[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