedure, you know, uh about um residential, you know, residents standing committee or sub committee. I see see this, um, is because this time, you know, um for this data center, we heard most from our folks, you know, they are against, right? They have uh experts from all kinds of different areas to give data analysis, um, but we don't have, you know, um the folks from the other side. Um, I I believe they do because, um, they don't have because their voice may be too small or too few people, so they just don't even bother to voice. So, but it doesn't mean in the future those people, you know, um do not uh care or want want to voice their opinions. So, if that happens, how should we handle another subcommittee or standing committee for those group of people? It's, you know, I don't I think um probably you don't like my, you know,

[sighs]

speaking of this kind of scenario, but it is um reality, right? We have to think about a clear procedure how to handle this. It's possible, right? Yeah. Because remember, I I appreciate that and I did say before and I I talked to um attorney about this. My vision was to have people on that subcommittee that may be pro that may be in support of a data center.

So, everybody's working together. Um yes, um ideally, it's like that, you know, no matter you are against or you are for, but I don't think uh those very few people they have the courage to join this [laughter] group. I'm just, you know, speaking of the possibility, you know, um is the reason, you know, because I saw people, you know, from the, you know, uh social media, right? And somebody even uh sent me a message before, you know, but I received most are against, but I did, you know, receive two or three, you know, they you know, they are for this. So, it's it's possible. So, I think um we need a more clear, more standard procedure to for this topic because uh is complicated and if other groups said, "Oh, no, you know, you have, you know, uh most people are from this group, but you know, are not from that uh perspective." It's uh if we want, you know, um all voice to be heard, to be, you know, um and all residents feel it's a fair procedure, we need to proceed with more clear, you know, um rules or guidance. That's my opinion. Okay. Thanks everybody for the input. I know we spent a lot of time on this. Thanks everyone for your comments. Going back to uh Councilwoman Seggerman's uh motion, could you clear that up for me again?

a motion to refer to [clears throat] the EAB Okay. this topic of re- the they just want to research, you know, and then how they want to handle public inputs into that process to inform the UDO amendments, you know, work with staff on the on that, uh and then ultimately bring policy advice back

to council. May I make a an amendment to that to ask that we ask EAB to provide um uh essentially a report to us within 60 days as to their findings? That'd be great. That way we would give them, you know, a month to figure it out and then 60, you know, another 30 days to figure out a way of coming back to us and then we can take a look and see what their proposal is and either ratify or say go forth and conquer. I think it's important that the board the board and the boards have the ability to carry out their functions, but I do think in terms of an overall compromise, this would give them the ability to figure out how to put together, if necessary, a a resident committee. And I I I dare I say, I don't think anybody who has heard our conversation is going to say, "Nah, we don't think so." So, I think I I like the idea of putting I like the idea of putting the trust in the EAB to come back and provide something back to us within 60 days. I'm going to amend that. Okay. Yeah, I also want want to add maybe some amendment like we explore the you know opportunity to you know for residential committee in the future because um Yes. Yeah. It's another It's another Okay, not It's another. Okay. [laughter] Okay, so we got the motion from Zegerman with the amendment from Gray. Do you accept that? I accept that. Okay. All right, very good. Is there a second? Second. Second, Gray. All right, any other discussion before we move for a vote? All right, all in favor say, "Aye." Aye. Opposed? All right, it's unanimous. All right, thank you. All right, let's move to um close session. We have close session one and I make a motion to go into close session.

All right, motion Zegerman.

Second. Second, Gray. All in favor say, "Aye." Aye. Opposed? All right, motion carried.

Thank you all for being here. See you.

Mhm.

Thank you. We're good. Okay.

[clears throat]

Do you have any other business? I'm going to get 40. Okay. Have a good night.

[laughter]

All right. Thank you. Not not a good person to do be careful outside.

Mhm.