[0:00] Hey Malia and Kevin Councelor Christian.

[0:03] Okay, thank you.

[0:07] » Yes, I'm on.

[0:09] >> We're just making sure you have audio.

[0:11] Can you hear now, Craig?

[0:12] >> Yes, now I've got audio. Thank you.

[0:14] >> Okay, awesome. Thank you. All right.

[0:16] Next, we have a ceremony recognizing the

[0:17] Provo City employee of the month for

[0:19] February 2026.

[0:27] » Thank you, council. I'd like to invite

[0:29] Pearl Spencer up here with me.

[0:33] Pearl is one of our senior customer

[0:35] service representatives. In fact, she's

[0:37] the only one that we have and that just

[0:38] means she's a more advanced level of

[0:41] customer service. So, I just have a few

[0:43] things that her manager wrote about

[0:45] Pearl. Pearl has been with us for three

[0:48] years and recently stepped into that

[0:49] role of senior customer service

[0:51] representative, a well-earned promotion

[0:53] that reflects her dedication,

[0:55] professionalism, and growth. This past

[0:57] year she has really excelled. She became

[0:59] a certified notary, mastered the RPS

[1:02] system, which is our mail processing

[1:03] system, and she did it for six months,

[1:07] >> I think. So,

[1:07] >> without a single mistake, which is

[1:09] unheard of. So, she's incredible, attention to detail. She took

[1:14] on additional responsibility supporting

[1:16] our parking collections process

[1:19] um to the point where even our

[1:21] collections agency reached out and said,

[1:22] "Wow, what are you doing?" She did such

[1:24] a good job.

[1:26] Um, all while maintaining ex sorry

[1:29] maintaining excellent customer service.

[1:32] Pearl is someone who we can always count

[1:33] on whether she's resolving complex

[1:35] residents issues, supporting her

[1:37] co-workers, or helping with special

[1:39] projects. She communicates clearly even

[1:41] in high pressure situations and brings a

[1:44] calm, confident presence to the team.

[1:46] She also contributes to our workplace

[1:48] culture by practicing in team activities

[1:50] and city and events and by creating a

[1:52] positive environment for those around

[1:54] her. Way to go, Pearl. Thanks for all

[1:56] you do.

[2:43] Where you at?

[3:28] What's that? Um, all right. Next, we

[3:31] have a ceremony recognizing the new

[3:33] sewer treatment plant project for

[3:35] receiving the APWA Utah wastewater

[3:37] project of the year award. This is

[3:40] presented by Brian Romswell, the

[3:41] president of the Utah chapter of the

[3:42] American Public Works Association. I

[3:44] don't think we've met him before.

[3:47] Come on up.

[3:53] » Thank you. It's good to be with you

[3:55] today. It's an honor to be here and

[3:57] present a an award. Um, I'd like to

[4:00] invite others from the city to come up

[4:02] and and join me here to to receive this

[4:04] award in just a second, but I wanted to

[4:06] just preface this. I do have some

[4:07] connections to the city. Um, one, I do

[4:10] like wastewater. That's why it's what I

[4:12] studied in my master's degree. A lot of

[4:15] uh uh wastewater treatment processes.

[4:18] Um, and I do a little bit of that for my

[4:20] work now, too. But two, my I found out

[4:23] my my mom's uncle was mayor of the city

[4:25] for a little while. So that's kind of

[4:26] cool. Um,

[4:29] Verl Dixon. Yeah. Yeah. So, uh, the

[4:33] outstanding wastewater project of the

[4:35] year. We want to jump back just a little

[4:37] bit. The American Public Works

[4:38] Association represents

[4:41] thousands of public works professionals

[4:43] across North America and actually across

[4:45] different countries as well, throughout

[4:46] the world. And what do public works

[4:49] professionals do? Well, what when the a

[4:52] lot of what we do is goes unnoticed.

[4:55] It's quiet. There's not a lot that that

[4:57] we we see because a lot of it's below

[5:00] the ground or it's off in the corner of

[5:02] your city, right? Uh the water reclam

[5:05] reclamation facility is one of those

[5:07] examples. But when things are

[5:09] functioning, life goes great. Our first

[5:12] responders get where they need to go. We

[5:13] have clean water. Our Utah lakes remains

[5:16] clean and and our environment stays

[5:18] clean. So, uh, that's what public works

[5:22] do. That's what all these professionals

[5:24] do. And so, uh, the American Public

[5:26] Works Association here in Utah, our

[5:28] chapter, we we do, uh, recognize a

[5:32] number of awards or projects throughout

[5:34] the year that have done an outstanding

[5:36] job and we, this is a really deserving

[5:38] project. The Provo water reclamation

[5:41] facility was started in 2020, completed

[5:44] in 2025.

[5:46] I believe that the new plant, upgraded

[5:48] plant is about 16 million gallons per

[5:50] day capacity and meets all the new uh

[5:54] regulations for phosphorus removal and

[5:56] nitrogen removal, which is really

[5:59] awesome. That's what we get excited

[6:01] about as engineers. But uh it's a it's

[6:03] an expensive endeavor to keep our

[6:05] environment clean, too. Uh I other other

[6:09] notable things about the project um

[6:13] completed on time and really a great

[6:16] collaboration between the engineer uh

[6:18] waterworks engineering and the

[6:21] contractor was Alder I believe. I just

[6:24] wanted to go ahead and recognize on

[6:26] behalf of the American Public Works

[6:27] Association, Utah chapter, the project,

[6:30] wastewater project of the year.

[6:44] Jane, you want to snap quick picture so

[6:47] we can recognize? We'll put this up on

[6:49] our web page.

[6:55] Hey Jen, can you read a picture of him

[6:57] too? We'll

[6:59] >> just stand up.

[7:00] >> That works great.

[7:15] Yeah, it's awesome.

[7:18] [laughter]

[7:32] That that was a huge and expensive

[7:34] project and took years of their lives

[7:36] and I'm it's it's a huge win for Provo

[7:40] in the sense of how we were dumping our

[7:41] wastewater before then. So, um we're

[7:44] grateful that people have the foresight

[7:46] to do that treatment plant. All right.

[7:51] Um, next, a ceremony recognizing Provo

[7:53] as a gold level bicycle friendly

[7:55] community. This will be presented by

[7:56] Vern Kesler, our traffic manager.

[8:07] Vern didn't tell me he was on the

[8:09] agenda. He asked me to assist in this.

[8:11] Scott Henderson, chief administrative

[8:13] officer for Provo City. And I have the

[8:16] honor to announce that Provo, Utah, has

[8:19] been elevated to gold status as a

[8:22] bicycle friendly community by the League

[8:24] of American Bicyclists.

[8:27] Provo is one of only two cities in Utah

[8:30] to carry this designation.

[8:32] Provo's decadesl long escalation from

[8:36] bronze to silver and now to gold shows

[8:39] our city's commitment to continued

[8:41] progress in a balanced transportation

[8:44] philosophy.

[8:45] Speaking of commitment, a team including

[8:49] Burn Kesler, Hannah Sausel, Lyndon

[8:52] Abernathy, and myself met monthly at 7

[8:55] a.m. to orchestrate a citywide effort

[8:57] for this extensive application process.

[9:02] This application stretched across all

[9:04] departments and the team assembled

[9:07] formed a compelling and unique story of

[9:10] transportation diversification.

[9:13] The proof is in the golden result.

[9:16] Whether you ride a bike or not, knowing

[9:18] that our city is designate is designed

[9:21] in a thoughtful and balanced way and

[9:24] independently recognized for it should

[9:26] bring us all joy.

[9:29] I'd ask Vern Kesler, transportation

[9:31] manager, to join me for the presentation

[9:33] of awards to the mayor and council. One

[9:36] thing we need to remember is this is

[9:38] Vern's Super Bowl. [laughter]

[9:41] his passion for Provo's transportation

[9:44] system is undeniable and we see that

[9:46] every single day. So Vern, would you

[9:49] mind explaining the awards and the signs

[9:51] and then we could ask you all come down

[9:53] to be able to present this. Thank you.

[9:56] >> Thank you, Scott. Really appreciate

[9:58] working uh with Scott. He really said,

[10:01] "Hey, let's let's do this. Let's let's

[10:03] make this reality." And the process we

[10:06] started in October of 2024. The

[10:10] application is 92 pages long. It took us

[10:13] about six months. I had plenty of time

[10:16] reserved in there, built in there, but

[10:19] every department had to participate in

[10:22] development of the application.

[10:25] The deadline for that application was

[10:27] June of 2025. So, we had to wait until

[10:30] January of 2026 to hear the results. Is

[10:34] quite a lengthy process.

[10:36] um to tell you about our surrounding

[10:38] states um and where they stand in

[10:40] comparison. Arizona has two Gold Award

[10:44] recognitions just like Utah. Colorado

[10:46] has three, Idaho has two, New Mexico has

[10:51] zero, Nevada has zero, Wyoming zero. And

[10:55] so when you start to take a look at this

[10:58] investment in infrastructure, I love

[11:00] planning, don't get me wrong, but I love

[11:02] building infrastructure more. And Provo

[11:05] City has done that. Mayor's office, the

[11:08] council, all departments. This is a

[11:11] citywide award. And not only that, we

[11:14] have developed a signature that says

[11:18] Provo Bicycle Friendly Community Gold

[11:21] Award that anybody in the city can use

[11:24] as their tagline for their signature.

[11:27] So, with that, we'd love to present this

[11:29] award both to um the city council and

[11:33] the mayor for the League of American

[11:36] Bicyclist Bicycle Friendly Community

[11:38] Gold Award.

[12:09] Yeah, Park City is the other city in

[12:11] Utah.

[12:34] One, two, three.

[12:37] Let me actually try real quick.

[13:10] That word

[13:16] miss.

[13:18] Oh my gosh.

[13:28] » All right. Now, we're going to get to

[13:29] our regular meeting. As indicated on the

[13:31] screen, a required public hearing will

[13:33] be held for certain agenda items prior

[13:35] to council action. After each such item

[13:38] has been presented, time to comment will

[13:40] be provided for all those who wish to

[13:42] speak. For items that do not require a

[13:44] public hearing, public comment will

[13:46] still be taken following presentation of

[13:48] the item

[13:49] that will be limited to 10 minutes.

[13:54] At this time, up to 15 minutes been set

[13:56] aside for an open public comment period,

[13:58] which is intended to allow comment on

[14:00] matters that do not appear on the

[14:01] agenda, but are limited to topics

[14:03] regarding municipal business or with a

[14:05] municipal council purview. Persons who

[14:07] speak during this time to an item that

[14:09] is on the agenda will not normally be

[14:11] afforded a second opportunity to speak

[14:12] during the comment period specific to

[14:14] that item. During any public comment

[14:16] period, each speaker will generally be

[14:18] limited to two minutes. Due to noticing

[14:20] requirements, no formal action will be

[14:21] taken in this meeting on matters that do

[14:23] not appear on the agenda.

[14:26] Those with comments are invited to

[14:27] approach the podium. Those participating

[14:29] on Zoom will need to use the raise hand

[14:30] feature to indicate they wish to

[14:32] comment. The chair may choose to

[14:34] alternate alternate between inerson and

[14:36] online commenters. Please begin your

[14:38] comments by stating your name and the

[14:39] city of residents. You'll have two

[14:41] minutes to speak. I'd also like to

[14:43] acknowledge that um councelor Travis

[14:44] Hoben has joined us.

[14:47] But now is open public comment for

[14:50] anyone who'd like to come speak. Just

[14:52] need your name and your city of

[14:53] residence.

[15:00] » Uh good evening. My name is Don Flake.

[15:02] I'm a resident of Provo. Um I feel like

[15:04] a broken track record at this point

[15:05] getting up here. This is my fourth time

[15:07] here. Um I of course you know exactly

[15:10] what I'm I want to speak about already.

[15:11] I I want to talk about flock safety

[15:13] cameras. Um I know there was a work

[15:14] meeting held earlier today about it. Um

[15:16] I have not had an opportunity to review

[15:18] that since it was held during the work

[15:19] day. I just came here straight from

[15:20] work. Um so I just wanted to come up and

[15:23] you know express my concerns about it.

[15:24] Of course, generally I also wanted to

[15:26] make sure that um I am understood that

[15:30] the the framing that flock safety and

[15:32] its advocates will attempt to uh to

[15:35] paint the picture in is that of a of a

[15:37] binary between public safety and

[15:39] privacy. Both can coexist at the same

[15:42] time. Um and and furthermore that I

[15:44] think that they there there will be an

[15:45] attempt to to frame this as uh you know

[15:49] a breakdown of discourse where people

[15:51] perhaps who are confused a public

[15:52] citizen who doesn't understand the issue

[15:55] um is concerned unnecessarily about the

[15:58] uh concerns that I've raised with uh

[16:01] flock safety cameras. Um, and I want to

[16:04] perhaps put my own framing on this

[16:06] issue, which is that flock is not um,

[16:10] necessarily, you know, they have their

[16:12] own interest in mind. They have a

[16:13] financial interest. I have no financial

[16:15] interest in standing here. In fact, I'm

[16:16] losing money by not being a work. Um,

[16:19] and uh, ultimately, this is about the

[16:23] fact that flock safety cameras in now

[16:25] well over 50 cities across the country

[16:27] have lost the democratic mandate. Um,

[16:30] and indeed never even had it in the

[16:32] first place. cases and most of these

[16:33] cases they were never discussed publicly

[16:35] and then the first time that they were

[16:36] they came to light uh it was discovered

[16:38] that in fact the people did not want

[16:41] this uh technology in their communities.

[16:43] So I just wanted to frame it in that

[16:44] sense. Every conversation that I've had

[16:46] with people publicly online um just

[16:49] going about my daily life um everyone

[16:52] I've talked to has been concerned about

[16:54] this issue. And so I urge you to

[16:56] remember that you represent the people

[16:57] of this community and not a

[16:59] multi-billion dollar corporation. Thank

[17:03] That was really good timing.

[17:10] » Remind the audience that the rules of of

[17:11] decorum do not allow

[17:14] clapping or cheering or commenting.

[17:18] >> Hi.

[17:18] >> Hey, good to see you.

[17:19] >> Good to see you, too. Um, my name is

[17:21] Bonnie Shiffler Olsen. I'm a resident of

[17:24] Provo. Um, I'm here to say thank you so

[17:28] much for the help that you gave us to be

[17:33] able to pull off a really beautiful

[17:35] vigil for my sweet little street

[17:39] daughter Kate Hoke. Um,

[17:46] just thank you, K. Thanks for letting

[17:50] people matter. Thank you for listening.

[17:53] Thank you, Rachel, for being super

[17:55] patient with me. You, too. Um, so here's

[17:58] some jelly that I made with Kate um back

[18:02] in October before she passed. Um, so

[18:07] this is for you.

[18:19] Hello, my name is Amanda Nelson. I am a

[18:22] resident of Provo. Um, and I am just

[18:24] here representing Utah Valley refugees

[18:26] where I work. It's a nonprofit and we

[18:28] serve refugees and immigrants in Utah

[18:31] County. Um, where our mission is to help

[18:33] them become self-reliant. And we just

[18:36] wanted to um introduce ourselves to the

[18:38] council, let you know that we're here

[18:39] and that we're providing key services to

[18:42] some of your constituents who live in

[18:43] the city and most of our clients live

[18:45] here in Provo. and um we are happy and would love to work with you and

[18:50] partner with you on any initiatives to

[18:51] help this population. Thank you and

[18:54] thank you for all you do for the city.

[18:55] Thank you.

[19:00] Any other public comment?

[19:03] Oh, and we have one online come up, sir,

[19:05] and then we'll do online next.

[19:09] » Well, I just wanted to reiterate what a

[19:11] >> just we need your name and where you

[19:13] live, please.

[19:13] >> Oh, right. I'm Seth. I live in Provo.

[19:15] Um,

[19:16] >> Seth, we need your last name, too.

[19:17] >> Draper. Seth Draper. Um, I just want to

[19:20] reiterate what I didn't catch your name,

[19:21] but yeah, flock cameras, massive concern

[19:24] uh for all of us. Uh, there's been

[19:26] numerous cases of like misidentification

[19:29] um and like wrongful arrests, and I just

[19:30] want to make sure that we continue to

[19:32] live in such a safe and and secure city.

[19:34] So, just want to make sure more people

[19:36] are talking about it. Thank you'all.

[19:38] >> Thank you.

[19:40] >> All right. online.

[19:45] You can speak. We need your name and

[19:47] where you live.

[19:49] >> Yeah. My name is Vivian Flake and I'm a

[19:52] resident proto

[19:54] and I would also like to talk about

[19:56] flock safety. I'm really concerned about

[19:58] the privacy aspect of block cameras

[20:01] because they record information that I

[20:02] haven't agreed to specifically because

[20:04] it's accessible to law enforcement

[20:07] without a warrant. Um, so that just

[20:10] makes me um what makes me even more

[20:13] concerned is that um federal law

[20:16] enforcement can do this information as

[20:18] well. So I just want to I know that you

[20:21] guys discussed this today and I just

[20:24] want to make sure you understand like

[20:25] there are significant security flaws

[20:28] with hot cameras and they they're not

[20:30] always um reliable. So, as a proent

[20:34] resident, I urge the city council to

[20:37] keep the rights and privacy of its

[20:39] citizens a high priority. And um I I

[20:42] know you guys value our rights and our safety and our

[20:46] privacy and I just urge you to keep that

[20:48] in mind going forward. Thank you. Thank

[20:51] you.

[20:53] All right. Any more public comment?

[20:56] All right. We'll cl

[21:01] sure

[21:08] Okay, we're going to hear from Captain

[21:09] Patrick now. Captain, is this in

[21:11] response to the flock camera? Okay. All

[21:13] right. So, public comment is over and we

[21:16] will Captain Patrick will address some

[21:20] of the concerns that have been brought

[21:21] up concerning flock cameras. And this

[21:23] was also discussed in our um in our

[21:27] meetings, work meetings today. Go ahead,

[21:29] captain.

[21:30] >> Thank you. So, I'm Robert Patrick. I'm a

[21:31] captain with the Provo Police

[21:32] Department. I'm also over the flock

[21:34] program for the city of Provo. I also

[21:36] live in Provo. Um as does my family. I

[21:38] appreciate the the Mr. Flake. Uh Vivian,

[21:41] I'm not sure if that's a relative of

[21:43] yours or related to you and the other

[21:45] gentlemen that came up and have concerns

[21:46] about PL flock. Um, I I also have

[21:49] concerns about public safety, about

[21:51] private um information. Uh, for those

[21:54] that are listening, um, there's no

[21:58] personal identifiable information that

[22:00] is captured by Flock, not anybody's

[22:02] name, not anybody's, uh, telephone

[22:04] number, age, date of birth, biographical

[22:08] information. flock captures a a picture

[22:10] of a of a a vehicle with a license

[22:13] plate, sometimes a vehicle without a

[22:14] license plate, which uh can be very

[22:16] useful for law enforcement to

[22:19] investigate crimes that have been

[22:21] committed. When our law enforcement

[22:24] access that program, that flock program,

[22:27] it's because a crime has been committed

[22:29] and there is some type of information

[22:31] regarding a vehicle that has been

[22:33] associated with that crime. Um, I can

[22:36] tell you from investigating these uh

[22:39] these incidents that that this program

[22:42] has been vital in bringing

[22:45] serious criminal offenders to justice.

[22:48] Without this program, I can tell you

[22:49] that some of those criminal offenders

[22:51] would not have been brought to justice.

[22:53] Um, I I would invite anyone who has

[22:56] questions about Flock to please contact

[22:59] me at the police department. I'd be more

[23:01] than happy to sit down with anyone and

[23:03] discuss those issues in person um to

[23:05] help educate the entirety of the

[23:08] community about what this program

[23:09] actually does and what it does not do.

[23:11] >> And Captain, someone mentioned that the

[23:14] federal government can access our data.

[23:16] Can you please address that?

[23:18] >> Sure. Um so Flock is not accessible by

[23:21] any federal agencies with the exception

[23:24] of two or three. It was like the parks

[23:26] department and uh I I believe Flock uh

[23:29] informed what was that?

[23:31] >> Postal service. Yeah, I think that was

[23:32] one of

[23:33] >> and the VA. Yeah,

[23:34] >> thank you. And the VA. Um

[23:37] Homeland Security, the FBI, the ATF, uh

[23:40] the the other three-letter acronym

[23:42] agencies do not have access to Flock.

[23:44] Um, I can tell you that uh we have

[23:47] officers that work with agencies and

[23:49] that if those agencies request access to

[23:52] Flock, the only reason that they would

[23:54] be given access to any information out

[23:55] of that is if our agency was

[23:58] investigating a criminal act that uh

[24:01] that involved our some type our

[24:03] jurisdiction. Uh having been on the

[24:05] major crimes task force for a number of

[24:07] years, we often uh dealt with

[24:09] individuals that would be would deal

[24:11] with criminal acts inside of Utah as

[24:13] well as outside of Utah. And in those

[24:16] types of cases,

[24:18] potentially information could be shared.

[24:20] That's only because it's a provo

[24:21] investigation uh with some type of a

[24:24] federal attach uh agent attached to it

[24:27] or assigned with it.

[24:28] >> Thanks, Captain. Um, if you just want to

[24:31] wait outside where people could come hit

[24:32] you up for an email or talk to you,

[24:35] that'd be great.

[24:35] >> Appreciate it. Thank you.

[24:36] >> Okay. Thank you.

[24:40] » All right. We're going to start our

[24:42] business. First, we have an implied

[24:43] motion on an ordinance amending proba

[24:45] city code regarding development

[24:47] standards for the year 2026. And this is

[24:50] something we do every year. Presented by

[24:52] Gordon hate.

[24:55] [clears throat]

[24:56] >> Right.

[25:02] So this is an ordinance that just

[25:04] updates our city code that brings in in

[25:08] complian with all the changes have been

[25:10] made on federal documents, state

[25:11] documents that we have to comply to. So

[25:14] this this code is um fairly generic, but

[25:18] it gets updated by all these agencies

[25:20] periodically. And so we're just updating

[25:22] our code to make that happen. So that's

[25:26] and the biggest change is also we now

[25:28] have the detail for our own water

[25:30] sampling station. So if anybody has any

[25:32] questions on any of those items

[25:35] um anyway that's that whole portion of

[25:39] the code if there's any question about

[25:41] that and that's just an independent you

[25:44] can just I think we put in a spec on

[25:46] that or a ordinance on that just that

[25:49] item.

[25:52] Okay.

[25:54] >> Any questions?

[25:54] for Gordon?

[25:57] >> No.

[25:58] >> Okay. Do Do we want to vote on that now

[26:01] or do we want Okay.

[26:02] >> Okay. All right. Um, we're going to open

[26:05] this item up for public comment first.

[26:07] >> Oh, yeah. I forgot.

[26:08] >> Yeah. [laughter]

[26:10] Any public comment on the 2026

[26:13] development standards?

[26:15] All right. Seeing no comment. Council

[26:17] discussion. Any discussion?

[26:20] All right. We will have a vote.

[26:23] Councelor Garrett,

[26:25] >> yes.

[26:26] >> Councelor McCay, yes. Councelor

[26:28] Christensen, are you still with us?

[26:32] >> Okay, he's excused. Councelor Whitlock,

[26:34] >> yes.

[26:35] >> Councelor Bogden, yes. Councelor Hoben,

[26:39] >> yes.

[26:40] >> Councelor Whipple,

[26:42] >> yes.

[26:43] >> So, that passes unanimously. 60.

[26:48] All right. Right, Gordon's going to do

[26:49] the next item, too. A resolution that

[26:51] made the 2026 Provo standard drawing

[26:54] details and 2026 Provo City Public Works

[26:57] Department development design standards

[26:59] due to changes in the minimum street

[27:01] width requirements.

[27:03] Go ahead, Gordon.

[27:04] >> All right. So, there was a lot of

[27:07] discussion about this in previous work

[27:08] meetings and in the city council um last

[27:12] month and also again today. So, I want

[27:14] to just go through it fairly briefly,

[27:16] but bring up some points that we've

[27:17] talked about. So, in 2018, this standard

[27:22] of a 25- ft pavement minimum

[27:25] cross-section was adopted by the city.

[27:27] And what it required is no parking on

[27:31] one side of the street. One of the

[27:32] things that had happened through that

[27:34] process is this been built since 2018

[27:38] about eight or nine streets have been

[27:40] constructed this way and the city public

[27:43] works that's kind of my responsibility

[27:44] did not get the stop signs in before the

[27:46] homes were built. So, that's something

[27:48] we're working.

[27:48] >> Stop signs, not stop signs.

[27:50] >> Not stop signs. No parking signs. All

[27:53] the stop signs were put in each of those

[27:55] subdivisions. I want to make that very

[27:57] clear.

[28:00] We're working to correct that. And in

[28:02] current ones that are on the board now,

[28:03] we're having that done. So, before

[28:06] anybody moves in, they know that's

[28:07] happening. This was um a resolution or

[28:11] uh not a resolution but a proposal that

[28:13] was voted on by the city council last

[28:15] week work meeting that we brought in

[28:18] that limited this 20 excuse me 24T

[28:21] section for infill projects and hillside

[28:25] projects still less than the 480 and

[28:29] approved by the fire marshall. So this

[28:32] was the one that was talked about and

[28:35] this third one is the current one but

[28:38] with the addition of the fire marshall

[28:39] approval and design. This is the one

[28:42] staff recommends maintaining it for

[28:44] reasons we talked about including just

[28:47] some ideas on what a 40 400 trips per

[28:50] day during a peak hour that's about 40

[28:52] trips in that hour. So if you can

[28:54] visualize that got 60 minutes an hour

[28:57] and you have 40 cars pass just kind of a rough I can visualize it in my mind so

[29:03] I'm seeing that but also this allows for

[29:06] some flexibility when we're doing

[29:08] subdivisions um that allow for different

[29:12] types of uses. People that would prefer

[29:15] a smaller cross-section versus a larger

[29:17] cross-section. It's not used extensively

[29:20] by developers but it has come into play.

[29:23] Um, I know there was some concern about

[29:25] parking enforcement. I talked to to Bill

[29:27] just to verify. This doesn't seem like

[29:29] it would doesn't feel like it put an

[29:31] undue burden. These six extra streets

[29:34] are we see about every seven or eight

[29:36] years. Um,

[29:38] and

[29:43] so anyway, we vet these all with the

[29:45] fire department to make sure that we're

[29:47] meeting the right criteria when we do

[29:50] these things. So, if there's any

[29:51] questions, let me know and I'll

[29:53] certainly answer them. So, those are the

[29:55] two cross-sections that we have there.

[30:00] >> Thanks, Gordon.

[30:01] >> Okay.

[30:01] >> Um, any questions for Gordon?

[30:05] >> All right. We are going to open this

[30:07] item up for public comment.

[30:18] » Sorry. Catherine Hall, Provo DI, uh,

[30:20] East District. I just have a question.

[30:22] Are the no parking signs going to be

[30:25] installed before

[30:28] when will those be installed? Before the

[30:29] homes are sold or

[30:30] >> before the homes are installed. That's

[30:32] optional.

[30:33] >> Okay. Thank you.

[30:38] All right. Seeing no public comment, we

[30:40] will close public comment and we'll go

[30:43] to council discussion. Any discussion on

[30:45] this item?

[30:47] Councelor Hopens.

[30:49] >> Yeah. I mentioned in the work meeting,

[30:50] for me, this all hinges on enforcement.

[30:52] So, if we're going to decrease the width

[30:54] of the road and have parking only on one

[30:56] side in order to ensure that emergency

[30:59] vehicles can proceed, um it all hinges

[31:02] in my mind on whether or not we will

[31:04] enforce that. I've seen other cities

[31:06] where they just kind of give up on that.

[31:08] We're seeing some friction that it's

[31:10] causing and trying to enforce that in

[31:12] areas where we have to go back and add

[31:14] these signs. Um, now I know that's a

[31:18] little bit different because it's

[31:19] they're used to having that parking, but

[31:22] I think you'll find very quickly how

[31:23] easy it will be for residents to get

[31:25] used to having parking in a in a street

[31:28] that is is tight with parking. Um, so my

[31:32] preference would be I don't want to

[31:33] expand where we can offer 24 foot roads.

[31:36] I actually would like to ideally not

[31:39] offer it and see how this goes with

[31:41] these areas where we're going to be um

[31:44] enforcing the parking. see what that's

[31:45] like, see how the enforcement goes, and

[31:47] if the enforcement's there, then we can

[31:49] look to to bring this back. Um, but for

[31:53] now, I'm not comfortable.

[31:57] » Any more discussion?

[31:59] Councelor Whipple? Yeah, I'm I'm

[32:02] slightly confused by um your comments,

[32:07] councelor Hobin, because right now we do

[32:09] have the 24 foot thing allowed. And so

[32:12] the question is whether or not we want

[32:14] to allow to continue that. It almost

[32:16] sounded like you were presenting as

[32:18] we're

[32:20] considering a new option.

[32:23] And I I think I may have just

[32:24] misunderstood you. I I do like um this

[32:29] option three that addresses the safety

[32:32] concerns which are the the biggest

[32:34] issues for me, right? Being able to have

[32:36] that fire access.

[32:38] Um, and I also like that

[32:42] this um keeps that use

[32:46] for these very limited circumstances,

[32:48] that very low flow of traffic. So, I

[32:52] think this is appropriate and

[32:57] generally I think it's best if we have

[33:02] fewer laws and fewer restrictions.

[33:05] Um, I I just worry that we're cluttering

[33:08] up too much of the code and this seems

[33:10] less cluttery to me.

[33:15] » Any other comments, discussion?

[33:17] Councelor Whitlock?

[33:19] >> Yeah. So, I think um all the cases we're

[33:23] looking at here are more restrictive

[33:24] than what currently exists today. That's

[33:27] correct.

[33:29] Yeah. So, I think I think that's just a

[33:31] point of clarification is each of these

[33:34] narrow the options. And in our last

[33:35] discussion, we discussed the cases in

[33:38] which we feel like it is appropriate.

[33:40] One is inside of uh when you're

[33:42] developing on hillside because wide cuts

[33:44] are less stable for hillsides. And then

[33:47] when we are doing kind of smaller

[33:49] infield type residential developments

[33:51] and I think um we talked about the

[33:53] traffic per day at 400 trips or less is

[33:56] usually these very small residential

[33:58] developments. On top of that, we're

[33:59] clarifying that parking is restricted

[34:01] and then the fire marshall has to feel

[34:03] comfortable comfortable with the public

[34:04] safety, which I think is the trigger of

[34:06] this entire conversation.

[34:10] » Councelor Hoben,

[34:11] >> so I'll clarify. I don't want more of

[34:13] the 24 for roads in the city. Um, so I

[34:16] would prefer that we take away the

[34:17] option.

[34:21] » Um, I think that option three is exact

[34:24] is pretty much what we do now. It's not

[34:26] different status quo. Um, as far as more

[34:30] words, I think getting rid of those less

[34:33] words, right? If we get rid of the 24,

[34:36] um,

[34:38] parking is a huge issue in the city all

[34:40] over the place. And I think not

[34:43] acknowledging that it's a huge issue.

[34:45] And I think that

[34:48] people just want more and more density.

[34:49] It's a constant constant fight for more

[34:51] and more and more density. So, you're

[34:53] already going to start with roads that

[34:55] only have parking on one side of the

[34:57] road when in the future we know we're

[34:58] going to have higher density and need

[35:00] more parking. And

[35:04] I talk to students, I talk to families,

[35:06] I everyone is irritated about the

[35:09] parking. It is an issue. And people want

[35:11] to be social. They want to have events.

[35:13] They want to have weddings. They want to

[35:14] have parties. They want to have um you

[35:18] know, mission farewells. and

[35:21] they need a park and they want to have

[35:23] people to be able to come visit them. I

[35:24] lived in an area of Provo where there

[35:25] was no parking lot on the street and I

[35:27] knew that before I bought the home, but

[35:29] it really made entertaining really, hard and you had to organize with

[35:33] all your neighbors to have them park at

[35:34] their house and I mean it was a thing.

[35:36] Um I'd have to organize with a church

[35:38] blocks away to have them park there. Um

[35:41] it was hard and it made entertaining

[35:42] really difficult and my my friends hated

[35:44] it. But um the I think Travis's idea is

[35:50] a good one and I think seeing if it's

[35:54] successful and if it's working well and

[35:56] it's being enforced. I'm mostly worried

[35:58] about the safety issue and I'm worried

[35:59] about it not being enforced and I live

[36:01] by a few of these streets where you know

[36:03] there's not the signs yet and people

[36:04] parked on both sides and you couldn't

[36:06] get an emergency vehicle down that road

[36:08] with the people parked on both sides as

[36:10] it has been multiple times especially

[36:11] with mission farewells and homecomings.

[36:14] Um,

[36:15] and

[36:19] so I think I I I I concerned that people

[36:23] just don't think it matters and they

[36:25] park on both sides and in the one case

[36:27] of an emergency, it would be too much

[36:29] for me. I mean, like a heart attack, a

[36:31] fire, it's just not worth it. But um, so

[36:34] that's my thoughts on it. Any other

[36:36] comments? Counselor Hoben,

[36:38] >> I'll just make a motion that we remove

[36:39] the 24oot option. I don't know if I need

[36:42] to make that in a specific way, but

[36:44] that's my intent.

[36:46] >> Call a substitute motion, Travis.

[36:48] >> Oh, substitute motion that we remove the

[36:50] 24 foot option. Thanks.

[36:54] >> I'm taking that.

[36:55] >> The thing I'm a bit confused about is

[36:56] last time we had this discussion, the

[36:58] express direction of the council at the

[37:00] time was to allow for infill development

[37:03] and this is completely a 180 turn from

[37:05] that direction. So I think you know um

[37:08] while I understand a lot of the points

[37:10] that we made, we do have a city where

[37:11] there's less and less land to build.

[37:13] There's a lot of old legacy lots.

[37:14] There's infill is something we need to

[37:16] do to be able to provide affordable

[37:18] houses that younger people can buy and

[37:20] own and build equity in our community.

[37:22] So I'm not very comfortable with that.

[37:27] And I will say we just got a parking

[37:29] report that says the city is quite good

[37:31] at parking enforcement. I think um we

[37:33] added no parking on Slate Canyon Drive

[37:34] and the adherence there has been

[37:36] incredible much to the frustration of

[37:38] the residents there.

[37:41] >> I would second Travis's motion.

[37:43] [clears throat]

[37:45] >> Um I think that's part of the question

[37:47] too though, Jeeoff. Like we do need

[37:49] infill and we're doing smaller square

[37:50] footages to make homes for people that

[37:52] they can afford, right? that are smaller

[37:54] square feet, smaller land, smaller yard

[37:57] and the higher higher density

[38:00] already is creating parking issues. It's

[38:02] creating parking issues on the west side

[38:04] and some of those developments that are

[38:05] so tight and they're frustrated by the

[38:07] lack of parking because there's old

[38:08] driveways, you know, and there's not so

[38:11] I think it inhibits our building

[38:13] somewhat.

[38:15] >> Councelor Hoben.

[38:17] >> Yeah. So just my to just to clarify my

[38:20] intent, my my concern is around we have

[38:22] these streets that we're going to start

[38:24] to enforce and they're kind of the first

[38:26] ones that we're starting to enforce. I'd

[38:28] like to see how that goes. I'd like to

[38:29] see resident response. I'd like to give

[38:31] it some time and make sure that it's

[38:33] working. It's working for emergency

[38:34] services. Um and then we could revisit

[38:37] it. We could bring this back. If it's

[38:38] just going, great. But if it's not, then

[38:40] we know, okay, we're glad we didn't do

[38:42] that, right? We didn't open that up. So,

[38:45] um, I'm not saying we could never

[38:46] revisit this. I just want to make sure

[38:48] that if we're going to do this, we're

[38:49] going to do it right because there's

[38:50] kind of no going back if we don't. So,

[38:54] that's my intent.

[38:56] Councelor Whipple,

[38:59] we've already had these streets at this

[39:02] size and we've had so much public

[39:04] comment and so many emails coming to us

[39:07] as a council saying that we need to

[39:09] preserve these narrower streets that

[39:12] they are good for this human scale

[39:16] everyday life for living on the street

[39:18] for driving on the street for walking

[39:20] across it and for riding their bikes.

[39:22] It's safer for families. It's safer for

[39:25] children to have narrower streets. And

[39:28] frankly, we don't have very many 24- ft

[39:31] streets in in Provo. This is not a big

[39:36] problem. And the ones the people who

[39:38] live on them, with the exception

[39:39] potentially of your neighbors who do

[39:41] lots of entertaining really like the

[39:43] narrower streets and the traffic

[39:46] calming, the neighborhood character and

[39:49] feel that they get from this. This is

[39:52] not

[39:53] just about being able to park. It's

[39:56] about all these other aspects for

[39:58] quality of life for the people who are

[40:01] in our city right now.

[40:05] I I think we need to keep this as an

[40:08] option which again is not being deployed

[40:12] in all new developments and everywhere

[40:14] in the city, but we need to keep it as

[40:16] an option. Um, we need that flexibility

[40:19] for our development planning services as

[40:22] they're looking at doing the infill, as

[40:24] they're looking at building on the edges

[40:28] of our city where we may have slopes. I

[40:31] don't see a good reason

[40:35] to remove this option. And if really

[40:38] safety concerns are the top one, then

[40:40] adding the fire marshall approval

[40:42] addresses those safety concerns.

[40:45] So,

[40:47] I cannot support the idea that we would

[40:53] be taking away an option for something

[40:56] that makes our city better.

[41:00] >> Um, one thing to note, a lot of the

[41:02] people that emailed us talked about the

[41:04] Shakespeare neighborhood and

[41:07] the Shakespeare neighborhood has alleys.

[41:09] That was never brought up. Like it is

[41:11] different. They're not have to park on

[41:12] their street. So it is a different

[41:14] dynamic where in the end they have a

[41:15] double the wide street because they have

[41:17] the alley in the back and parking in the

[41:18] back and visitors can go in the back,

[41:20] garbage in the back and so their narrow

[41:24] road is not for the garbage cans. It's

[41:26] not for their cars. So there that is a

[41:30] that does make a difference and it's a

[41:32] significant difference, right? But if we

[41:34] get rid of the 24 foot option, you

[41:36] wouldn't be able to do that even if you

[41:37] had an alley access,

[41:41] right? like it it just

[41:45] we're not saying you can only do 24 foot

[41:48] if you also have back alley access.

[41:50] We're saying you couldn't do it at all.

[41:52] I think that's wrong. Councelor Garrett,

[41:56] >> I'm wondering councelor Hoben if there

[41:58] could be room in your motion um even

[42:00] though it's not in the ordinance for an

[42:02] appeal if a developer could bring a plan

[42:05] to the city and request an exception to

[42:09] the ordinance that would allow under

[42:11] certain circumstances to um for the 24ft

[42:16] street to be even though it's not in the

[42:18] ordin ordinance a developer could appeal

[42:21] for an exception.

[42:23] Brian, couldn't that be part of a

[42:24] development agreement? We could grant

[42:26] that under specific criteria on a

[42:28] one-off basis or

[42:31] >> Well, uh, there's two or three different

[42:34] questions there to unpack. So, first of

[42:35] all, with regard to councelor Garrett's

[42:37] question, it's generally not permitted

[42:40] to give discretion without criteria. Uh,

[42:43] it leads to uh complaints uh that the

[42:47] discretion is applied in unequally. And

[42:50] so I mean both option two and option

[42:53] three uh you know option two as it was

[42:56] pres as it was designed to try to uh

[42:59] follow what the council voted on last

[43:01] time and option three as the

[43:03] administration's

[43:04] uh recommended variation. Both of those

[43:08] are intended to do exactly that. meaning

[43:11] that those are intended to lay out what

[43:13] the criteria are so that when so that if

[43:16] you meet those criteria you you get it

[43:18] where we it it becomes problematic if we

[43:20] have no criteria and it's just up to

[43:22] somebody to make kind of wave a magic

[43:24] wand and say you get it because I like

[43:26] this project with regard to your

[43:29] question about the development agreement

[43:32] um it's generally disfavored at least by

[43:36] me [laughter]

[43:37] to do development agreements that allow

[43:40] violations of the law. It is technically

[43:44] permissible under state law if the

[43:47] entire development agreement goes

[43:48] through the entire land use regulation

[43:51] process, meaning that it goes to the

[43:53] planning commission uh and then to the

[43:56] council and there's actually a

[43:57] recommendation on from the planning

[43:59] commission on a development agreement

[44:01] that allows deviation from the statute.

[44:03] So, it's technically permissible. I can

[44:06] only think of one time that we've ever

[44:08] done it and it had to do with that um

[44:11] property out on the Oram border that had

[44:13] already been zoned by Oram and then and was coming into the city. So that's

[44:18] the only time I can think of that we've

[44:19] actually done it.

[44:22] >> So to answer your question, I don't

[44:23] think so. I think it would be preferable

[44:25] to me to let's let's just put a pause on

[44:29] this, see how it goes with enforcement

[44:30] in these new new streets that we're

[44:32] going to be enforcing on. See what the

[44:33] resident response is. I think we'll get

[44:35] a really good pulse if, you know, one

[44:38] side of the street is not enough parking

[44:41] for a typical neighborhood, right? Um

[44:43] then we can always bring it back and

[44:45] say, "Okay, this has been going great."

[44:46] Or we can just reaffirm that, all right,

[44:48] yeah, this this didn't go well, so this

[44:50] is probably not a great idea. And so

[44:53] it's, you know, the world's not going to

[44:54] end either way. It's not going to end if

[44:56] we take this away. Um, and I but I think

[45:00] it's probably from my perspective better

[45:03] to be cautious because once you make

[45:04] that 24 foot road, you're not going to

[45:06] be expanding it, right? And so I would

[45:09] prefer we air on the side of caution as

[45:11] opposed to permissive, you know, being

[45:13] permissive with it and then maybe

[45:15] regretting it down the road.

[45:18] >> Council Mccay, I have I have a question.

[45:20] What happens if if we make this change

[45:22] uh to current developments that have not

[45:25] been completed like Buckley Draw I

[45:27] believe has the 24 ft

[45:30] >> roads. Um I think that's the question

[45:32] I'd have for

[45:33] >> and they have no parking allowed on the

[45:34] road.

[45:35] >> Correct. I think that's how we

[45:36] >> So that's fine. That's not going to be

[45:38] an issue there.

[45:39] >> But I think it's can if things are

[45:41] that's already in their development

[45:42] agreement stuff it will be able to go

[45:44] through. But as I'm understanding uh

[45:47] councelor Hobin's motion, we're saying

[45:49] we're removing the 24 foot blacktop

[45:51] option from the options at all.

[45:53] Regardless,

[45:53] >> we've already done a development

[45:54] agreement with them. So it's already

[45:56] done.

[45:56] >> So as long as the development agreement

[45:58] is done.

[45:58] >> Yeah.

[45:59] >> And really, even if there isn't a

[46:01] development agreement, any application

[46:04] that was submitted before the law

[46:05] changed is vested to use the law at the

[46:08] time they submitted their application.

[46:10] Councelor Hogan, would you be open to

[46:12] continuing the item and then seeing

[46:14] because I I feel like, you know, we had

[46:17] this packet, we've done our research on

[46:19] the proposal before us and now this is a

[46:21] pretty new direction. Um, so I I I think

[46:26] like there's a lot of questions and I

[46:28] personally think it's better process to

[46:31] consider the new direction and do our

[46:33] research and come informed than kind of

[46:35] on the spot. But maybe people feel

[46:37] otherwise.

[46:41] Well, um it's there's four of us that

[46:44] have to vote one way or another, so

[46:46] you're asking me, but um I prefer just a

[46:49] vote. I think we'll get an answer one

[46:50] way or another tonight. I think that

[46:52] councelor Christensen is on. If not,

[46:55] then maybe we will.

[46:56] >> Yeah, Councelor Christensen is online.

[46:59] >> Um I mean, my intent was to say pause

[47:02] this. So, I guess not. I I don't want to

[47:04] continue it because continuing as status

[47:05] quo means that other applications could

[47:07] come in for the 24 foot. So, I'd say no.

[47:11] Thanks for asking,

[47:13] >> Patrice.

[47:14] >> Yes, Councelor Christensen.

[47:16] >> Yeah, I would I would share Travis's

[47:18] concern. I would rather go slow on this

[47:21] and be very careful. This is something

[47:23] we can't undo. And after reflection on

[47:26] the last meeting and talking to

[47:29] different constituents, uh my preference

[47:31] would be to remove the 24 foot uh road

[47:35] uh for the time being and this could be

[47:37] addressed at some point in the future if

[47:38] we find that there's a different

[47:40] reality.

[47:43] » All right, we will take a vote on the

[47:46] substitute motion.

[47:49] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[47:50] >> no.

[47:51] >> Councelor Bogden, yes. Councelor Hoben,

[47:54] >> yes.

[47:54] >> Councelor Whipple,

[47:56] >> no.

[47:57] >> Councelor Garrett,

[47:58] >> no.

[48:00] >> Councelor McKay,

[48:01] >> yes.

[48:02] >> Councelor Christensen,

[48:05] >> yes.

[48:06] >> So, that passes 43.

[48:10] >> Chair McKay, just to clarify where we're

[48:12] at in the process, can you put up the

[48:14] new draft that um you sent? So, again,

[48:18] because we don't vote on items that

[48:20] haven't been written yet. So the the

[48:23] substitute motion was to substitute a

[48:26] different version of the ordinance that

[48:28] removes it entirely. You now still so

[48:30] that so now you still need to vote on

[48:31] the implied motion as it has been

[48:34] amended by the substitute motion which

[48:36] is this version which takes out the

[48:40] >> we will now vote on the implied motion

[48:43] that reflects the substitute motion.

[48:47] >> Councelor Bogden,

[48:48] >> yes.

[48:49] >> Councelor Hoben,

[48:50] >> yes. Councelor Whipple,

[48:52] >> no. Councelor Garrett,

[48:53] >> yes.

[48:54] >> Councelor McCay, yes. Councelor

[48:56] Christensen,

[48:57] >> yes.

[48:58] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[48:59] >> no.

[49:00] >> So, that passes 52.

[49:06] » Is that it, Brian? Okay.

[49:09] >> All right. I think this is the one most

[49:10] of you are here for. Next, an implied

[49:13] motion on ordinance a sub amending the

[49:14] zone map classification of real property

[49:16] generally located at 1507 South 180 east

[49:18] from the planned industrial commercial

[49:21] zone to the planned industrial

[49:23] commercial data center overlay zone.

[49:24] This will be presented by Dustin Wright.

[49:38] Are they not on? They don't sound like

[49:39] they're on other buttons to push.

[49:42] It says it's on.

[49:43] >> It's green. There we go.

[49:44] >> There you are.

[49:45] >> Okay. So, here's the property that we're

[49:47] looking at on this item. Um, it's in the

[49:49] East Bay neighborhood. And here's a

[49:52] closeup showing the zoning on the

[49:54] property. So, the property is currently

[49:56] in our planned industrial commercial

[49:57] zone. And they're applying for the zone

[50:01] map amendment to apply an overlay zone,

[50:03] which is that newly created data center

[50:06] overlay zone. So, this would be the

[50:09] first um project that's come in to to

[50:13] request this overlay zone. Um our

[50:16] general plan in this area is commercial,

[50:18] which this would align with.

[50:21] And the property has an existing

[50:24] structure on there that would be

[50:25] demolished for the new um data center to

[50:28] be built there on this site. Um here's a

[50:33] look at uh what that data center would

[50:35] look like rendering here and some

[50:38] elevations as well showing um the

[50:41] proposed structure.

[50:44] Um what the applicants are looking to do

[50:47] with this data center is um to have it

[50:52] be one where they're they're acquiring

[50:54] their power needed to run it um from our

[50:57] grid as that power becomes available. So

[51:00] they would have to go and acquire

[51:03] um or or work with uh Provo City Power

[51:07] um to be able to get the power needs

[51:10] that they are looking for for this

[51:13] project as opposed to developing the the

[51:16] energy from the site specifically. So

[51:19] that helps um eliminate a lot of that

[51:21] environmental um issues that would come

[51:24] with generating the power um on site. Uh

[51:28] the other thing that they're proposing

[51:29] to do um to help conserve with uh water

[51:34] that's typically used in uh cooling

[51:37] these data centers is to use a closed

[51:39] loop system. Um and that way they're

[51:43] recirculating that water instead of

[51:45] using uh water over and over. So both of

[51:48] those things are things that they've

[51:49] profered to put into a development

[51:51] agreement as they're um different than

[51:53] what our code requires. Um the other

[51:56] thing that came up in when it went to

[51:58] planning commission um is that when that

[52:01] waters changed out that they would have

[52:04] a third party do that that it wouldn't

[52:06] be discharged into our uh sewer system

[52:09] which um public works would be grateful

[52:12] to to not have that happen. So to have

[52:14] that in the development agreement um is

[52:18] another um good thing there. So that is

[52:23] an overview of this project. Um we have

[52:26] a representative from Provo Power here

[52:28] if you have specific questions related

[52:30] to to any of that. Um and the applicant

[52:33] is here as well. So if you have any

[52:36] questions for me, I'd be happy to answer

[52:37] those.

[52:38] >> Thanks Dustin. Any questions from the

[52:39] council for Dustin?

[52:43] » All right. Thank you.

[52:46] We will now take public comment on this

[52:48] item.

[52:50] And remember to say your name and where

[52:52] you live.

[52:56] » Hi, my name is Angie Carter. I'm the

[52:58] East um neighborhood district chair.

[53:01] I've emailed my comments about the data

[53:03] center to you already and I speak today

[53:05] to ask you to postpone the decision on

[53:07] reszoning the East Bay area for the data

[53:10] center. Um my reasons are as follows. In

[53:13] a letter read to the planning

[53:14] commission, Mayor Judkins asked that the

[53:16] decision be postponed until after the

[53:18] Provo economic plan is complete. This is

[53:20] a smart move that would allow Provo to

[53:22] put a data center where it most benefits

[53:24] the city and existing businesses. Two,

[53:27] although I'm not opposed to a data

[53:28] center in the city, I don't believe that

[53:30] the current location is ideal ideal. It

[53:33] would sit next to two hotels and a

[53:35] school. While 60 dB is normal talking

[53:38] level, people do not want that level of

[53:40] noise when they're sleeping or attending

[53:42] class or studying. In fact, that level

[53:44] of noise is disruptive. Third, the

[53:47] planning commission argued that Provo

[53:49] does not need more business space. Yet,

[53:50] they overlooked that Rocky Mountain

[53:52] University moved some of their campus to

[53:55] Springville because they could not get

[53:56] off a space. Um whether that's because

[53:59] the current owners were not willing to

[54:01] let them use additional space or it lack

[54:04] Provo lacks the type of space that they

[54:06] need. It's possible that they and other

[54:08] current businesses may be leaving Provo

[54:10] because they can't get the space they

[54:12] need here. An economic plan would show

[54:15] whether Rocky Mountain situation is an

[54:17] outlier or a sign of an unmet need in

[54:19] the city. Fourth, in their remarks

[54:22] recommending the zoning change, several

[54:23] members of the planning commission

[54:25] inferred that those speaking against the

[54:26] data center are anti-technology. I take

[54:29] offense to those remarks. I am not

[54:32] anti-technology. In fact, I use a wide

[54:34] variety of large language models, cloud

[54:36] computing, and so forth in my work, and

[54:38] I teach my students to use those

[54:40] systems. But using a technology also

[54:42] means preparing for the long-term

[54:44] ramifications of its use. I believe

[54:47] decisions about energy use, land use,

[54:49] city priorities require more time and

[54:51] analysis so we can move forward

[54:53] proactively. I urge the city council to

[54:55] postpone the decision to resone

[55:04] Alec Bracken. I live in Provo, Utah. And

[55:07] uh I am in general opposed to any data

[55:09] center within the city and I do believe

[55:11] that they don't serve a purpose for our

[55:12] city and instead serve corporate

[55:14] interests that do not benefit our city

[55:16] in any way. If you look at studies

[55:18] regarding data centers, they don't add

[55:20] nearly any economic benefit or impact to

[55:22] the city after it has been built and

[55:24] instead they serve a purpose for a

[55:26] corporation that is not contributing

[55:28] anything to the city as a whole. I know

[55:30] that the proposal states that is a

[55:32] closed loop water system but it's still

[55:34] water. It's still water being used.

[55:36] There's already been a con uh they've

[55:38] stated they're going to have to change

[55:39] out that water. How often are they going

[55:41] to have to change out that water? How

[55:42] much water they be using on a daily

[55:43] basis. We are currently in record low

[55:46] snow pack in the state of Utah and we

[55:48] are dealing with a drought. The Great

[55:50] Salt Lake is shrinking. Other lakes are

[55:51] shrinking. I for one enjoy hiking, enjoy

[55:54] going to the mountains. And last summer

[55:55] the lakes were nearly dry. Deer Deer uh

[55:59] Creek Reservoir is half of what it used

[56:02] to be. We are running out of water in

[56:04] our state and to build a data center

[56:06] that uses water to cool it is reckless

[56:08] and irresponsible. Further, taking

[56:11] energy from the grid of the city is only

[56:13] going to result in higher energy prices

[56:15] for the rest of the city. This is also

[56:17] proven in studies that show that using

[56:19] these data centers have increased the

[56:21] residents cost of utilities. Um, and

[56:24] them not generating their own power may

[56:26] result in better environmental results,

[56:28] but it will result in residents like me

[56:30] and other residents paying more for

[56:31] their energy, which will then make it

[56:34] harder to live in Provo, a place where

[56:35] it is already pretty expensive to live.

[56:38] And so, I would encourage the council to

[56:40] look at the impacts of the residents,

[56:43] look at how a resident like myself is

[56:45] going to benefit from this. And I don't

[56:47] see any benefits. It just benefits the

[56:49] corporation that wishes to build this

[56:51] data center that wishes to use the data

[56:53] center but does not benefit the city in

[56:55] any way. So I believe it would be absurd

[56:57] to build something that does not benefit

[56:58] the city in any way. Thank you.

[57:05] » I'm going to say your name and your

[57:06] city. Hi, I'm Jocelyn Bracken and I live

[57:09] in the North Park neighborhood in Provo.

[57:11] I emailed a couple weeks ago and I'm

[57:13] really grateful to the council members

[57:15] who responded um with very thoughtful

[57:18] responses and showed me kind of more

[57:20] data and things that the state

[57:22] legislature is looking at data centers.

[57:24] I'm opposed to a data center. I we just

[57:27] got this award. We just got gold for

[57:29] being a bicycle friendly community and

[57:32] it feels like five steps backwards to

[57:34] introduce a data center into our

[57:36] community. I'm concerned about the

[57:38] environmental impact. I'm concerned

[57:40] about the water usage. I'm concerned

[57:41] about the the influx of power. I think

[57:46] the noise is a concern. I don't see a

[57:49] data center aligning with the goals of

[57:51] Provo and being beneficial to our

[57:54] community and I would much rather use

[57:56] that for use that space for something

[57:58] that would bring back things into our

[58:00] community and be beneficial to us. I

[58:03] think too AI is something that's a hot

[58:06] topic right now and it's a big deal

[58:08] right now and it is something that is

[58:10] going to level out and I don't want to

[58:12] be a city that jumps in on it really

[58:14] quickly and then we find that we don't

[58:16] actually need it as much as we thought

[58:18] we did and so I implore the the city to

[58:23] not allow this to continue. Thank you.

[58:25] >> Thank you.

[58:31] » Hi. Uh my name is Don Whitmer and I'm uh

[58:34] from I'm living currently in Provo. Um

[58:37] and I think an introduc sorry an

[58:40] introduction of a new data center here

[58:42] in Provo is directly selling out our

[58:44] energy uh to technology um corporations

[58:47] um and are giving out our resources to

[58:50] multi-billion dollar corporations. Uh, I

[58:52] do not see how the 20 to 30 proposed new

[58:54] jobs created by this new data center or

[58:58] any vague promises of future

[58:59] productivity would offset the increase

[59:02] of electricity to our grid, which I

[59:04] believe is currently our usage is at 175

[59:06] megawws and would be adding 30 to 50 uh

[59:09] megawws. And this cost would have to

[59:11] fall um I assume on um the electric

[59:15] bills of the citizens here in Provo if

[59:18] that cost is going to be paid um by the

[59:20] data center. Um in addition uh water

[59:22] usage is a concern. I know people are

[59:24] worried about um the water uh direct

[59:26] water usage to cooling the center. Um

[59:29] but it goes a lot farther than that

[59:30] because I think uh it's about uh what I

[59:33] heard before was um about the use of a

[59:36] car wash is what this new data center

[59:37] will be using and that is true for

[59:39] direct usage but there's also indirect

[59:41] usage that are harder to calculate like

[59:43] um the electricity generation um for uh

[59:47] semiconductor manufacturing needed to

[59:49] create um the GPUs.

[59:52] Um and I want to emphas emphasize that I

[59:55] believe in the importance of investing

[59:57] in new technologies. But this increase

[1:00:00] of data centers to uh support LLM is a

[1:00:03] technology culde-sac. Instead of giving

[1:00:05] Probo more ability to expand and adapt

[1:00:08] to its challenges, this data center um

[1:00:11] reduces uh the the charge for

[1:00:13] billion-dollar corporations at the

[1:00:15] expense of Provo residents. Thank you

[1:00:18] guys for your time.

[1:00:19] >> Thank you.

[1:00:26] What up council? My name is Brennan

[1:00:28] Larson and I've been a Utah resident my

[1:00:30] entire life and a prov resident for the

[1:00:32] last four years and I am not a lite. I'm

[1:00:34] here to address the data center. I find

[1:00:36] it preposterous that there is time and

[1:00:37] energy to even address a data center

[1:00:39] being built when the entire neighborhood

[1:00:41] has been asking for a grocery store for

[1:00:42] literal decades. I fully understand and

[1:00:45] emphasize for whatever financial

[1:00:46] incentive this may offer the city and

[1:00:48] especially given the financial quagmires

[1:00:50] and trespasses from the previous mayor.

[1:00:52] However, having recently spoken with a

[1:00:54] civil engineer, David Chapel, he

[1:00:55] estimates that the Provo power grid

[1:00:57] consumes around 175 megawws. This data

[1:01:00] center would require around 50 megawatts

[1:01:01] to be purchased from the UMPA. Despite

[1:01:04] whatever rhetoric the AI company says to

[1:01:06] the contrary, this will undoubtedly

[1:01:07] raise power bill prices. It is an

[1:01:09] completely unfair ask to force Provo

[1:01:11] citizens to foot the bill for a data

[1:01:13] center power and energy needs. I would

[1:01:15] alternatively propose that the council

[1:01:17] require the data center to invest in the

[1:01:19] city's power grid to actually decrease

[1:01:21] citizen energy bills through renewable

[1:01:23] energy and to use the profits from the

[1:01:25] data center to assist the individuals

[1:01:27] that are at risk of housing displacement

[1:01:28] for the proposed Provo Mall development.

[1:01:31] Housing is already increasingly

[1:01:32] unaffordable for students and renters in

[1:01:34] Provo. This data center without

[1:01:35] oversight and requirements of the AI

[1:01:37] company to invest back into the

[1:01:39] community does not benefit Provo's

[1:01:41] future in the long term whatsoever. I

[1:01:43] firmly believe that is the role of the

[1:01:45] city government to provide common sense

[1:01:46] compromises that benefit the community

[1:01:48] as a whole. Provo has a world-class

[1:01:50] university within city boundaries that

[1:01:52] is full of talented and intelligent

[1:01:53] individuals and professors that are

[1:01:55] fully qualified and equipped with

[1:01:56] resources to create real solutions to

[1:01:58] address a data center's energy

[1:02:00] requirements in a way that benefits

[1:02:01] everyone and to aid in ensuring housing

[1:02:03] for Provo citizen at any risk of

[1:02:05] displacement. As a taxpaying citizen, I

[1:02:07] demand excellence from my local

[1:02:09] government whose wages I help pay for.

[1:02:11] Figure it out. Don't let my energy bill

[1:02:13] go up and do your job.

[1:02:18] Thank you.

[1:02:22] » I push a button or speak.

[1:02:24] >> No, you just can speak. Just need your

[1:02:26] name and where you live.

[1:02:27] >> Um, my name is Alex Strawber. I'm in the

[1:02:29] Dixon Provo neighborhood. I just wanted

[1:02:31] to ask you guys not to do the data

[1:02:33] center because it just seems like it's

[1:02:35] such an environmental risk, especially

[1:02:36] with us being in a drought. That's all I

[1:02:38] have to say. Thank you.

[1:02:39] >> Thank you.

[1:02:48] Uh, hi, my name is Austin Simcox. I live

[1:02:51] in Provo in the Maser neighborhood. Um,

[1:02:53] I am opposed to an AI data center in

[1:02:56] Provo. Uh, the economic impact might uh

[1:02:59] will be minimal, but the potential harms

[1:03:01] could be severe. Uh, I understand the

[1:03:04] line is that it's going to use the same

[1:03:05] amount of water as a car wash. Um, in

[1:03:07] which case the better investment seems

[1:03:09] to be the car wash. uh because it will

[1:03:11] provide about the same amount of jobs uh

[1:03:13] and won't ask to create its own power

[1:03:14] plant in a few years. Um

[1:03:18] all the economic issues aside, there's

[1:03:20] still the moral issue. Um

[1:03:24] it's understood that generative AI can

[1:03:25] only function using the work of creative

[1:03:28] humans, work that is often stolen from

[1:03:30] them. And finally, even with that issue

[1:03:32] aside, I don't want my city to be

[1:03:35] involved in the development of a

[1:03:36] technology that is currently being used

[1:03:38] to wage war around the world, surveil

[1:03:40] Americans here at home, and deport our

[1:03:42] friends and neighbors. A data center

[1:03:45] would be a moral stain on Provo, and I

[1:03:47] do not want it in my community. Thank

[1:03:48] you.

[1:03:50] >> Thank you.

[1:03:53] >> She's already spoken. You might as well

[1:03:55] come. Oh, not for this item, though.

[1:03:59] >> [clears throat]

[1:04:00] >> So, I'm Seth Draper. I'm in North Side

[1:04:02] Provo. Uh, but I actually grew up in

[1:04:03] Virginia. Um, and as a former resident

[1:04:06] of the state with 50% of the data

[1:04:07] centers in the US, um, I just want to

[1:04:10] really implore y'all not to do it. Uh,

[1:04:13] the, uh, quality of life, uh, has been

[1:04:17] noticeably lowered, uh, within cities

[1:04:18] that I used to know. Um, with high

[1:04:21] levels of, uh, with the energy bills

[1:04:24] being raised, with incredible noise

[1:04:26] pollution. Um, I love this city. I think

[1:04:28] it's beautiful and I would like to keep

[1:04:30] it that way. Um, so thank y'all.

[1:04:36] » Thank you.

[1:04:43] » Hello. My name is Don Flake. I'm a

[1:04:44] resident of Provo. Um, something this is

[1:04:47] an angle has not been brought up yet. Um

[1:04:49] and I don't know how much this will

[1:04:50] factor into the decision but this is

[1:04:53] sort of a more macroeconomic sort of um

[1:04:55] perspective on uh

[1:04:59] neural networks and artificial

[1:05:00] intelligence broadly. Um three days ago

[1:05:02] it was reported that um an insider from

[1:05:05] Kurser which is a they provide uh uh

[1:05:08] like coding by using artificial

[1:05:10] intelligence and one of the competitors

[1:05:12] is Claude Code um they estimated that a

[1:05:16] $200 per month Claude Code subscription

[1:05:19] um could use up to $2,000 per month in

[1:05:23] compute. Um and that was a year ago.

[1:05:27] today that subsid subsidization is even

[1:05:30] more aggressive. Its $200 plan consumes

[1:05:33] about $5,000 of compute. So in other

[1:05:36] words, Anthropic and this is just one

[1:05:38] example of one company is heavily

[1:05:40] subsidizing the use of AI. What that

[1:05:42] suggests is that with time u as the uh

[1:05:47] payment requirements for these AI

[1:05:48] companies as they come to bear um these

[1:05:51] companies are not going to be able to

[1:05:52] meet their financial um their financial

[1:05:55] obligations. Um, and it suggests a real

[1:05:59] risk that this data center that's built

[1:06:01] here uh will be uh heavily neglected or like the company that builds it won't

[1:06:08] be able to um actually use it and occupy

[1:06:10] it in the way that is perhaps maybe

[1:06:12] projected. So that's so much more sort

[1:06:15] of macroeconomic view of things. But um

[1:06:17] I think that ultimately we want in Provo

[1:06:19] to have the things that are built um

[1:06:22] especially like buildings if they are

[1:06:24] built to be reused by uh you know other

[1:06:27] entities if they you know go out of

[1:06:29] business for example or or if something

[1:06:30] else happens um and in this instance it

[1:06:33] seems like that is a higher likelihood

[1:06:35] than perhaps is otherwise uh normally

[1:06:37] suggested. So know that's all I have to

[1:06:39] say about that. Thank you.

[1:06:41] >> Thank you.

[1:06:49] Hi, my name is Aaron Wheatley. I live in

[1:06:50] the Walke neighborhood. Um my like that

[1:06:53] gentleman who spoke uh just before or

[1:06:55] two before. Uh my wife is from Lowden

[1:06:57] County, Virginia. It's like where

[1:06:59] [clears throat] all data centers are. Um

[1:07:02] every time I go out there, there's some

[1:07:03] more forest that's no longer there.

[1:07:05] There's a new road that must be there.

[1:07:07] There's uh what where the edge of

[1:07:09] civilization was. They had to clear some

[1:07:11] more and more and more. And I've talked

[1:07:14] to my in-laws multiple times kind of

[1:07:16] talking about what is this like for you?

[1:07:17] And they they explain, well, you know,

[1:07:19] it's it's a place out here where we're

[1:07:21] fine because we have enough water with

[1:07:22] it. They never work in Utah. And so I

[1:07:25] never thought we'd ever have to to talk

[1:07:27] about this. So surprised uh to see that

[1:07:30] happen. Uh, I do want to uh commend the developer, everyone in the project

[1:07:34] who's looking at different ways that

[1:07:36] they'll recycle the water, that they'll

[1:07:38] um use the energy different ways. Um, I

[1:07:41] wish I could believe that would happen.

[1:07:43] I I I would hope, but my experience with

[1:07:46] this is that's not what happens. Like I

[1:07:48] said, um, my mother-in-law, I ask her,

[1:07:50] "Is this nice?" And she says that she

[1:07:52] appreciates the the tax income. But what

[1:07:56] I'm recognizing is the reason they get

[1:07:58] tax income is because the next year

[1:08:00] they're building a new one and the next

[1:08:01] year they're building a new one and the

[1:08:03] next year there's another one. They

[1:08:05] don't get a lot of income from the ones

[1:08:07] that are already built. So my issue is

[1:08:09] we're going to build one then what what

[1:08:11] happens here? Cool. We get some money.

[1:08:13] That's great. That's really important.

[1:08:14] But then what happens in the future?

[1:08:16] What's this going to look like? We just

[1:08:18] I just heard you guys discuss about hey

[1:08:20] um we don't want to make a decision now

[1:08:22] that will affect things in the future.

[1:08:24] We want to go slow on this. That's what

[1:08:25] you just said about the other thing. I

[1:08:27] would implore you to go slow on this.

[1:08:30] I've seen what happens and I don't like

[1:08:32] what happens. Again, I do want to say

[1:08:34] I'm glad that we're bringing up the

[1:08:35] water issue. There's so many other

[1:08:37] issues with this. This does not seem

[1:08:39] like the right way. This does not seem

[1:08:40] like the Utah way, the Provo way to get

[1:08:42] a quick buck and then have to pay for it

[1:08:45] in the future. So, I would implore you

[1:08:46] to vote no on this. Thank you.

[1:08:49] >> Thank you.

[1:08:58] Hi, my name is Brooklyn Brighton. I'm a

[1:09:00] Provo resident on 200 South. Um, my

[1:09:04] husband is a PhD student at BYU studying

[1:09:07] AI and I would like to echo the desire

[1:09:11] to move slowly on this um because having

[1:09:15] his perspective I think of the costs

[1:09:19] associated is valuable. But um I would

[1:09:22] like to

[1:09:24] offer

[1:09:25] some insight into what those

[1:09:27] conversations look like um at in his

[1:09:31] labs at BYU and also at home with him.

[1:09:35] um the amounts of investing that are

[1:09:37] going into AI right now um are

[1:09:41] significant and the the way the place

[1:09:45] that AI is at right now was somewhere we

[1:09:48] weren't projected to achieve until many years in the future and the speed

[1:09:53] at which AI is getting better and the

[1:09:55] technology is improving is faster than

[1:09:59] was ever anticipated and I would like as

[1:10:02] a young provo resident who will be here

[1:10:04] many years into the future to be able to

[1:10:06] experience that and continue to see Utah

[1:10:11] um in the ways that it echoes the best

[1:10:14] parts of Silicon Valley without the

[1:10:15] worst parts of it. I would like that to

[1:10:17] continue and I would like that value to

[1:10:18] be preserved um in our best interest and

[1:10:22] I think it would be good to go slow but

[1:10:24] I I would like that still to be an

[1:10:26] option. Thank you. I didn't hear much of

[1:10:30] what you said because that cute little

[1:10:31] kid that you brought up there with you.

[1:10:34] So, are you for or against? I just

[1:10:36] wanted to see if I understand.

[1:10:37] >> I'm for the data center slowly.

[1:10:40] >> Got it. Thank you.

[1:10:41] >> Potentially not in that location.

[1:10:45] >> All right. Any more public comment

[1:10:47] before we close?

[1:10:53] » John Southerntherland. I live in Provo.

[1:10:55] Um I am a former retired technology

[1:10:58] executive so I'm definitely not a lead

[1:11:00] and I understand that two of the top

[1:11:02] three initiatives in the state are

[1:11:03] increasing energy capacity and also AI

[1:11:06] and you know talent ready Utah and

[1:11:08] others are deep into that. Um however I

[1:11:11] think that where you locate a data

[1:11:13] center you got to be careful about I

[1:11:15] don't think Provo City from my point of

[1:11:17] view is the right place. 70 years ago

[1:11:19] when they built the Idaho National

[1:11:20] Engineering Laboratory. They put it out

[1:11:22] in the middle of the desert near Arco,

[1:11:24] Idaho. And um there's no reason why a

[1:11:27] data center needs to be in city limits.

[1:11:29] It needs water. It needs um some energy

[1:11:32] and it needs connectivity to the

[1:11:34] internet. We don't exactly have the

[1:11:36] greatest peering point in Provo for uh

[1:11:38] for data centers for connectivity to the

[1:11:41] internet. So I don't think Provo is the

[1:11:43] right place. I don't like the idea that

[1:11:45] it's going to be using our water. I

[1:11:46] don't like the idea it's being on our

[1:11:48] power grid. I think that there's a big

[1:11:50] push um nationally to say that these

[1:11:53] companies like Meta and others ought to

[1:11:54] be along with their data centers

[1:11:56] providing their own power. I don't want

[1:11:57] that power generation here in Provo

[1:11:59] City. Um I think it ought to be located

[1:12:01] in a much more remote place, put its own

[1:12:04] power generation in and someplace where

[1:12:06] they can get the water to connect to the

[1:12:08] easily to the internet, the rest of the

[1:12:10] internet. So I would prefer that we not

[1:12:12] go ahead with putting a data center in

[1:12:14] Provo. It's not a very big data center.

[1:12:16] Frankly, the country is going to need a

[1:12:18] lot more and I don't want to see that

[1:12:20] expansion happen in Provo. Thank you.

[1:12:23] >> Thank you.

[1:12:26] All right, we're going to close it.

[1:12:27] Anyone else?

[1:12:30] Oh, come on up here.

[1:12:32] >> Just had this wild idea.

[1:12:34] >> You have to give your name again.

[1:12:35] >> Okay. My name is Bonnie Shiffler Olsen.

[1:12:37] Um, I love AI. It's so much

[1:12:40] >> She lives in Provo.

[1:12:41] >> Yeah, I do. I love having conversations

[1:12:44] because

[1:12:45] it has all of the information that it's

[1:12:49] Yeah. Why don't we ask it? Why don't we

[1:12:52] ask it if it is feasible for our city

[1:13:01] in tandem with our goals?

[1:13:05] >> I love I love AI.

[1:13:07] >> If you have Siri on your phone, ask her

[1:13:09] and then let us know. just do it out

[1:13:12] there. All right, come on up.

[1:13:18] But um I had to check if something was

[1:13:20] addressed. My name is Katherine Hall

[1:13:22] again, Provo City resident, um East

[1:13:25] District. Um

[1:13:28] I know a closed loop system, I've I've

[1:13:30] researched a lot about that, but

[1:13:32] eventually they need to be flushed. when

[1:13:34] they're flushed, there are a lot of

[1:13:36] contaminants that come out that our

[1:13:38] water treatment system that a new

[1:13:40] amazing facility that we just built

[1:13:43] cannot handle. And I think that has to

[1:13:46] be considered. The emissions that come

[1:13:48] out of data centers, especially if

[1:13:50] they're running generators, which isn't

[1:13:51] all the time, I understand, is really a

[1:13:54] health risk for a lot of people like

[1:13:56] myself and my son who have asthma. Um,

[1:13:59] so I really think you need to consider

[1:14:01] what's being put out from the data

[1:14:04] center, you know, from the water, the

[1:14:07] what the contaminants are and how that's

[1:14:09] going to affect the quality of life for

[1:14:10] those of us that live in Southeast

[1:14:12] Provo. So, thank you.

[1:14:15] >> All right, last call.

[1:14:18] Oh, okay.

[1:14:21] >> Sorry. Sorry. I know that you're trying

[1:14:23] to close this. Um, my name is Holland

[1:14:24] King. Um, I just moved

[1:14:26] >> What city do you live in? Well, I just

[1:14:28] moved from Provo to Oram. Um, so I was

[1:14:30] living in Provo. I live I've lived here

[1:14:32] for the past

[1:14:33] >> I don't know since 2022. Um, and I just

[1:14:35] wanted to say that my concern about the

[1:14:38] data center

[1:14:39] >> and with most AI data centers, well

[1:14:42] there's I mean the environmental factor

[1:14:43] which everyone has addressed like

[1:14:45] beautifully. Um, and then also I wanted

[1:14:48] to address the issues that I um am

[1:14:51] concerned about with like taking jobs. U

[1:14:54] my sister is a graphic designer and she

[1:14:56] studied at BYU Idaho and she got her

[1:14:58] graphic design um degree there and she

[1:15:02] works in an office where Claude is

[1:15:05] projected to like the Claude AI is

[1:15:07] projected to take her job and um she has

[1:15:10] her best friend who she works with who

[1:15:12] has also lost jobs um because of AI. And

[1:15:15] I know that like we're not going to be

[1:15:16] able to completely get rid of AI and I

[1:15:18] don't think we should. It's very helpful

[1:15:19] in a lot of ways. Um, but I just would

[1:15:23] urge you to be mindful of the way that

[1:15:26] it could influence the job market here,

[1:15:28] especially with Provo being um full of

[1:15:31] so many young people with with BYU with

[1:15:34] being close to UVU and young people

[1:15:36] trying to go into the workforce and it

[1:15:38] eliminating a lot of um like entry level

[1:15:42] jobs because like it it can take over a

[1:15:44] lot of data entry jobs and things like

[1:15:46] that. So, I just would urge you guys to

[1:15:48] be aware of that and um vote against it.

[1:15:51] So, thank you so much for your time.

[1:15:53] >> Thank you.

[1:15:56] » You better hurry, Adam.

[1:16:02] » I want to run, but I'm I know we're

[1:16:04] going to move on. Uh my name is Adam

[1:16:05] Shin. I live here in Provo, Utah. Um and

[1:16:07] I I think it's uh it is it it's good

[1:16:10] that a lot of people are caring and and very interested in the in the water

[1:16:13] conservation issue. We have a real uh we

[1:16:16] live in a desert. Uh we do need to

[1:16:17] conserve water. Um it is a very strong

[1:16:21] uh an important thing to consider out

[1:16:22] here. Uh especially as we're looking

[1:16:23] ahead to the future of Utah Lake and the

[1:16:25] Great Salt Lake and the future of of you

[1:16:27] know how um just the livability of this

[1:16:30] area really depends on how we uh think

[1:16:32] about the environment. Um and for those

[1:16:33] who are here uh concerned about that

[1:16:35] water issue, I would I you this is kind

[1:16:37] of a side side point, but I do want to

[1:16:39] um just raise a thought that we have a

[1:16:41] lot of at the state level um we have

[1:16:44] programs that actually will help with uh

[1:16:46] water conservation here at the

[1:16:48] neighborhood level. Um I think the you

[1:16:50] know the the numbers that have been put

[1:16:52] out for just you know like a car wash as

[1:16:53] a point of comparison. Um, I think the

[1:16:55] napkin math for that is, you know, you

[1:16:57] can compare that to about maybe a few

[1:16:58] dozen yards being watered in in the

[1:17:00] summer for one data center of this of

[1:17:02] this size. You know, taking those

[1:17:04] numbers at face value, uh, which just to

[1:17:06] put into perspective, there's a lot of

[1:17:08] water that we use for a lot of other

[1:17:09] things. Um, currently, right, um, the

[1:17:12] state currently has programs that will

[1:17:13] help with things like zeroscaping and

[1:17:15] reducing water usage in uh, in

[1:17:17] residential, like your front lawn, if

[1:17:18] you want to replace that with something

[1:17:19] that's a lower water usage than just

[1:17:21] grass. Um and in the past we Provo City

[1:17:24] actually has not adopted those um those

[1:17:27] state programs uh under the the argument

[1:17:29] that we have enough water to supply and

[1:17:31] we don't feel the need to to conserve

[1:17:32] those those uh that water for that kind

[1:17:34] of stuff. So if this is an issue that

[1:17:36] matters to you, I'd encourage you to um

[1:17:38] to look into that program and and and

[1:17:40] talk to your city council

[1:17:41] representatives about the potential of

[1:17:42] adopting a program like that. Um there

[1:17:44] are many many many blocks in Provo um

[1:17:47] that we could save a lot of water on by

[1:17:49] uh taking advantage of a program that

[1:17:50] already exists and would help a lot of

[1:17:52] people to lower their water bills in

[1:17:54] addition to conserving overall. So thank

[1:17:56] you.

[1:17:58] >> All right, we're going to close public

[1:18:00] comment and on that note, Provo has its

[1:18:02] own water conservation program and right

[1:18:04] now we're doing the exceed exchange so

[1:18:06] that you can put more water friendly

[1:18:10] grass in your yard. So know that we do

[1:18:11] have our own program. So feel free to

[1:18:13] reach out to public works for that. All

[1:18:16] right. Um we let developer speak. So um

[1:18:20] I kind of helped you out there so you

[1:18:21] can hear all the comments. I you can

[1:18:23] reply to them.

[1:18:28] » This one. Yeah.

[1:18:29] >> There we go. So my name is Steve Styler.

[1:18:31] I represent the applicant B plusfonogus

[1:18:33] tech. Uh

[1:18:35] anecdotally a really interesting

[1:18:37] question. I sat through a separate um

[1:18:40] land use entitlement for a data center

[1:18:42] somewhere else and someone asked the

[1:18:43] question of AI what does a data center

[1:18:46] look like and I will warn you that's a

[1:18:48] dangerous question because it produced

[1:18:50] what looked like the Taj Mahal and I

[1:18:52] felt like that was unfair to ask AI

[1:18:54] where it would like to live because it

[1:18:56] could design a palace for itself to

[1:18:58] live.

[1:18:59] Uh this has been a really interesting

[1:19:01] project to be working on and I should

[1:19:03] introduce Rain Smith is with me. Uh he's

[1:19:05] principal with B+ Tech. Just a couple of

[1:19:09] things for perspective and I appreciate

[1:19:10] the time working with Provo City. We've

[1:19:13] been at this now for about a year to to

[1:19:15] look through how do we do this and how

[1:19:18] might we build out this project. This

[1:19:20] property was acquired in 2017 as part of

[1:19:24] the entire Noville campus. This hasn't

[1:19:26] this wasn't recently bought to turn into

[1:19:29] a data center. This was something that's

[1:19:31] been developed over a long time process.

[1:19:34] Um [clears throat] and and just to give

[1:19:36] a little bit of history and and I would

[1:19:38] like to say kudos to those who have

[1:19:40] spoken here today. It take gut it takes

[1:19:42] guts to show up at a city council

[1:19:43] meeting um and speak and we appreciate

[1:19:46] those comments. One of the things that

[1:19:48] we've really tried hard to do in working

[1:19:50] with the city and with the planning

[1:19:52] department and going through planning

[1:19:54] commission, I I know many of you

[1:19:56] probably listened to the planning

[1:19:58] commission. It was long and it was very

[1:20:01] well done. We talked about water, we

[1:20:03] talked about energy, we talked about

[1:20:05] overall impacts, we talked about

[1:20:07] parking, we talked we talked about

[1:20:09] everything. And I thought that it was a

[1:20:11] really meaningful conversation and from

[1:20:13] that we've we've learned because at the

[1:20:16] end of the day we're trying to do a

[1:20:18] really awesome development for Provo

[1:20:20] City. If we come in and we disrupt air

[1:20:23] quality, we disrupt water conservation

[1:20:25] efforts, we disrupt power, we haven't

[1:20:28] done our job because that's not what

[1:20:30] this is about. This project has been

[1:20:32] designed to do something that is part of

[1:20:35] a critical

[1:20:37] re-engineering and a different thought

[1:20:40] process of how we might utilize this

[1:20:42] property in a better way. Um, many of

[1:20:44] you are familiar with this. Obviously,

[1:20:45] there is a hotel that's directly to the

[1:20:47] west. Um, we have a great relationship,

[1:20:50] a comment was made about uh Rocky

[1:20:52] Mountain University. We have a great

[1:20:53] relationship with them. Um they they did

[1:20:56] not to our knowledge have not approached

[1:20:58] us about utilizing any of the existing

[1:21:00] buildings on the property. If they did,

[1:21:01] we'd love to have that conversation with

[1:21:03] them. Um as far as water, and if it's

[1:21:06] okay, uh council members, I'll I'll just

[1:21:08] address some of the concerns when we

[1:21:10] talk more about the project. First and

[1:21:12] foremost is water. It's the thing we've

[1:21:13] heard the very very most about just

[1:21:16] ahead of energy. We kind of keep track

[1:21:18] of what we hear the most about. One of

[1:21:20] the neat things about this piece of of ground of this property is its

[1:21:25] proximity to the water treatment

[1:21:27] facility. When we started looking at

[1:21:30] this working with Provo Power and with

[1:21:32] Provo City, uh the water treatment

[1:21:34] facility reached out to us. Um there is

[1:21:37] a product and and if you've listened to

[1:21:38] city council, there was discussion about

[1:21:40] silver water. I literally had never

[1:21:42] heard about silver water and I've done

[1:21:44] water most of my career. I didn't know

[1:21:46] that was a thing. Um, but what it is is

[1:21:48] it's a treated water that cannot be

[1:21:50] released back into a water system

[1:21:52] because of the contaminants, potential

[1:21:53] contaminants it has. One of the things

[1:21:55] is we've identified is that we actually

[1:21:57] think that water um and the early

[1:22:01] engineering shows that we could actually

[1:22:02] use that as part of our closed loop

[1:22:04] system. Um, again trying to help Provo

[1:22:07] City where we can. If that that's a

[1:22:09] problem and the amount of silver water

[1:22:10] and we don't know where to put it, we

[1:22:13] would love to be a customer and pay for

[1:22:15] that water and be able to utilize it

[1:22:17] within the facility. Our intention is

[1:22:20] for this water and what we agreed in the

[1:22:22] planning commission and as part of the

[1:22:24] development agreement we've worked

[1:22:25] closely with Brian to try to propose how

[1:22:28] we might bind ourselves if this project

[1:22:30] moves forward is that we would never

[1:22:32] discharge any of that water anywhere

[1:22:34] within the city system. It does contain

[1:22:36] glycol and other cooling agents. It's

[1:22:38] not suitable to put back into the

[1:22:39] system. We won't go there. We maybe the

[1:22:42] analog to that would be what you would

[1:22:43] see at a restaurant. You also don't dump

[1:22:45] the grease. you have a third party

[1:22:46] vendor that comes and collects the

[1:22:48] grease from a fryer and not it's the

[1:22:51] same but it's the same type of process.

[1:22:52] We would never discharge that back into

[1:22:54] the city system.

[1:22:55] >> Um as far as filling that's a process um

[1:22:59] that we we work with our engineers as we

[1:23:01] design this on the frequency. It's

[1:23:04] something that would happen probably two

[1:23:06] to three years. Um, again depending on

[1:23:09] the engineering, but again, we're trying

[1:23:11] to utilize that silver water so that we

[1:23:14] it's not such a draw upon the city

[1:23:16] system. Again, we're trying to make sure

[1:23:18] that we're doing it as responsibly as we

[1:23:20] can without placing a drain on existing

[1:23:22] resources. Um, second most popular topic

[1:23:25] is power. What are we going to do? Are

[1:23:28] we going to ruin Provo City's power

[1:23:30] system? Are we going to be this big draw

[1:23:33] on the system? Um the building that you

[1:23:35] see and the renderings that were there,

[1:23:38] those were produced about a year ago

[1:23:40] when we started to look and get a feel

[1:23:42] for what this would look like. And the

[1:23:45] reason that we we considered this for a

[1:23:47] small neocloud type facility was because

[1:23:51] of the existing power in infrastructure

[1:23:54] that is already being delivered to this

[1:23:56] property and to this campus. While

[1:23:58] working with Provo Power, we we asked

[1:24:01] the question, how much power is already

[1:24:03] there. There's already a building there,

[1:24:06] right? There's multiple buildings and a

[1:24:07] campus that sits there. And the number

[1:24:10] that we came back with was 6 to 10

[1:24:12] megawatts of power that literally is

[1:24:14] there. That's already allocated to this

[1:24:17] property. Um that conversation moved

[1:24:20] forward to what if you looked at doing

[1:24:22] generation on on property? could you do

[1:24:25] something to generate natural gas fired

[1:24:27] power to build a bigger facility and

[1:24:30] that's largely the product that you see

[1:24:31] on the screen today is that bigger

[1:24:33] facility as we we walked with um Provo

[1:24:37] City as we you all considered a new data

[1:24:40] center overlay ordinance. We tried to

[1:24:42] work with the city to to make sure that

[1:24:45] we knew what was happening and that we

[1:24:46] could participate and help. Um and along

[1:24:49] the way we realized hey this is a

[1:24:51] simpler process. We ought to just look

[1:24:53] at the power that's already there on

[1:24:57] that site. We can have other

[1:24:59] conversations other days about whether

[1:25:01] we want to grow with the city or whether

[1:25:03] we work with UMPA or Provo City. And so

[1:25:06] the application you have in front of you

[1:25:08] is to create a data center overlay, but

[1:25:10] for us to look at only effectively the

[1:25:13] power that's already on this site. Um we

[1:25:16] believe we'd be a great customer. Um,

[1:25:19] Provo Power spoke in support of this at

[1:25:21] the planning commission. Um, because the

[1:25:23] power is there and not being utilized

[1:25:26] and we think that we could utilize it

[1:25:28] and create, you know, a good revenue

[1:25:29] stream for the city. One additional item

[1:25:33] we hear, we heard a lot at the planning

[1:25:34] commission. People said, "What's in this

[1:25:37] for Provo? Why does this matter to

[1:25:40] Provo? It's not creating a hundred

[1:25:42] million dollar a year jobs and those

[1:25:44] types of things." And that's where I

[1:25:46] think a lot of people wonder what this

[1:25:48] what what's in it for Provo. Um, one of

[1:25:51] the things that is interesting about a

[1:25:52] data center like this one, the model

[1:25:54] that you've seen on the screen would be

[1:25:56] about a $300 million building to build.

[1:25:59] Um,

[1:26:01] so and we could get way into the weeds

[1:26:04] on the taxing authority and how much I

[1:26:05] could ask the city uh treasurer to come

[1:26:08] tell me what the numbers might be, but

[1:26:11] run through the scenario with me from a

[1:26:13] taxing authority standpoint. Not getting

[1:26:15] into the weeds of how much goes to the

[1:26:16] county and the school district, but this

[1:26:18] property at a $300 million construction

[1:26:21] of this building if we were to build the

[1:26:23] building that you've all considered. Um,

[1:26:26] inside of it, we would put the rule of

[1:26:28] thumb is between three and four times

[1:26:30] the value of the building would go

[1:26:31] inside as far as the the components, the

[1:26:33] GPUs and other AI um equipment. If we

[1:26:38] add those things together, which would

[1:26:39] all be taxable as either real property

[1:26:42] or taxable personal property, we're

[1:26:44] somewhere in the ballpark between 1.2

[1:26:47] billion and 1.4

[1:26:49] billion dollars of new taxable value to

[1:26:52] the to the taxing authority. Obviously,

[1:26:54] Provo would get their share of that, the

[1:26:56] county would get their share, the school

[1:26:57] district would get their share. Um, from

[1:27:00] an investment standpoint, it's it's

[1:27:02] pretty significant on a pretty all

[1:27:05] things considered small piece of dirt

[1:27:08] because of the value of the the

[1:27:09] components that are there. One of the

[1:27:11] comments that was made was uh on the

[1:27:13] property tax base, they they only get

[1:27:15] new property tax when they build another

[1:27:17] one. The question gets asked, well, what

[1:27:20] about the GPUs? They're just computers.

[1:27:22] They, you know, they depreciate quickly.

[1:27:24] They do, and they depreciate along with

[1:27:27] their their life cycle. And what would

[1:27:29] happen within this facility or any other

[1:27:31] hyperscaler is you are constantly

[1:27:34] rotating and bringing in new equipment.

[1:27:36] So you have instead of a a a landslide

[1:27:40] downward progression of property tax um

[1:27:43] you actually do a little bounce because

[1:27:45] every 3 to five years those compu those

[1:27:47] components are being replaced and you

[1:27:49] start over from a tax standpoint. So

[1:27:51] it's a fairly reliable property tax to

[1:27:54] the taxing authority.

[1:27:56] Um

[1:27:59] as part of the ownership of this entire

[1:28:02] kind of campus, the idea that we are

[1:28:05] proposing to the council to consider is

[1:28:08] that that we are allowed to develop this

[1:28:11] as kind of backbone infrastructure. We

[1:28:14] too we understand the council is

[1:28:16] considering an economic study to see

[1:28:18] what are the best things and right

[1:28:19] things that are here. From our

[1:28:22] perspective, this is a fantastic anchor

[1:28:24] tenant or backbone infrastructure. Uh

[1:28:28] we've heard people suggest this would be

[1:28:30] a great site for technology or biomed or

[1:28:33] other types of businesses. We agree with

[1:28:35] that and what we're finding and what we

[1:28:38] believe will happen is that those

[1:28:40] companies that come to this area will

[1:28:43] also become our customers. That is the

[1:28:46] way that this is being structured and

[1:28:48] we're developing this property is

[1:28:50] putting in some of that critical

[1:28:52] infrastructure first so that we have the

[1:28:55] key needs for future development comes

[1:28:57] to this to this area in this campus. We love Provo. We've the the property

[1:29:02] owners have been um good stewards of

[1:29:05] this land and feel like this is a great

[1:29:07] opportunity to provide some value to

[1:29:10] Provo, provide a a a gateway access into

[1:29:14] this new emerging technology as part of

[1:29:16] a of a great redevelopment of this of

[1:29:19] this area. Um I'm happy to answer any

[1:29:22] questions. I know I've kind of rambled

[1:29:23] on and I don't intend to, but I'm happy

[1:29:25] to answer any questions.

[1:29:27] >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the

[1:29:29] developer?

[1:29:32] No. Okay. Thank you so much.

[1:29:36] What?

[1:29:40] All right. Council discussion. Any

[1:29:42] council discussion on this item?

[1:29:46] Councelor Bogdan.

[1:29:50] Okay. Um the one thing that we hear over

[1:29:53] and over and over again and we've read a

[1:29:55] lot of emails and we've studied this for

[1:29:57] a long time. Data centers is something

[1:30:00] that the council has been studying for a

[1:30:03] while and we came up with a data center

[1:30:04] policy

[1:30:06] last fall. This is something that our

[1:30:09] energy department has been studying.

[1:30:11] This is something that um Utah Municipal

[1:30:14] Power has been studying for a long time

[1:30:17] that they came up with a policy because

[1:30:20] those things that you're worried about,

[1:30:22] so are our people. And so they did dig

[1:30:24] in pretty hard to look at how to protect

[1:30:27] Provo residents and Provo citizens. Um

[1:30:30] there is a development agreement with

[1:30:32] this. So I won't be voting yes on this,

[1:30:36] but I do want to send the message to

[1:30:37] Provo that Provo residents that these

[1:30:41] are things that we have been looking at

[1:30:43] for a really long time. And it's not

[1:30:45] like if a data center is passed in Provo

[1:30:48] that we're selling you all out because

[1:30:51] energy is something that we've looked

[1:30:53] at. Water is something that we've looked

[1:30:55] at.

[1:30:57] There is a lot more that goes into a

[1:30:59] data center besides energy and water.

[1:31:02] But these are things that we have looked

[1:31:05] at and that we know about and that we

[1:31:08] have gotten on top of. Thanks.

[1:31:15] » All right. Are we ready for a vote on

[1:31:17] the implied motion?

[1:31:20] >> I see no other comments if Craig wants

[1:31:24] to talk. Councelor Hoben

[1:31:27] >> for me. So, there's a lot of arguments

[1:31:29] out there for or against. Um, I think

[1:31:31] probably the one that resonated the best

[1:31:34] with me came from some of my fellow

[1:31:35] council members, which was basically

[1:31:37] that

[1:31:39] we aren't exactly sure. This is this is

[1:31:43] a big decision in regards to land use.

[1:31:45] So, that's what it comes down to for the

[1:31:46] most part for me is is that we this is a

[1:31:51] big area of redevelopment for us and so

[1:31:54] it's a it's a long-term decision and we

[1:31:56] want to make sure we make the right

[1:31:58] decision for this area. Now we

[1:31:59] understand nobody else is suiting this

[1:32:01] particular property right now. Um so we

[1:32:04] kind of have what we have. Um but long

[1:32:07] term is is this what we want in the area

[1:32:10] as opposed to retail or hospitality or

[1:32:13] something else. So I think that's the the

[1:32:17] piece of the puzzle that kind of

[1:32:19] resonates the best with me is like we're

[1:32:21] going to do this economic development

[1:32:23] study. We're going to see what the city

[1:32:25] wants to be when it grows up and then

[1:32:28] we'll be able to make a decision

[1:32:29] regarding this parcel and it might be a

[1:32:31] data center, it might not depending on

[1:32:33] what we get back, right? And so just

[1:32:35] having that information before we make

[1:32:37] the leap I think um

[1:32:41] though you know of course I always

[1:32:43] appreciate the burden the the birden

[1:32:45] hand over the two you know two in the

[1:32:46] bush but um it's a big decision to make

[1:32:49] so I can appreciate that.

[1:32:52] Councelor Christensen.

[1:32:55] >> Well, I think it is a u a big decision

[1:32:57] and um I would just say to those um

[1:33:01] citizens who have come and shared their

[1:33:03] perspective

[1:33:04] um we have heard from many many and

[1:33:07] talked with many of you uh about this.

[1:33:10] Um some people ask you know why is Provo

[1:33:13] considering this? It's because people

[1:33:15] have property rights and they can

[1:33:17] petition for what'sever within the code

[1:33:19] or they can petition to change, you

[1:33:22] know, um code. Um so taking a taking a

[1:33:26] look at a project like this isn't a

[1:33:28] moral stance. It's actually part of

[1:33:31] property rights. And so the data center

[1:33:34] has every right to come into Provo and

[1:33:37] to make a case for any particular site

[1:33:40] that is allowed, you know, through the

[1:33:42] overlay. And uh this is certainly

[1:33:44] allowed in the overlay. So uh to me it's

[1:33:47] much less of a moral stance. Um there

[1:33:50] are questions about uh water and

[1:33:52] electricity and power and all those

[1:33:53] kinds of things. But uh again I I would

[1:33:56] just emphasize that um people have the

[1:33:58] right to apply for these things. Um my

[1:34:02] concern about the data center is the

[1:34:04] same I had about the road width. Um, I

[1:34:07] think we should move slow and I think we

[1:34:09] should be very deliberate and very

[1:34:11] careful because both of these items, the

[1:34:15] previous item and this item are not ones

[1:34:17] that you undo and I think it does make

[1:34:20] sense to be careful.

[1:34:24] » Any more discussion? Councelor Whitlock?

[1:34:27] >> Yeah, I I really appreciate everything

[1:34:29] that was shared here today. We also, I

[1:34:31] think, received more emails about this

[1:34:33] issue than almost any other issue than

[1:34:34] at least since I've been on the council.

[1:34:36] Um, to the point that councelor Hobin

[1:34:39] made about we're in the middle of trying

[1:34:41] to create this economic development

[1:34:42] study and try to come up with a vision

[1:34:44] for the area. East Bay is one of the

[1:34:46] areas we're looking at in this study.

[1:34:48] So, we're in kind of a transition point

[1:34:49] there. Also, we're in transition with

[1:34:52] Provo Power Director if I understand

[1:34:54] correctly and this person would be

[1:34:56] responsible who's yet to be chosen to be

[1:34:59] responsible for uh implementing this and

[1:35:02] making sure it's done correctly. So, I

[1:35:04] think it's a I think it's a tough time

[1:35:05] for this. I also think that everything

[1:35:08] we do or at least I should speak for

[1:35:09] myself, I do want it to be better for

[1:35:11] the lives of the provo residents. And

[1:35:13] while the potential um general fund

[1:35:17] impact from all the additional power is

[1:35:20] a good thing I think for a general fund,

[1:35:22] I think that the risks outlined are are quite high. everything from the

[1:35:26] sound pollution to the hotels there to

[1:35:29] is this the highest and best use of land

[1:35:32] to um my understanding is uh as much

[1:35:36] power as this could could uh consume it

[1:35:39] could I have a hard time imagining it

[1:35:41] won't affect power rates I mean Provo

[1:35:43] peak demand is around 200 megawws and

[1:35:46] this is going to be marginal 30 to 50

[1:35:48] that's a lot of marginal power

[1:35:50] consumption and that power has to be

[1:35:51] purchased from somewhere um so I think

[1:35:53] there's a risk there and then I

[1:35:56] Lastly, this kind of closed loop water

[1:35:57] is a huge concern and air quality is a

[1:35:59] huge concern and this closed looped uh

[1:36:02] cooling system. It's hard to find

[1:36:04] precedence of one working for a data

[1:36:06] center this size um based on my

[1:36:08] understanding. So, there's just a lot of

[1:36:10] risks here. And so, I agree with what uh

[1:36:12] councelor um

[1:36:15] Craig Christensen just said about, you

[1:36:17] know, let's uh be cautious here and make

[1:36:19] sure we're not approving something that

[1:36:21] we regret.

[1:36:24] Um, so AI says Provo is an awesome place

[1:36:27] for a data center.

[1:36:30] And the reason the reason why it says it

[1:36:33] is because our energy is so cheap. We

[1:36:37] are so blessed to have Provo Power and

[1:36:39] we're blessed to own our own power

[1:36:41] company and

[1:36:44] we don't put any of that at risk, right?

[1:36:45] like it's one of our greatest assets and

[1:36:48] it's one of the reasons why we don't

[1:36:49] have to tax our citizens as much because

[1:36:51] we have provoke power. So um I concur

[1:36:56] with what the other counselor said. We

[1:36:58] are waiting on an economic plan. Um the

[1:37:00] goal of the data center is to grow in

[1:37:02] the future. That is your goal and you

[1:37:05] have a lot of space there to do that.

[1:37:07] And um

[1:37:09] the end goal is to make your own energy

[1:37:12] because you'd have to make your own

[1:37:13] energy as you grow which would be

[1:37:14] emissions right in Provo. And I don't

[1:37:18] want to do I and emissions are a huge

[1:37:21] thing for me in our city. you know, we

[1:37:22] have the inversion and it's just quality

[1:37:24] of life issues and um I wonder about the

[1:37:28] best use of the land which we need to

[1:37:30] figure out with the economic plan and um

[1:37:33] I do think the water solutions brilliant

[1:37:36] with the silver water and stuff. I mean,

[1:37:37] I'm not as worried about that. Um

[1:37:41] but on the as things scale, you know,

[1:37:44] that's kind of an on and on,

[1:37:47] but yeah, that's where I stand. Any more

[1:37:49] comments? Councelor Garrett,

[1:37:51] >> having said all of that or heard all of

[1:37:53] that, relative to priorities for Provo

[1:37:56] City's economic development, um I I do

[1:37:59] feel encouraged by the progress that

[1:38:01] data centers are making relative to the

[1:38:04] environment. We talked about the closed

[1:38:06] loop water system, the use of silver

[1:38:09] water and I I feel that there is uh is

[1:38:13] that they're moving in the right

[1:38:14] direction that there's a future and and

[1:38:17] that we haven't heard the end of data

[1:38:19] centers. Uh I do um agree that we want

[1:38:24] to see what's best for Provo in this

[1:38:27] site, but I feel encouraged that the the

[1:38:30] data centers in general are making good

[1:38:32] progress with respect to the

[1:38:33] environment. Councelor

[1:38:39] Whipple,

[1:38:41] >> I had a lot of different questions um

[1:38:45] based on conversations that I have with

[1:38:47] constituents, but given the general vibe

[1:38:52] of the council, I don't know that it's

[1:38:53] necessary to to even go into those right

[1:38:56] now. I'm grateful to the developers for coming and working

[1:39:04] with us and trying to propose this. Um

[1:39:10] there there are only a few places within

[1:39:12] the city where something like this could

[1:39:14] happen. This is one of them. Maybe down

[1:39:17] Iron could be another.

[1:39:20] um

[1:39:23] this one because we're already in

[1:39:25] proximity to hotels, to an elementary

[1:39:28] school, things like that makes some

[1:39:30] hesitation for me. But um it's it's

[1:39:35] you're in the ballpark, right? So that's

[1:39:38] good.

[1:39:41] And I've tried to be really careful to

[1:39:44] recognize my own biases that I have

[1:39:48] against data centers. AI generally I my

[1:39:52] information should not come solely from

[1:39:54] watching Silicon Valley, right? That's

[1:39:56] not appropriate. But um

[1:40:00] I I my concerns would be like on the

[1:40:05] closed loop water system where has this

[1:40:07] been deployed before with what success

[1:40:09] on what scale right because I know there

[1:40:12] are these technologies but I don't know

[1:40:14] if they've been implemented on the same

[1:40:16] scale that you're looking at for this

[1:40:18] program things like that um which we'll

[1:40:22] probably have those more in-depth

[1:40:24] conversations again later but I don't

[1:40:25] think it's necessary to do it tonight

[1:40:27] but Thank you very much.

[1:40:32] » All right, we'll take a vote on the

[1:40:33] implied motion.

[1:40:36] » Councelor Bogdan,

[1:40:38] >> no.

[1:40:39] >> Councelor Hoben,

[1:40:42] >> no.

[1:40:43] >> Councelor Whipple,

[1:40:44] >> no.

[1:40:45] >> Councelor Garrett,

[1:40:46] >> no.

[1:40:46] >> Councelor McCay, no. Councelor

[1:40:48] Christensen,

[1:40:49] >> no.

[1:40:50] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[1:40:52] >> no.

[1:40:53] >> So that does not pass 70.

[1:40:57] If there is no objection, we will now

[1:40:58] adjourn the provisal council by

[1:41:00] unanimous

Provo City Council Meeting | March 10, 2026

Transcript