2026-10-15 - Planning and Zoning Commission

00:04Good evening, and welcome to the City of Springfield's Planning and Zoning

00:07Commission. I will call the October 15th,

00:102026 meeting to order.

00:12A few procedural items before we begin.

00:15Please turn off and silence all electronic devices.

00:20If there's an item on the agenda that you wish to speak to,

00:24please sign up by filling out a card and giving that to the city

00:28staff here at the front table.

00:33And do that before that title is read.

00:35Only persons who have signed up prior to the reading of the item will be

00:39allowed to speak, with the exception of the applicants or their

00:43representative.

00:45Speakers will be called in the order your cards are turned in to staff.

00:49When it is your turn to speak, please come to the podium and state your name

00:54and address for the record. Make your comments to the Planning and Zoning

00:57Commission, not to staff or any member of the

01:01audience.

01:03Each speaker is limited to a single presentation, unless

01:06Commission otherwise permits, or if a speaker is recalled

01:10to the podium to answer Commission's questions.

01:14You will have three or five minutes in which to give your testimony.

01:18The timer is located

01:20on the screen at the front of the room.

01:23When the timer gets to 30 seconds remaining, it will turn red,

01:27and then disappear when the time is completed.

01:31If a speaker is representing and speaking for a group of people,

01:35Commission may permit the speaker additional time if

01:39requested in advance.

01:42Please remember that this is a public hearing and all sides have the

01:46right to give testimony. Please respect their right to do

01:49so.

01:51All motions made by the Planning Commission are made in the affirmative,

01:55even though individual commissioners may choose to deny a

01:59particular case.

02:02Ms. Werlin, would you call the roll?

02:05Lane Hutton.

02:06Here.

02:07Helen Gunter.

02:08Here.

02:09Jennifer McClure.

02:10Here.

02:10Chris Rosilier.

02:12Here.

02:12Eric Pauley.

02:13Here.

02:14Dan Scott.

02:15Here.

02:15Brandy Morris.

02:16Here.

02:17Randall Doning, absent. David Jacquez, absent.

02:23Moving on to approval of minutes.

02:26Are there any changes or corrections to the minutes?

02:32Okay.

02:33May I have a motion to approve

02:36the minutes?

02:38I move to approve the minutes.

02:40And a second? Second.

02:44Very good.

02:46Motion is made by Commissioner Pauley

02:50and seconded by Commissioner Gunter.

02:54Will the Commission please vote?

03:05Commissioner Scott?

03:06I'm working on it.

03:09There we go.

03:16The minutes are approved.

03:20Mr. Hosmer, do you have a report on communications?

03:24I only have that information in your packet for the, uh, Planning and Zoning

03:27Commission, City Council agendas actions.

03:30Happy to answer any questions.

03:33Are there any questions for Mr. Hosmer?

03:37Moving on to consent items. There are two items on the

03:41agenda.

03:43Ms. Werlin, have you received any requests to remove

03:47any one of them from the consent agenda?

03:49No.

03:51Does anyone in the audience wish to have an item

03:55removed from the consent agenda?

03:59Does anyone on the Commission wish to have an item removed from the consent

04:03agenda?

04:05Seeing none,

04:08may I have a motion to adopt the consent, the agenda as

04:12presented?

04:14I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

04:18Do I have a second?

04:20Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Pauley,

04:24and seconded by Commissioner Morris.

04:27Please vote.

04:39Consent agenda is approved.

04:45Moving on to unfinished business.

04:48Mr. Hosmer, would you read item 5.1?

04:54Yes. This is Z 26-20-26, conditions number

04:58288

04:59at 29 South National Avenue and 29 South National Avenue, Suite

05:03A.

05:10Do you announce the desire to withdraw an item, or do

05:14we just make that in the motion?

05:16We can make that in the motion. The request is to withdraw Z

05:2026 condition 2-

05:21Okay. Did I just miss that in your comment?

05:23No, I'm sorry. I didn't make that, but it is conditioned that they are with a

05:27request to withdraw this application.

05:29Okay. Do I have a motion to that regard?

05:32Uh, yes. As the applicant has requested this to be

05:36withdrawn, I move to withdraw Z

05:4126-2026 with conditions

05:45288.

05:46Do I have a second?

05:47Second.

05:48I have a motion by Commissioner Pauley and a second by

05:52Commissioner McClure.

05:54Please vote.

06:09Item 5.1

06:11passes.

06:13Mr. Hosmer, would you please read item 5.2?

06:17This is vacation 845, and it's at 2616 2626

06:20West College and 2632 2646 West Olive

06:24Street. This request has the applicant to withdraw this

06:28application as well.

06:31Do I have a motion to that effect?

06:34I move to withdraw vacation 845.

06:37Do I have a second?

06:38Second.

06:40Motion was made by Commissioner Pauley and seconded by Commissioner

06:43McClure.

06:45Please vote.

06:56Item 5.2 passes. Mr. Hosmer, please read item

07:005.3.

07:07This is administrative action of subdivision.

07:09It's a preliminary plat of Horizons at the Ridge at First Editions, and this is a

07:13request to postpone,

07:16I believe, to the

07:19next Planning Zone Commission.

07:21I'm sorry, January 14th.

07:24Do I have a motion on item 5.3?

07:28I move to postpone the preliminary plat of Horizons at Ridge,

07:32excuse me, First Edition,

07:34to the January 14, 2027 meeting.

07:37Do I have a second?

07:38Second.

07:40Motion was made by Commissioner Pauley and seconded by Commissioner McClure.

07:45Please vote.

07:59Item 5.3 passes.

08:01Mr. Hosmer, would you please read item 5.4?

08:06Yes. This is Z11 2026. This is at 1349 North

08:10Wabash Avenue, and this is also request to withdraw, and

08:13the applicant is the City of Springfield.

08:18Do I have a motion for withdrawal?

08:21I move to withdraw Z11-2026.

08:25Do I have a second?

08:27Second.

08:28Motion was made by Commissioner Pauley and seconded by Commissioner

08:31McClure. Will the commission please vote?

08:45Item 5.4 passes.

08:50Mr. Hosmer, will you please read item 5.5?

08:53Yes. This is Z12 2026. This is at

08:571349 North LaFontaine Avenue, and this is

09:01also a request to withdraw by the City of Springfield.

09:05Do I have a motion to that effect?

09:08I move to withdraw

09:10Z-12-2026.

09:14Do I have a second?

09:15Second.

09:16I have a motion by Commissioner Pauley and a second by Commissioner

09:20McClure.

09:21Commission, please vote.

09:30Item 5.5 passes.

09:33Mr. Hosmer, would you please read item 5.6?

09:36Yes. This is Z13 2026. This is at 1344 North

09:40LaFontaine Avenue, and this is also a request by the city to withdraw.

09:47Do I have a motion to that effect?

09:50I move to withdraw Z-13-2026.

09:55Do I have a second?

09:56Second.

09:58I have a motion from Commissioner Pauley and a second from Commissioner

10:02McClure. Will the commission please vote?

10:19Item 5.6 passes.

10:23Moving on to public hearings.

10:26Mr. Hosmer, will you please read item 6.1?

10:31Yes. This is Z28 2026. It's located at 729

10:35West Elm Street,

10:38and this will be presented by Senior Planner Daniel Neal.

10:47All right. Good evening, commissioners.

10:50I have before you tonight a request to rezone

10:54a 0.1 acre

10:56from the RMX-1, which is our mixed-density

10:59neighborhood, low district, to the

11:02GAPB, Grand Avenue Parkway Subdistrict B.

11:06This is a situation where

11:10the applicant has appealed

11:13the

11:15citywide rezoning on this particular property

11:19and this particular zoning that's right here on the property,

11:23where they

11:26felt like the zoning that was immediately adjacent to the

11:31zoning was more appropriate. And so they have requested that you

11:35all consider rezoning or making a recommendation to city council for

11:39rezoning this property. It

11:42has been part of their property

11:47for the number of years that they've owned it, and they're just wanting to come

11:50into

11:52conformance with the rest of the surrounding zoning area there.

11:56The comprehensive plan has this area as a mixed residential

12:01place type, and The adjacent

12:06place type is the mixed use place type.

12:08And so they are wanting to make sure that

12:13the zoning there is the same, so that when they redevelop this

12:16site in the future, that they can use it

12:19similarly.

12:21The R-MX-1 district primarily allows for residential uses.

12:26The

12:27GAP-P district allows for some

12:29commercial uses, including a hotel use.

12:33The existing property to the east there has an old church

12:38that I believe is being considered for some sort of mixed

12:42use in the future. And so as part of this, they're wanting to

12:47essentially be able to use this little slice of property as part of that

12:51overall

12:52mixed use development.

12:55Let's see. The GAP district is intended to provide

12:59greater flexibility in uses, and so that's one of the reasons that they're

13:03wanting this piece to be a part of that.

13:05They filed an appeal application back in June when we were going through the

13:09citywide remapping, and they

13:13claimed that the proposed zoning district aligned with the

13:17place type in Forward SGF. The property had become

13:21non-conforming use because of the zoning district transition, and that

13:25this would also correct a split zoning issue where the property

13:29ownership would

13:32have different zoning classifications and thus make it a little more difficult

13:35to develop.

13:38With that, staff does recommend approval of this to the

13:41GAP-V district, and it does require a majority vote of those

13:46present tonight, and this would be forwarded on to the city council on November

13:4916th. With that, I'll take any questions you might have.

13:53Are there any questions for Mr. Neal?

13:58I see none. Thank you.

13:59Mm-hmm.

14:02This is a city

14:05proposed item, but

14:07I'll first open the public hearing.

14:11Although as a city proposed item, the applicant

14:15is welcome to speak as well. Do we have the applicant here to speak?

14:20There are no speakers.

14:21There are no speakers on this item. I will close the public hearing.

14:25May I have a motion for recommendation from the commission?

14:32I move to recommend approval of rezoning case

14:35Z-28-2026.

14:38Do I have a second?

14:42Second.

14:45I have a motion from Commissioner Pauli and a second from Commissioner

14:49Gunter. Are there any final questions or comments from the

14:52commission?

14:56Seeing none,

14:59please vote.

15:16Commissioner Scott?

15:19Aye.

15:20And can you send our tag? Somehow my meeting disappeared

15:24and is not on the agenda list anymore.

15:39Should I just try the back button first?

15:41Yeah.

15:43Okay.

15:46Just hit this.

15:48Up here.

15:49Here.

15:51There we go. It's back. Okay.

15:53There.

16:00All right. Thank you.

16:02It passed. Oh, 260.

16:05Item 6.1 passes.

16:08Mr. Hosmer, would you please read item 6.2?

16:13Yes. This is Z-29-2026. This is at 2550 East

16:18Southview Street.

16:20This item is also requested to be postponed to the November

16:2319th P&Z.

16:26Do I have a motion for postponement?

16:29Yes, I move to postpone

16:31Z-29-2026 to the November

16:3519th, 2027 meeting.

16:38And do I have a second?

16:39Second.

16:40I have a motion from Commissioner Pauli and a second from Commissioner

16:44McClure.

16:45Would the commission please vote?

16:55Item 6.2 passes.

16:58Mr. Hosmer, would you please read item 6.3?

17:03Yes. This is Z-30-2026. It's located at

17:072607, 2651, 2801 North

17:10Mulroy Road. And this will be presented by Monica Piercey,

17:15senior planner.

17:16Good evening.

17:18This is a rezoning request for approximately

17:2268.9 acres located at 2607

17:26North Mulroy Road.

17:29The site is currently zoned LIC, light industrial commercial,

17:33with a conditional overlay district of 185.

17:37They'd like to rezone to HM, heavy manufacturing.

17:42So a little background on this property.

17:44In 2020, the property owner rezoned the site to industrial

17:48commercial, and this was to allow for large scale

17:52warehousing.

17:56However, earlier this year during the citywide remapping,

18:00the IC district translated to the LIC district,

18:04light industrial commercial

18:06And the LIC district limits warehousing and storage by size.

18:10So anything over 100,000 square feet would not be permitted by

18:14right in the LIC district.

18:16Due to this size restriction, the property has become a non-conforming use.

18:21And due to that reason, the property owner has appealed the

18:25remapping for this property.

18:28Because this is currently a non-conforming use, they would not be allowed to

18:32expand or develop any further on the site, and I believe they

18:36intend to add a fourth warehouse on site.

18:40The comprehensive plan identifies this property to be within the industry and

18:44logistics place type. Primary uses include

18:48warehousing, distribution centers, and manufacturing.

18:54Yeah, staff would recommend approval based on proposal's general

18:58conformance to the comprehensive plan,

19:01and it is set for City Council on November 16th.

19:05Happy to answer any questions.

19:07Does the commission have any questions?

19:12I don't see any. Thank you.

19:16I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers scheduled?

19:21Ryan Stalzer.

19:28Yeah, good evening. My name's Ryan Stalzer.

19:31My address is 1200 East Woodhurst, Suite

19:34D200.

19:36I'm the owner's representative,

19:39and

19:41we're currently in the design phase on a fourth warehouse for

19:44this project. And

19:48the construction of the fourth building on this project,

19:55it's been in the development plan for several years.

20:03So,

20:07some of the supporting infrastructure for this proposed fourth building

20:11has already been completed with previous phases of the project.

20:16SRC currently already has a tenant for the

20:20proposed warehouse.

20:22And

20:23the problem we ran into, which city staff pretty well covered

20:27that, is

20:30the previous zoning of IC, it allowed for the

20:34fourth warehouse.

20:36And earlier in the year when the property was

20:40transferred to the LIC zoning,

20:43that restricted the floor area to 100,000 square feet.

20:48And there's three existing warehouses on the property.

20:51All of them exceed that limit.

20:54And the proposed fourth warehouse exceeds that limit as well.

20:58And

21:00so that's really the problem that we ran into on it.

21:04The neighborhood meeting went well.

21:06We had a few neighbors come to it, and nobody had

21:10any opposition or comments or anything regarding the

21:14rezoning.

21:16And

21:17that's pretty much all I have on this, so be happy to answer any

21:21questions.

21:23Are there any questions for the speaker?

21:27I see none, sir. Thank you.

21:28All right. Thank you.

21:31Ms. White, do we have any scheduled speakers?

21:34That was our final speaker.

21:36I will close the public hearing.

21:39Would someone like to make a motion to recommend this item?

21:47I move to recommend approval of rezoning case

21:50Z-30-2026.

21:54Do I have a second?

21:56Second.

21:58I have a second. Or, I'm sorry, I have a motion from Commissioner Pauli

22:02and a second from Commissioner Morris.

22:05Commission, please vote.

22:19Item 6.3 passes.

22:22Mr. Hausner, would you please read item 6.4?

22:26Yes, this is item Z-31-2026. It's located at the

22:302800 block of East Barton Street, and this will be presented by Senior Planner

22:34Michael Sparlin.

22:44Good evening, commissioners. This is a rezoning

22:48for 15 acres from heavy

22:51manufacturing and

22:53residential single family to RMX mixed

22:57density neighborhood high.

23:02The applicant intends to develop an expansion of Township

23:0628, which is a multifamily

23:09development directly to the south of the property.

23:13The comprehensive plan

23:15land use and development chapter identifies the property within the mixed

23:19use place type, or excuse me, the west portion of the property

23:24is the mixed use place type, and the east is the mixed

23:28residential place type. The RMX-3 district

23:32is consistent with both these place types,

23:36which list

23:38multifamily as a primary land use.

23:41The RMX-3 district provides residential living and high density

23:45patterns in urban areas or larger scale

23:49multifamily projects in suburban areas where there are appropriate

23:53transitions and buffers between neighborhoods.

23:57The character of these areas emphasizes high activity environments

24:01with proximity

24:04and integration to other uses and walkable

24:07formats.

24:10The Greenway, the Galloway Greenway, as you know, is in this area.

24:15Apartment complex is allowed in the RMX 3 district.

24:18It is capped at 17.7

24:22dwelling units per acres, if not proposing a street network,

24:26and

24:29that's exactly what they propose here.

24:33The development is subject to design standards within the new land

24:36development code.

24:38These would be massing and modulation, roof plane limits, and

24:42transparency requirements.

24:45In 2019,

24:47City Council adopted Galloway area recommendations to

24:51evaluate zoning districts.

24:55Some of those included tree preservation, which

24:59has been codified with the new land development code that

25:03has tree preservation and protection.

25:06Stream buffers were also mentioned in that area.

25:10The property has two streams, one Galloway Creek, and then there's

25:14another one, a tributary that runs through the property.

25:17Both these will have to have

25:20stream buffer easements placed on them

25:24when the property develops. The proposal is consistent with the

25:29goals and objectives of the place type.

25:32Staff recommends approval, and this is set for a public hearing

25:36November 16th, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

25:40Does the commission have any questions for Mr. Sparlin or staff?

25:47I see none. Thank you, sir.

25:50I will open the public hearing. Is the applicant or the applicant's

25:54representative here?

25:55Sam Coryell.

26:05Evening.

26:06My name's Sam Coryell.

26:08I live at 5533 East Timberwood Court,

26:12here in Springfield.

26:14I own Township 28

26:16and, of course, I am recommending to you all that you support this

26:21rezone. There's a lot of reasons why, but I've got seven here

26:25for the sake of brevity.

26:28It's a proven development. I built Township 28 Phase One 10 years

26:31ago, and it has done well, and it added to the

26:36character and quality of Galloway Village.

26:40Number two, it's a better neighborhood transition.

26:43Currently, portions of that property are zoned for heavy manufacturing.

26:48This will zone it for

26:51multifamily and be much more conducive to the

26:54Galloway Village

26:57demographic and quality.

27:00Number three, it's designed with Galloway in mind.

27:03Buildings along Barton Street

27:05will have a row house look, lower density.

27:10It is intended to be conducive to the natural

27:14topography,

27:15substantial setbacks, landscaping, and tree

27:18preservation to soften the transition.

27:21Number four, meaningful open space.

27:24The concept targets approximately 60% of the site will remain

27:28green. We will preserve mature trees wherever feasible,

27:34and

27:36it just fits in the Galloway Village area.

27:40Number five, protecting neighborhood streets.

27:43Our intent is to funnel all traffic out to Lone Pine

27:47and not onto Barton.

27:49Storm water, utilities, and access remain part of the civil

27:53process and will be improved with this development.

27:57As an owner there at Township 28, storm water is definitely

28:01still an issue in some of the undeveloped areas, so this will

28:05prevent the flooding of

28:09the land to the west of this site, which my current Township

28:1328 is part of.

28:16Number six, we listened to our neighbors.

28:19Our September neighborhood meeting was overwhelmingly positive.

28:23We engaged residents, listened to their concerns, and found broad

28:27support for the project's quality and direction.

28:30And number seven,

28:32this is housing that I feel Springfield needs.

28:35A mix of apartment sizes and floor plans will serve working

28:39professionals, smaller households, and families at

28:42different income levels.

28:44Our intent here is to design a property that will

28:50meet the needs of the working class here in Springfield and provide a quality

28:54product at a price that our residents and our community members

28:58can afford.

29:00So, our closing statement is we're asking to extend a community we've

29:04already invested in, improve a property that needs attention,

29:08and create a thoughtful transition that respects Galloway.

29:13We intend to own and operate this community for a long time,

29:18and we have every incentive to get it right.

29:20Thank you.

29:23Does the commission have any questions for Mr. Coryell?

29:27Commissioner Pauli.

29:28Thank you, Chair. Mr. Coryell, looking to the information that we have here, and

29:32there was one question that I did have regarding

29:36the walking trail access.

29:39Sidewalks will be put in place. Is that going to

29:43satisfy the walking trail access at that point?

29:48We believe so. Our intent is to put a sidewalk along

29:52Barton-

29:53Mm-hmm

29:54... east and west. And then ideally,

29:58I don't know for certain because it's too overgrown, but there along the creek,

30:02be able to connect the sidewalk before the bridge,

30:06if you're familiar with the area-

30:07Very much so

30:08... running south down and get people safely to

30:12that sidewalk, that parallel that runs along Lone Pine, and then

30:16over to a crosswalk to get across to the trail.

30:20As I said, until we can get in there and actually do some

30:23surveilling of that creekside area and find out what the terrain is like and

30:27topography, I don't know for certain, but that's what we'd like to do.

30:31All right. Thank you.

30:32Mm-hmm.

30:33Any other questions?

30:36Thank you, sir.

30:37Thank you.

30:39Are there any other scheduled speakers?

30:41Melanie Bach.

30:48My name is Melanie Bach, and I live at 3734 South Elmview.

30:52This is very close to my home. I'm the president of the Galloway Village

30:56Neighborhood Association, and I'm sure you guys expected to hear from us tonight,

30:59so we decided to come in.

31:01I'm going to say one thing. If we had it our way, we would probably prefer to

31:05see 30 or 40 single-family homes on this property, or at least

31:09something that could be owned instead of rented.

31:12However,

31:14if multifamily is the appropriate use, we couldn't have asked for a better

31:17interaction with the developer as what we had in this case.

31:21TLC has set a fine example of being a good neighbor.

31:24They've been a good neighbor in the past, and this is one reason why we've also

31:28supported their past expansions into two

31:31rezonings and two additional buildings that added 60 more units onto the

31:35existing TLC.

31:38The developer reached out early and genuinely to our neighborhood's leadership,

31:42invited us to a meeting, and then invited conversations with

31:45adjacent property owners. This was all before the neighborhood meeting was

31:49even scheduled.

31:52The owner

31:53attended the neighborhood meeting himself instead of just sending a

31:57representative. That was very genuine.

32:00It was almost like they anticipated our concerns before we could even express them,

32:04or maybe this is just what thoughtful development looks like.

32:07We really hope that all the things that we saw in the presentation come to

32:11fruition.

32:13All the neighborhoods east of Sequoyah Park will finally

32:17have, hopefully, safe pedestrian access with sidewalks to the

32:21park. We live mere tenths of miles away from the park,

32:25and we have not been able to safely access it because we've shared Barton with a

32:28bike route and no sidewalks

32:31ever since I've lived there, 20-plus years.

32:35We've been begging for this sidewalk, and we really think it's going to be

32:38beautiful if it can run beside the creek. That's a wonderful solution to this.

32:41You could still risk your life and go straight down Barton, but why would you when

32:45you could take the scenic route and go by the creek?

32:48The natural topography, they're utilizing that to decrease the visual

32:52impact of the building height on the adjacent single-family neighborhoods

32:56on Barton Avenue. The biggest single concern neighbors have had

33:00is that their access will not be allowed to go onto Barton

33:04Avenue,

33:07that entrance and egress will be kept on Lone Pine.

33:10That's something we're relying on the city to allow,

33:14and just to keep that traffic off Barton Road and the single-family neighborhoods.

33:18We greatly appreciate that onsite water detention was included in the plan, as we

33:22have all witnessed the flooding events that we've been

33:26having in Galloway, especially this year, even the national news.

33:29So, I just want to say, we hope this development will proceed just as presented so

33:32that the vision shared by the neighborhood and TLC can move forward,

33:37and as it has been approved by the Galloway community.

33:40Galloway Village supports this development just as presented, and we just

33:44appreciate this developer and his hard work with the neighborhood.

33:48Are there any questions for our speaker?

33:51Thank you.

33:52Thank you.

33:55Are there any other scheduled speakers?

33:56That was our final speaker.

33:58I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion to

34:01recommend...

34:05Whatever I said.

34:09Recommendation from the commission.

34:11I move to recommend a zoning approval,

34:14Case

34:15Z31-026.

34:19Do I have a second?

34:22I have a motion from Commissioner Souliere and a second from Commissioner

34:26Gunter.

34:29Please vote.

34:39Commissioner Pauli?

34:42Aye.

34:46The motion passes.

34:48Mr. Hosmer, will you please

34:51read the next item?

34:54Yes, this is a conditional use permit, 488.

34:58It's at 2240 North Grant Avenue. This is a request to

35:01withdraw.

35:05Do I have a motion to support the withdrawal?

35:11I move to support the withdrawal of conditional use permit

35:15488.

35:17Do I have a second?

35:18Second.

35:19I have a motion from Commissioner Pauli and a second from Commissioner

35:23McClure.

35:25Would the commission please vote?

35:38Motion passes.

35:42Before we move on to item 6.6, I wanted to offer

35:46a reminder to those who had signed up to speak

35:51that

35:53public hearings are limited to the specific item

35:57on the agenda. If a speaker strays from the content of the

36:00agenda item, the speaker will be reminded of the topic at

36:04hand.

36:06If the speaker continues to speak to content outside of the agenda,

36:11they will be asked to sit down.

36:13With those

36:15additional comments, Mr. Hosmer, will you please read item

36:196.6?

36:22Yes, this is a proposed text amendment for a definition of data centers,

36:26and this will be presented by Justin Crighton.

36:30Good evening, Commissioner Scott Commissioners, I'm Justin Crichton, assistant

36:34director of Planning and Development.

36:36This item is a text amendment to Section 361101 of the Land Development Code, and

36:40it adds definitions for data centers.

36:43On June 29th, City Council adopted an administrative delay on data center

36:47applications.

36:49And when council did that, the words data center, data

36:52processing, and server didn't appear anywhere in the current regulations in Chapter

36:5636. And it matters for two very specific reasons.

36:59First of all, staff needs to be able to determine in a clear way what is and is not

37:03a data center, and second, we are charged with writing standards to

37:08regulate these, and it's a very difficult thing to do if we don't know how to

37:11classify them first. The term data center itself

37:14covers a wide range of things. So it can mean an entire

37:19floor of an office building or a campus that needs hundreds of megawatts.

37:23A definition gives everyone the same starting point, residents, applicants,

37:27staff, this commission, and City Council.

37:31So the amendment adds five definitions.

37:33Data center, accessory data center, micro data center,

37:37large load data center, and maximum power demand.

37:41A data center, as I have said before, is a building with a bunch of computer

37:44equipment in it or a portion of a building with a bunch of computer equipment in it

37:49that is used for storing and processing digital data.

37:53It includes all the equipment that it serves it, such as backup generators,

37:57batteries, and cooling equipment.

37:59Under these proposed definitions, every data center falls into one of

38:03three separate classes, and how staff determines which one

38:07applies is by first determining whether or not it's an accessory data

38:10center. In order to be an accessory data center, it has to meet all

38:14four of those criteria there. It has to be inside the principal building.

38:18It cannot take up more than 20% of that building's gross floor area.

38:22It serves only the owner or the tenant's own business, so it stays on

38:25site. And its power demand is less than one megawatt.

38:34So

38:37this is the

38:39access-- I'm sorry, lost my place there a second.

38:41We're talking about accessory data centers.

38:43Accessory data centers are

38:46expansions of IT equipment that would support a business's own operations

38:49internally. So if the answer is no to any of those four

38:53questions above, then we move to the second phase.

38:55So if it's not an accessory data center

38:58and it uses five megawatts or more, or it has more than 10,000 square feet

39:02of area, then it is considered a large load data center.

39:05If it uses less than five megawatts and still has 10,000 square feet or less, it's

39:09a micro data center. And there's no fourth group.

39:12So all this is to say that a small building that uses a lot of power is a

39:16large load, and a very large building that uses the same amount of power

39:20is still a large load data center.

39:26The five-megawatt threshold matches the point at which City Utilities sends a

39:29project through its large load review.

39:32City Utility uses that number as far as review process, and there's no current

39:36definition of large load that has been adopted by City Utilities.

39:40The power is measured as

39:42the most the data center is designed to use once every phase is built.

39:47Data centers on the same site or under common ownership, sharing

39:50infrastructure, are all counted together.

39:52That way, the project can't stay under a threshold by splitting itself into smaller

39:56pieces or phases.

39:59So I do want to be clear about what the amendment does and doesn't do.

40:03It only adds definitions. It doesn't add data centers to the use table.

40:07It doesn't allow them in any specific zoning district.

40:10It doesn't approve any project. The full draft of these regulations is

40:14anticipated to come back before this commission at a public hearing on December

40:1817th.

40:22So,

40:27and there's that schedule.

40:29Staff and the law department do expect to refine these definitions as part of the

40:32full draft that is back before you based on the comments that we receive here and

40:36the input that we've received through our public engagement efforts.

40:42Excuse me one second.

40:42Staff finds that this amendment meets all the review criteria that are spelled out

40:45in the Land Development Code's Section 36209B,

40:50which is that it's consistent with Forward SGF.

40:52It furthers the purposes of the code and its responsibility to protect the

40:56health, safety, welfare, and morals of the city.

40:58It responds to changing conditions, including data centric inquiries that the city

41:02has received and data center development in the region and nationally.

41:06It makes the code easier to administer, because staff can apply a defined term

41:10instead of having to classify a use by comparing it to another use.

41:14Staff does recommend approval of this text amendment as presented in attachment

41:18one, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

41:21Does the commission have any questions for Mr. Crichton?

41:26I see none. Thank you, sir.

41:30I will open the public hearing.

41:35Do we have any scheduled speakers?

41:37Tanya Claybourne.

41:46Good evening. I'm Tanya Claybourne.

41:48I'm a resident of the west side of Springfield.

41:52I'm with a coalition of people

41:55in the Springfield area that are vehemently opposed to data centers.

41:59I am very glad that an effort is being made to

42:03define what is meant by data centers.

42:07However,

42:09it does concern me that the middle

42:13one megawatt to five megawatt category

42:19is a separate category called micro,

42:22separate from large load data center, because

42:27any data center

42:29that's one megawatt or over-

42:33Still generates a lot of heat. My understanding, and you all can check this,

42:38is that

42:41even at one megawatt maximum usage,

42:45it uses as much power as 800 to 1,000

42:48households.

42:50And water cooling is desired, if not absolutely

42:54required as a way to

42:59deal with the tremendous heat that's generated.

43:01So, with the water cooling, there's a chemical involved, and there's

43:05also

43:08the potential for environmental disaster,

43:11noise,

43:13all of the things that

43:15we especially don't want, and that no one wants in their neighborhood.

43:19So I would suggest that

43:22middle category be eliminated and that the large

43:25scale be started at

43:28one megawatt usage.

43:32So,

43:38pardon me just a second.

43:40So here we are yet again,

43:43telling the city that data centers are not our friend.

43:47How many times will it take to make this clear?

43:50How can we convince you that data centers endanger the people who live near?

43:55We can't just say, "What's the use?" So we must consult Dr.

43:59Seuss.

43:59Sir.

43:59It's ma'am.

44:00We're-

44:01It's ma'am.

44:01I'm sorry, ma'am.

44:03Please stick to discussion on definitions.

44:06Okay.

44:07Thank you.

44:10Must we tell you with our phones? Must we tell you with megaphones?

44:13Must we enlist Patrick Mahomes? We don't want data centers near

44:17our homes. We do not want them near a pond.

44:20Of this idea, we are not fond. We don't want them

44:24from wealthy developers or any other type of predators.

44:29At the risk of repetition and droning, we do not want them,

44:33Planning and Zoning.

44:35Must we grab you by the collar? Must we scream and

44:38must we holler? We don't want the high utility cost.

44:42We will never see our cause as lost.

44:46We, at the risk of b******g and bemoaning, we do not want

44:50them, Planning and Zoning.

44:52Thank you for allowing me to share that with you.

44:56Are there any questions for the speaker?

44:59Thank you.

44:59Seeing none, thank you.

45:01Our next speaker?

45:03That was our final speaker.

45:06I will close the public hearing.

45:10Can I have a motion for recommendation from the commission?

45:21I move to recommend the definition of data center text amendment.

45:25Do I have a second?

45:28Second.

45:31I have a motion from...

45:34Sorry, I was distracted by the back of the room.

45:36From Commissioner Pauli, and a second from Commissioner Soulliere.

45:40Will the commission please vote? What?

45:42Just before we vote, comment.

45:45Oh, I'm sorry. Are there any additional comments from the commission?

45:49Thank you, Chair. Yes, I just wanted to comment on the

45:53fact that this is something that I do believe that we do need.

45:57We do need this level of definition.

46:00So it gives us a foundation in order to work from

46:04going forward. Anyone who has ideas, thoughts about

46:08the data centers themselves, what they may be,

46:12your opportunity will come forward, and I encourage you to go ahead

46:16and voice your opinion on those. But please remember, these are

46:20setting out the very foundation that we can start to work with.

46:24And that is my comment. Thank you, sir.

46:27Thank you, Commissioner. Other comments?

46:31I will mention

46:33that the presentation indicated that this was going to go

46:38to council

46:41at their

46:43December 17. Laura, are you with me, or?

46:48October 26th.

46:50Yep. It will be going to City Council October 26th.

46:53Okay.

46:55But there is a time that if there are additional comments from

46:59commission, they can be made to staff. Is that correct?

47:03Correct. The current definition that is in front of you tonight will be going to

47:07City Council October 26th.

47:10As Justin mentioned in his presentation, it is anticipated that there will be some

47:13adjustments to this definition and other things brought forward, and that will come

47:17back to, I believe, Planning and Zoning in December.

47:21Is that-

47:22Okay.

47:23But I'm going to make an assumption I shouldn't, but I think the

47:28speakers and those concerned that might be watching

47:32can be assured that the

47:34framework of the definition of the

47:37one megawatt, the five megawatt, that's going to stay

47:40unchanged. We're just working a little wordsmithing and some

47:45tangential

47:48requirements.

47:48That is my understanding at this point, but I also can't

47:52speak for certain or guarantee anything that will happen in the next two months.

47:55Including what council may decide?

47:57Correct.

47:57All right. Thank you.

48:00Any other comments from the commission?

48:03If not, please vote.

48:16That

48:18item passes. Mr. Hosmer, will you please read

48:21item 6.7?

48:24Yes. This is a request

48:26for a data center administrative delay, or make a recommendation to the city

48:30council for administrative delay, and I will be presenting this

48:33project or topic

48:35As you were listening, same vein of what we just previously looked at.

48:40As you're aware, June 29th, the city council did

48:43adopt a administrative delay on processing applications or any kind of

48:49expansions of data centers, and that will be expiring on November the

48:5317th of 2026. What we're asking is the commission to

48:57make a recommendation that we

49:01recommend another administrative delay, and I think we have a date certain that the

49:05data centers are until February the 24th of 2027.

49:09So staff is just asking that we make a recommendation

49:13to extend the administrative delay for

49:17processing applications relating to data centers.

49:20I'd be happy to answer any questions on that request.

49:23Are there any questions for Mr. Hosmer?

49:27I see none.

49:29Oh, yes, Lane. Commissioner Hunter.

49:32Reading through that, you said

49:34120-day delay, or until November

49:3817th of this year, so a month from now?

49:42Yes.

49:43Yeah.

49:43November 17th will be the expiration-

49:46Of the current one

49:47... of the current one.

49:48Okay.

49:48And what we're asking for is another administrative delay to give us time to

49:53investigate, research, and come up with regulations for

49:58data centers.

49:59Okay. Thank you.

50:00Other questions?

50:03Seeing none.

50:07Where are we? We're ready to open the public hearing, correct?

50:11Or do we have any scheduled speakers?

50:13Tonya Clairborne.

50:16Another poem.

50:22Hi, it's me again. I rise in favor

50:26of extending

50:29the moratorium or the administrative delay,

50:33but

50:35I think it should be a year. And this is on the

50:39topic. You all know what vehement opposition there is to data

50:43centers in town.

50:45120 days, the previous 120 days,

50:49even with a month ago, has not been enough

50:53to assure the public that this is

50:57something that we want, and it's never going to be enough time,

51:01to be perfectly honest.

51:03But I think with so many things to consider, those

51:08public hearings that were held, or they were hearings or

51:12engagement sessions or whatever they were called, they were a marketing campaign.

51:18Staff didn't know a lot about

51:22what was going to happen or what needed to happen.

51:25And in fairness to them, there's a lot to know.

51:29And I think it's beyond another 120 days.

51:32I would suggest

51:34a year, another year

51:37of administrative delay,

51:40unless you want to just ban them now.

51:42So anyway,

51:45that's all I have to say. Thanks very much.

51:48Are there any questions for the speaker?

51:51I see none. Thank you.

51:54Do we have the next speaker?

51:56Suzanne Hume.

52:09Good evening. My name is Suzanne Hume.

52:10I'm the educational director and founder of

52:13cleanearth4kids.org, a nonprofit

52:17that's working to protect children's health, our environment, and

52:21future. So we stand in strong support

52:24of the moratorium and echo the comments that Tonya

52:28made about an extension of the moratorium,

52:32especially in light of the makers of AI

52:36that have come out that says that AI is a

52:40threat to humanity. Bill Gates

52:44said that AI could wipe out billions of

52:48people and turn off

52:51utility systems and our water. As you

52:54know,

52:56AI agents have gone rogue. Have gone rogue,

53:00and they had instructions that they did not have to listen to

53:04corporations, they did not have to listen to anyone, and

53:08they faked, they made fake profiles

53:12and did all sorts of terrible things.

53:15So yes, we need a moratorium because if this would've

53:19already passed, we would've not been able to hear what

53:23the makers of AI are saying, who are calling for

53:27safeguards. Unfortunately, the President of the United States and

53:31our Governor Kehoe are not

53:35understanding why we need the breaks.

53:37But when industry professionals are absolutely telling this,

53:41that this is a threat to our community, it's also a threat to our

53:45privacy and our civil liberties. And we know people in

53:49Springfield, they really care about their civil liberties.

53:53It doesn't matter what side of the aisle, people do not want these

53:57data centers. As was mentioned, the city of Springfield

54:00held

54:02presentations, and it was titled Readiness.

54:06And I thought to myself, "Ready? Well, we don't want these,

54:10and we're certainly not ready." And so closed-looped

54:14water systems were discussed. We have technical papers that we can

54:18share with you about PG going through those

54:22cool

54:25closed loop data centers, and also PFAS, forever chemicals,

54:2821,000. And

54:31I can tell you, birth defects.

54:35I've been doing this for a while, for 10 years.

54:37So anyway, we have all that and all the technical papers and

54:41everything that you would need.

54:43Also, lead and heavy metals being discharged when

54:47the... I forgot biocides. Biocides to keep the closed loop system

54:51clean. Well, you know that that kills fish.

54:54What are we known for around here? Our great water, our

54:58fishing, we can't harm our water and have our

55:02fish and birds and wildlife, especially here.

55:07That's really going to hurt Springfield's economy and the

55:10trust. So we need to stand up and show that we

55:14care about local businesses, we care about

55:18recreation, we care about families, our children, pregnant women,

55:22and everybody. And we are strong enough to say,

55:26yes, a moratorium, but certainly not less than a

55:30year. And the reason is, is because more and more information is coming

55:34out.

55:36We've got to make sure, what is this?

55:38What is this and what is happening?

55:40I feel so bad for those communities that jumped in just because

55:44they listened.

55:46Greedy developers, I know they're all after you.

55:49We know that, and we know that you're strong enough to stand up for Springfield, or

55:53you wouldn't be here in the first place.

55:55Our children's health and future, our beautiful water systems,

56:00we can't poison that. We know when poisons are in our water,

56:04how it travels through the karst systems.

56:06Again, if you'd like technical papers, love to send all of that.

56:10Experts will tell you, and doctors will tell you as well.

56:15PFAS forever chemicals, over 21,000 chemicals,

56:19cancer, disease, reproductive harm. And those generators?

56:24Wow. The generators,

56:26toxic air pollution. We already know our air is at risk, and I would

56:30love you to shut down John Twitty

56:34Energy Center, that's still coal.

56:36We were-

56:36Ma'am, we're getting a little far away.

56:39Okay, well, I-

56:39Or a long way away from-

56:41Okay

56:41... the agenda item.

56:41So thank you.

56:42Thank you.

56:46I'm begging you, imploring you, to not

56:49just have the moratorium of a short,

56:54120 days is nothing, when we still need to hear from the

56:58makers of AI and the people that will leave the

57:01companies to come forward because they cannot have the

57:05destruction of humanity on their conscience, and neither can you.

57:09Thank you.

57:11Are there any questions for the speaker?

57:15Thank you.

57:16Thank you.

57:18Any other speakers?

57:20John Bottorf.

57:33Thank you, commissioners. My name is John Bottorf, and I'm also in support

57:37of extending the moratorium. I would also ask for a longer than 120-day

57:41moratorium. I think a year would make more sense.

57:43There is a tremendous amount of

57:46problems with your hyperscale data centers, and one of them, from my standpoint,

57:50I've been in the tech industry for a long time.

57:51I've worked in your normal cloud-type CPU data centers.

57:56AI data centers make absolutely no sense economically.

58:00No AI company has yet to show a profit, yet they are

58:04spending billions and billions of dollars building these massive data

58:08centers, and it doesn't make any sense.

58:10If you look at the cost of building these

58:13acres-sized data centers, the power and the cooling cost, and you

58:17also have the

58:19gear that's inside. So the half-life on those machines, they are replaced every one

58:23to three years. So you're talking acres of equipment

58:27every year is going to be replaced.

58:30So what happens to tons and tons and tons of

58:34e-waste every year?

58:36Where is that being disposed of? Where is that being recycled?

58:39What is happening with that? And that is definitely something-

58:41Sir

58:41... you guys need to keep in mind. Yes?

58:43We're talking about an extension of time.

58:46Yes.

58:46Not the merits of-

58:48I understand. I'm just trying to say from a moratorium standpoint, 120 days is not

58:51enough time to give those type of concerns, the greenhouse gases, noise

58:55pollution, air pollution. There's all kinds of stuff that need to be discussed and

58:59make sure that Springfield is not held,

59:03at the end of the day, with a bunch of massive,

59:06unfinished projects that will never be

59:10occupied and will never be completed.

59:12Because that's bad for the city, bad for planning commissioners,

59:16bad for everyone. So, thank you very much.

59:18Any questions for the speaker?

59:21I see none. Thank you.

59:24Other speakers?

59:25Cecil Ince.

59:36For the record, my name is Cecil Ince,

59:39and I am a candidate for State Senate, 30th District,

59:43and I'm a resident of Springfield, Missouri, residing at

59:472008 North Campbell Avenue.

59:50And I do want to address the moratorium or the

59:54administrative

59:55extension. But first, I'd like to say,

59:59people used to be afraid of automobiles.

60:02People used to be afraid of televisions and railroad.

60:06A lot of fears come from new technologies.

60:10And we've had data centers in Springfield for quite a while.

60:14It's at Springfield Underground.

60:16And then the concerns about water consumption,

60:21you can compare that to

60:24the power station, uses way more than the underground.

60:31But this extension,

60:35I'm opposed to the extension

60:38A moratorium is a ban,

60:42is just a nicer name for it.

60:46The original 220 days expires on November

60:5017th.

60:52Let it expire.

60:54Zone data centers like any other industry.

60:57We also have the EPA

61:01for these environmental questions, and zoning can actually

61:05implement those,

61:07and already does in industry.

61:13And as for these large load

61:16customers,

61:17city utilities already

61:20regulates that.

61:23But my biggest concern is if the City of Springfield

61:27bans

61:28data centers, they would make an exception for government entities

61:32that want to come in and do that.

61:35But the other part of that is, is other places in Green County,

61:39outside of city limits, data centers could be opened.

61:44So,

61:45we don't need another four months or another year.

61:48We need to be welcoming commerce, but

61:51we don't need pollution. We don't need

61:56taking advantage of our resources and exhausting them.

62:00And that's what

62:02zoning and planning is all about,

62:05is implementing those regulations on these industries,

62:09saying, "If you want to do business and commerce in City of Springfield,

62:14you will do it according to these regulations."

62:18We already do it in the industries.

62:21The problem is here today is understanding.

62:23You mentioned the definitions, which I agreed,

62:27and which gives a clear path on what you're going to be regulating.

62:32And once that is implemented, you

62:35have to ask yourselves, are these companies in compliance with

62:39EPA, with zoning regulations, with environmental

62:42regulations? And if they're not, we hold them accountable.

62:47That's one thing we need to do, is hold businesses accountable for

62:50environmental trespassing.

62:53And

62:56let the extension die,

62:59and let's promote commerce in Springfield.

63:02Thank you.

63:03Any questions for the speaker?

63:06Thank you, sir.

63:08Any other speakers?

63:10That was our final speaker.

63:12I will close the public hearing

63:14and ask the commission to recommend

63:18the motion.

63:22I move to recommend to the City Council that they extend the

63:25administrative delay for the data centers until February 24,

63:302027.

63:32Do I have a second?

63:33Second.

63:37I have a tie. Motion made by

63:40Commissioner Pauli,

63:42and seconded

63:45Mr. Suel here.

63:50Please vote.

64:02That motion passes.

64:05Moving on to other business.

64:07Mr. Hosmer, will you please read item 7.1?

64:12Yes, this is amendments to the rules and procedures and changing the

64:16hearings and exhibits that are submitted, and I'll be presenting this.

64:20As you're aware, we presented this at our September Planning and Zoning

64:24Commission for us to review and look at.

64:27And this is the opportunity for us to approve the

64:31changes to our rules and procedures.

64:33And this is dealing when people submit information to us, that

64:37we cut it off at a certain point, and then we would still provide

64:41that information

64:43to the City Council, but there's a time that we have to

64:47cut the information off. And as far as

64:49Planning and Zoning Commission members being able to read

64:52up until an hour or two hours before the meeting, it's just not plausible.

64:55So, we have implemented or suggested some

65:00rules and procedures of how we deal with that.

65:02So, I'd be happy to answer any questions on

65:05what we have submitted previously and what we have here tonight.

65:10Does the commission have any questions for staff?

65:15Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any scheduled speakers?

65:19There are no speakers.

65:20I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion for

65:24recommendation

65:26of item 7.1.

65:36I move to approve the recommendations as listed.

65:43Is that good enough, counselors?

65:48If you could just be a little more specific as to recommendations as to what.

65:55I move to approve the rules and procedure change in

65:58hearing exhibits.

66:00Much better. Thank you.

66:01Thank you.

66:02Do I have a second?

66:06Second.

66:07I have a motion from Commissioner Pauli and a second from Commissioner

66:11Morris. Will the commission please vote?

66:22That item passes. Mr. Hosmer, will you please read item

66:257.2?

66:30Yes. This is the 2026 Capital Improvements Program, and this will be presented by

66:34Justin Kreins.

66:39You got that?

66:40I do, but you got the wrong set.

66:41You have that clicker?

66:43It's on a different slide set. Isn't it?

66:48There we go. All right. There we go. Thank you.

66:50Good evening again. Thank you, Commissioner Scott.

66:52This item is the 2026 Capital Improvements Program, which covers the years

66:572026 through 2031, and the city is the

67:00applicant.

67:02So each year, the Planning and Development Department works with every city

67:05department that manages capital projects to put the CIP together.

67:09So the CIP meets the city charter requirement that staff prepare an

67:13estimate of all capital projects for the budget year and for the next

67:17five years. The charter also gives this commission a specific

67:21role, which is to review and recommend the proposed capital improvements,

67:25which in the opinion of the commission are necessary or desirable to be

67:28constructed, which is a quote from the charter.

67:30After your recommendation, City Council is scheduled to consider the same program

67:34on November 16th. So a project belongs in the CIP, or the

67:37Capital Improvements Program, if it costs what more than $100,000,

67:42or it will last at least six years. So this is a lot of the city's

67:46larger assets, things like our streets, our stormwater infrastructure,

67:50sanitary sewer pipes, the airport, fire stations, all of

67:54our parks, our solid waste facilities.

67:56All these things are eligible to be capital expenditures.

68:00For the 2026,

68:02the program includes 142 projects and programs and a total

68:06estimated cost of about $295 million.

68:10For 2027 through 2031, it includes 132

68:14projects and programs at about $576 million.

68:18The report also looks back, and it documents the 22 projects that were completed in

68:222025, and those projects had a total of about $108 million.

68:28Most of the five-year cost is in three separate categories, so there's sanitary

68:31sewer at about $201 million,

68:33the airport improvements at about $116 million,

68:37and streets, as a large group, at about $115 million.

68:42The report also lists needs that are identified but not yet funded in the next

68:4610 years so that they're ready to consider when the funding does become available.

68:49Those would be eligible capital projects that just haven't found a home yet.

68:54So most of these projects are paid for

68:57by sources that the voters have approved.

68:59There's the quarter cent capital improvement tax and the eighth cent transportation

69:02tax. Both were renewed in 2019. Level property tax, which

69:06was continued in 2017, and the half cent of the three-quarter cent

69:10Springford SGF sales tax that was approved in November 2024.

69:15Like I said, a half cent of that tax is dedicated to quality of place,

69:19economic development, and economic development initiatives, in

69:23Forward SGF. Other sources do include federal grants, airport

69:27reserves, sewer system reserves, and bond proceeds.

69:32So Forward SGF also plays a role in shaping the CIP.

69:35The comp plan calls for capital spending that lines up with community goals and for

69:39being open about how that spending is prioritized.

69:42Each project in the CIP is tied to one or more of Council's five priorities, which

69:45are operational excellence, public safety,

69:48transformation, economic vitality, housing

69:51strategy, and development processes.

69:55So including a project in the CIP, by a department doesn't guarantee that it will

69:58be built, or if it's added, it doesn't guarantee it'll be built.

70:01Each project still goes through the regular budget review process, and most of

70:05these projects do come back to City Council for some kind of individual

70:08authorization or approval.

70:11Staff does recommend approval of the 2026 Capital Improvements

70:15program as presented, and I will be happy to answer any questions.

70:20Does the commission have any questions for

70:23Mr. Crichton?

70:25Commissioner McClure.

70:26Can you just remind us what... I believe there's some citizen

70:30oversight on some of

70:33these funds.

70:34So the Capital Improvements program, it's not necessarily.

70:36Are you thinking of the Citizens Advisory Board, the CAB?

70:43I was thinking of citizen oversight

70:49on some of the

70:51taxes.

70:52So some of the taxes, they may individually be approved by a

70:56different body, but the report, what it does is kind of consolidate all of those

70:59revenue streams and tell you how they're being spent.

71:01Because it is tax money and because it is public funds that people have agreed

71:05to pay in exchange for something else, this is the report of what all of that money

71:09as collected pays for.

71:12So I'm not sure about a specific tax revenue.

71:15I thought there was a citizen oversight

71:18board that met

71:21periodically or at least once a year and looked at

71:26at least some of those taxes.

71:28I'm not aware. I would defer to other staff if they know.

71:35Was there a concern or a question specifically? Okay.

71:38No. I thought there was, but I guess there's not.

71:43There was.

71:44I don't know what happened to it, but there was at one time.

71:47Commissioner Gunther, if you're going to speak.

71:48Sorry.

71:50Wrong button. Yes, ma'am.

71:54Do you want to repeat, or you want to just... Okay.

71:57Are there any other questions from the commission?

72:01Thank you, Mr.

72:02Crichton. I'll open the

72:06public hearing. Are there any scheduled speakers?

72:09There are no speakers.

72:10I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion of recommendation

72:14from the commission.

72:17I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the

72:202026 Capital Improvement Program.

72:23Do I have a second?

72:27I'll second.

72:28Sure.

72:28I'll second.

72:31I have a motion from Commissioner Souliere and a second

72:34from Commissioner Morris. Will the commission please vote?

72:54Item 7.2 passes.

73:02Unless there are any other matters, any other comments from city staff,

73:06I will ask for a motion to adjourn.

73:08I'll make a motion to adjourn.

73:10I'll second that.

73:12Motion

73:13made by Commissioner Morris

73:16and seconded by Commissioner Gunther.

73:18Will the commission please vote?

73:28Yes.

73:33We are

73:33adjourned.