[0:00] Okay, we got the thumbs up that we're

[0:01] ready to go in city council meeting,

[0:04] Spanish Fork City, uh, August 18th,

[0:06] 2026. Thank you all for coming in person

[0:10] and online all over watching our

[0:12] meeting. We appreciate the

[0:13] participation. Um, we'll start like we

[0:16] always do in Spanish Fork with a prayer

[0:19] and motivational message given by

[0:21] Councilman Oiler and then the pledge led

[0:24] by Councilman Harden. Councilman Oiler.

[0:26] >> Thank you, Mayor. I'll pray. Our

[0:30] father in heaven, we gather tonight in

[0:32] this council meeting and give gratitude.

[0:34] for

[0:37] the community in which we live. We're so

[0:39] grateful, Father, for those around us

[0:41] that that serve and do good and help

[0:44] those that are in need. Father, we're

[0:46] especially grateful for our first

[0:48] responders and ask that would continue

[0:50] to bless and protect them. and we're

[0:54] grateful for what they do to to keep us

[0:56] safe and to help us in times of need.

[0:59] Father, we recognize

[1:01] the blessing it is to live in the United

[1:05] States and we are so thankful for the

[1:07] freedoms we enjoy and ask that thou

[1:09] would protect

[1:12] those men and women that serve to

[1:14] maintain and preserve those freedoms.

[1:17] We're so thankful for them and their

[1:18] families.

[1:21] Father, we recognize the importance of

[1:22] the decisions that we'll make tonight as

[1:24] we discuss the needs and concerns and

[1:28] issues facing Spanish Fork. And we ask

[1:32] that thou would guide our thoughts and

[1:35] give us the direction that we need to

[1:37] make the appropriate

[1:39] and correct decisions that will benefit

[1:43] those that live within Spanish Fork.

[1:45] We're so grateful that we live where we

[1:46] do and enjoy the beauties around us.

[1:50] Father, guide and direct us. And we pray

[1:52] for these things in the name of Jesus

[1:54] Christ. Amen.

[1:55] >> Amen.

[1:57] >> Would the audience please rise and say

[1:58] the pledge with me?

[2:02] » I aliance to the flag of the United

[2:06] States of America and to the republic

[2:08] for which it stands. One nation under

[2:11] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[2:14] justice for all.

[2:19] Thank you everyone. We appreciate that.

[2:20] We have a couple of public hearings on

[2:22] the agenda tonight. We'll just kind of

[2:24] let you know from the beginning here

[2:25] that we'll probably get to those.

[2:27] There's a few of them tonight, but we'll

[2:29] probably get to those around the 6:15

[2:32] 620 6:15 to 6:30 mark. So, just just uh

[2:36] if you can kind of think about that. Got

[2:38] a couple other issues to get through uh

[2:40] as well. Um the third item on our agenda

[2:43] right now is public comments. Again,

[2:45] this isn't the section for public

[2:47] hearing. If there's a public hearing

[2:49] item uh on the agenda, uh that'll be uh

[2:53] that'll be listed on the agenda if you

[2:55] have it. But this is a section uh that's

[2:57] always at our council meetings of public

[2:59] comment. So, those that would like to

[3:01] come up and address the mayor and

[3:02] counsel for something not on the agenda

[3:05] or uh any issue maybe in your street or whatever it may be, this is the time

[3:09] that you can come up and address the

[3:11] mayor and counsel. And uh we'll have a

[3:14] threeminut timer up there that Jordan,

[3:16] you're running this. Uh so both sides,

[3:19] you can kind of see that. That'll be the

[3:21] same thing during the the public hearing

[3:22] section as well. But uh this is a time

[3:24] now for public comment for anybody that

[3:26] would like to come up and address the

[3:28] mayor and council on a general issue.

[3:31] You're more than welcome to.

[3:36] com

[3:44] » when we discuss it. Yep. When we get to

[3:46] that item. Yep. Good question. Thank

[3:48] you. Yep. Anybody else for general

[3:51] public comment?

[3:55] Okay. Seeing none, we'll go to the next

[3:59] part of the agenda. Item number four,

[4:01] council comments. This is where the

[4:03] council reports uh from the uh the

[4:07] committees, the boards that we sit on

[4:08] and and what's happened since last

[4:10] council meeting. Um I don't have any

[4:13] stock shows that happened since between

[4:15] the last meeting and here. So I don't

[4:17] have any of those pictures and stuff. Uh

[4:19] but uh any uh council comments, we

[4:22] typically go from one side to the other.

[4:24] This time we're going to switch it up a

[4:25] little bit and start with Councilman

[4:26] Oiler in the middle and then we'll move

[4:28] this way and then we'll get back to

[4:30] Councilman Tuk and end at Councilman

[4:32] Carden. Is that okay?

[4:34] >> Yep, that works.

[4:34] >> Councilman Oiler.

[4:35] >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I recognize

[4:37] there are people here for other things,

[4:39] so I'll keep my council comments short.

[4:41] I did have my animal shelter board

[4:43] meeting this past week and just wanted

[4:45] to report back that the animal shelter

[4:47] has worked out an agreement with the

[4:50] Utah County Attorney attorney's Office

[4:53] Civil Division to represent the animal

[4:56] shelter on any future legal matters that we seem or deem necessary. So, just

[5:01] wanted to make everyone aware of that.

[5:03] That's all I've got. Mayor,

[5:05] >> good. Thank you, Councilman Oyer.

[5:06] Councilwoman Beck,

[5:08] >> I do not have anything tonight. Thank

[5:09] you. Okay, Councilman Marshall,

[5:11] >> just one. Um, school's starting up here

[5:13] pretty soon. The sun's getting in in a

[5:16] kind of a bad spot. Please be safe when

[5:18] you're driving your kids to school in

[5:20] the morning. Um, it's I'm always shocked

[5:24] at the speed we drive on our city

[5:26] streets. And while there's this many

[5:27] people here, I can preach a little bit.

[5:29] Um, so thanks for coming. Um, and slow

[5:32] down. That's it for me.

[5:33] >> Perfect. Thank you, Councilman Marshall.

[5:35] Councilman Tuk.

[5:37] >> Thank you, Mayor. Just one item of

[5:39] business from me this evening. I'd like

[5:40] to welcome up to the front our president

[5:42] and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce in

[5:44] Spanish Fork and Salem. That is Kathleen

[5:46] Levit for a couple announcements.

[5:58] » Um to save time, I'll just talk about

[6:00] the upcoming events of over the next

[6:03] couple of weeks for the business

[6:05] community. On Thursday of this week, the

[6:08] 20th, we'll be having our new networking

[6:11] lunchon at the Hampton Inn. Um, I'm

[6:14] actually very excited for this one. We

[6:16] have Gunther's Heating and Air

[6:18] Conditioning, teaching us about um how

[6:20] we can save some money on our power

[6:24] bill. And then we're trying Spitz, uh,

[6:26] the new Mediterranean restaurant in town

[6:29] for the catering. So, it's going to be a

[6:30] fantastic meeting of the minds. Uh then

[6:34] Women in Business is having an ice cream

[6:36] social on August 26th and that'll be at

[6:40] 1:30 PM. Hopefully the women in business

[6:43] can meet while kids are at school and

[6:45] not quite out yet. So we're still trying

[6:47] out some different times and dates for

[6:49] the best meeting spot for our women in

[6:51] business. Um then we have um

[6:57] let's see a ribbon cutting for Stone and

[7:01] Soul Wellness. They're a new business in

[7:04] Canyon Creek Parkway. It's a cold plunge

[7:07] sauna wellness studio. I just actually

[7:09] came from it right now. Beautiful owner,

[7:12] wonderful new space. So, we'll be

[7:14] cutting the ribbon at noon on September

[7:16] 3rd. And last thing, I just wanted to

[7:19] remind everyone, the farmers market is

[7:20] still going strong right here in City

[7:23] Hall parking lot every Saturday morning

[7:25] through the end of October. So, we

[7:27] really do have one of the best farmers

[7:30] markets around. So, please come out and

[7:32] support your local farmers. That's all

[7:33] I've got. Thank you.

[7:34] >> Thanks, Kathleen.

[7:35] >> Did you do the cold plunge?

[7:37] >> No, but I'm going to go back and do it.

[7:40] >> Thank you, Kathleen. And thank you for

[7:42] taking good care of our business

[7:43] community. I attended the farmers market

[7:44] for the first time this past Saturday.

[7:46] It's just right out here uh just west of

[7:48] this building, the parking lot, and it

[7:49] was outstanding. Better every year. Uh

[7:52] so many uh things to consider

[7:54] purchasing, and my wife and I purchased

[7:56] a lot. So, I invite everybody to come

[7:58] check it out for the weeks that are in

[8:01] front of us still. So, that's all I

[8:02] have. Mayor,

[8:03] >> perfect. Thank you, Councilman Tuk. I

[8:05] will say Spitz, I visited Spitz the last

[8:09] week. That was the first time. And they

[8:10] got the Post Malone uh you know,

[8:13] painting in there with the Fiesta Day's

[8:14] rodeo hat. And then they got Jade Romero

[8:18] softball, you know, Spanish Fort Dawn

[8:20] softball in there. I'm like, "Hey, how

[8:22] does the mayor get painted on your

[8:23] wall?" And they said, "That's not going

[8:25] to happen." And so, um, it's pretty

[8:27] cool. There's a lot of good stuff on the

[8:29] walls. So, yeah, good good place.

[8:31] Councilman Carden,

[8:33] >> thank you, Mayor. And at the farmers

[8:35] market, they do have peaches. So, if

[8:36] you're wondering, there are peaches this

[8:38] year. I know there was a worry about

[8:39] that for a while. Um, just a couple

[8:41] thing. The first thing is I was able to

[8:43] meet with the U City Council this last

[8:45] week. It's a group that I get to do and

[8:46] there's a couple alumni in the audience

[8:48] today. So, that's pretty awesome. Um, if

[8:50] you didn't know, our youth city council

[8:52] does an awesome job of vetting things

[8:54] that are happening in the city. Um, also

[8:57] volunteering at a lot of things that

[8:59] happen throughout the city. And one of

[9:00] those things that's getting ready to

[9:01] happen is our harvest moon. Harrah.

[9:03] That'll happen on September 11th. That's

[9:05] a Friday night. I know historically,

[9:07] except for last year, it was done on a

[9:08] Saturday. We're moving it to Friday

[9:10] because we had the food truck round up

[9:12] over in the park just across the street.

[9:14] That'll be from 5 to 8:00 PM. There's a

[9:16] couple of uh performances that'll be

[9:18] done, some art, some activities, food

[9:21] truck vendors, other vendors. So, please

[9:23] come check that out if you have time.

[9:25] The other thing that I wanted to talk

[9:26] about with the arts council is the

[9:28] corral is getting ready to start. So, if

[9:30] you have music talent or you just want

[9:32] to go hang out with people who may have

[9:34] that talent, um they are starting on

[9:37] August 25th at 7 to 9:00 p.m. in the

[9:40] Maple Mountain High School choir room

[9:42] and they will take singers of all um

[9:45] levels is what they said. So, that's all

[9:47] I have here. You can move your lips and

[9:49] get away with it is what they're saying.

[9:51] >> They will teach you. Perfect. Thank you,

[9:53] Councilman Carden. Uh I don't have

[9:55] anything besides just what Councilman

[9:56] Marshall said. um you know this morning

[9:59] getting kids uh to and from school just

[10:02] a busy busy time and and there's no good

[10:04] way there's no easy way uh to get to and

[10:07] from any school. The solution is not to

[10:10] make bigger roads to make people go

[10:11] faster. It's just it's just tough uh

[10:14] every school. So let's let's be safe.

[10:16] Thank you to Chief the the crossing

[10:18] guards that are keeping everybody safe

[10:21] and directing them. Let's let's be

[10:23] respectful there, too. And make sure to

[10:25] wave uh at them with all five fingers uh

[10:28] as they're as they're directing you and telling you where to go so we can we

[10:32] can get kids to and from school safe.

[10:34] So, back in session. Thank you, Nebo

[10:36] School District, for your partnership

[10:38] and all the teachers that are willing to take on all of our kids, especially

[10:42] the menden hall kids. Uh it's it's much

[10:45] appreciated. So, uh, item number five,

[10:47] now that council comments are over,

[10:49] staff reports, uh, manager parents,

[10:52] anything from the staff previous?

[10:55] >> Yeah, a couple of staff reports. We'll

[10:56] look to, uh, Bronco, our new parks and

[10:59] rec director, he's got, I think, two.

[11:00] And then Jared, our public works

[11:02] assistant

[11:04] director, has one.

[11:06] >> Whichever you like.

[11:07] >> Right there. Just make sure you turn

[11:08] your mic on.

[11:11] >> I just want to give you a couple

[11:12] updates. uh some projects going on in

[11:14] the parks and recreation department. Uh

[11:16] the first off is the Cany view park pond

[11:18] restoration project. And I gave Jack uh

[11:21] Jordan, you have the photos. Did Jack

[11:22] provide you with a couple photos? That's

[11:24] okay. So many of you have either smelt

[11:26] or seen or both. Canyon View Pond has

[11:28] been drained. We drained it uh the week

[11:29] after Fiesta Days and uh are looking we

[11:33] got about $400,000 worth of grants

[11:35] through the U.org or and the uh

[11:38] foundations and we're looking to go out

[11:41] to bid and uh start digging early

[11:45] October. Our goal is to take 8 to 10

[11:48] feet out and dredge it and uh sh up the

[11:52] southside with some landscape rocks so

[11:54] kids can stand on there and fish. It's

[11:56] been a challenge for them to fish and

[11:57] push some clay in there and level that

[11:58] bank out. We'll have some ADA

[12:02] access on the north side. So, you'll

[12:04] have about 20 feet of concrete and a

[12:05] driveway that goes up to the pond on the

[12:08] north side. And there will be good

[12:09] fishing uh all the way around. We'll

[12:12] extend the ADA dock on the east side. Uh

[12:14] we ran into a couple challenges. There's

[12:16] quite a few springs that are coming up

[12:17] through there. So, we got to work

[12:18] through that before we we we go any

[12:20] further with the project. We're pretty

[12:22] excited about it. Uh at the fairgrounds,

[12:24] many of you probably seen that it's

[12:26] looking a little barren. Uh the Willie

[12:28] Barn was torn down. Uh they're supposed

[12:30] to be putting in the new footings for

[12:32] the new indoor arena this week. The uh

[12:35] stall barns on the east side of the high

[12:37] shop rail have been torn down as well as

[12:39] the asphalt uh for that uh leisure grass

[12:44] area that we're going to put in for

[12:45] those that come down to visit. But we're

[12:47] our goal really is to try not to be

[12:50] super intrusive for those that have used

[12:51] our amenities that are driving through

[12:53] or some of the other shows that have

[12:54] come through while we're doing this

[12:55] project. But we're anticipating that

[12:57] being completed uh the beginning of

[12:59] April.

[13:02] » Any questions?

[13:04] >> I like it.

[13:06] >> Thank you.

[13:06] >> I think the video almost put the smell

[13:08] through through the TVs and phones. It was pretty bad. Is it It's getting

[13:13] better.

[13:14] >> Yeah.

[13:14] >> Bronco, can you remind me who which

[13:16] department was it that helped with the

[13:18] grant for the funding of the Canyon View

[13:19] Park?

[13:20] >> Uh it was a it was a lot of hands in on

[13:22] that. So Carson Hardy was a was the one

[13:25] who wrote the grants. Um Bart Moral was

[13:28] also played a played a huge role in that

[13:30] as well.

[13:30] >> And who who provided the grant? Who did

[13:32] we get that through?

[13:33] >> So the Uorg is the Utah Outdoor

[13:35] Recreation Grant. Okay.

[13:37] >> And that's provided by we're working

[13:38] directly with the Division of Wildlife

[13:40] Management on that. The other was the

[13:41] water restoration initiative. That's

[13:43] another state grant.

[13:45] >> Yeah, that's exciting. I know a lot of

[13:46] youth love to fish in the Canyon View

[13:48] pond. So that'll be great. Yeah, I've

[13:50] been wanting to do this since uh I

[13:52] started with the city. In fact, I have

[13:53] some things I've written down trying to

[13:55] work with them and it's finally coming

[13:56] together. So, I'm really excited about

[13:57] that project.

[13:59] >> How do you pull the pond be once

[14:00] finished roughly throughout? Will it be

[14:02] like 10 feet or

[14:04] >> Our goal is at the at the greatest depth

[14:06] is 10 feet. I don't know that that will

[14:08] be the case just because of some of

[14:09] those springs that are coming up through

[14:10] we got to work around, but that's our

[14:12] goal is 8 to 10 feet at the deepest. the

[14:14] whale and the festival of lights will

[14:15] finally be able to swim.

[14:18] >> Won't be stranded.

[14:19] >> But with that, if you're thinking of

[14:21] swimming in there, I don't think that's the idea, right? It's still just

[14:25] for fish to swim in.

[14:26] >> Yes. Yeah, there will be no swimming.

[14:29] Um, it is tempting to go in there right

[14:31] now, but please stay please stay away

[14:33] from the area. It's it's it's pretty

[14:35] mucky. It stinks anyway, so you

[14:37] shouldn't go down there.

[14:40] >> Just go up the road to the reservoir.

[14:42] That's a nice beach, place to fish, and

[14:45] a place to swim if if you need it.

[14:50] Or we got a great new rec center. Thank

[14:52] you, Bronco. Anything else?

[14:54] >> We got one from Corey and then I forgot.

[14:56] Uh Bon has a staff report as well.

[14:57] Sorry. One from Jared. Go ahead, Jared.

[15:01] >> Mic's off.

[15:04] >> Oh, sorry. There it is. You've been down

[15:06] to 900 North, 1,00 north, 200 East. You

[15:10] can see that there's some lane closures

[15:11] and a pipe along the ground. We're

[15:13] rerouting the sewer because we're

[15:15] relining the 24-in line

[15:18] uh that runs to the sewer plant that

[15:20] goes down 200 east underneath the

[15:22] freeway. That line's been deteriorating.

[15:24] So, it's been on the list to be redone.

[15:26] And we're lining the pipe and when we're

[15:29] done, the pipe will be good for another

[15:31] 50 years.

[15:33] Uh the good news is the project's almost

[15:35] complete and the traffic control will be

[15:37] done by the end of next week.

[15:40] I don't know if there's any questions,

[15:41] but that's what that project is.

[15:44] >> I think that's been a headache for a lot

[15:46] of people as they travel on 10th or

[15:48] second trying to get over to the that

[15:49] area, but um really extending the life

[15:52] of that sewer line, which would be an

[15:54] impossible project to dig up uh right

[15:57] because of uh where it goes and what

[15:59] it's underneath. be impossible to do it

[16:02] underneath I-15, but uh we found that

[16:05] lining the projects increases the

[16:07] lifespan of the project, but we don't

[16:08] tear up the roads. Um it's less

[16:12] intrusive on the traffic. We just do

[16:14] lane closures instead of full closures.

[16:16] >> It's an interesting concept, right? You

[16:18] still have some some intrusion and it's

[16:19] still an annoyance for people, but the

[16:22] amount of annoyance is significantly

[16:23] less and the cost is is much less. So,

[16:25] we're we're really grateful and proud of

[16:27] that project. And then Von touch on the amicus brief.

[16:32] >> Yeah, amicus brief. There's an impact

[16:34] fee case that uh was happening in Utah.

[16:36] It's Stanley versus Salt Lake City. Um

[16:39] they alleged that the impact fees that

[16:41] they were required to pay weren't

[16:43] authorized under the the impact fee

[16:47] facilities plan at the time that they

[16:49] were charged or that they were spent on

[16:51] projects later. Um the district court

[16:54] found for the city and said that the

[16:57] impact fees could be spent on projects

[17:00] that are in later versions of the impact

[17:02] fee facilities plan not that frozen in

[17:04] time list uh when they paid their their

[17:07] fees. So they appealed the the to the

[17:10] appellet courts and the league of cities

[17:13] and towns has urged an amicus brief to

[17:15] be filed and so several cities are are

[17:18] joining that. Provo city drafted it in

[17:20] support of Salt Lake City. Um, basically

[17:23] the the argument is that cities should

[17:25] be able to spend their impact fees on

[17:27] projects as long as they're in the same

[17:29] infrastructure category. For example,

[17:31] sewer impact fees on sewer projects

[17:34] under today's current impact fee

[17:36] facilities plan, not the one six years

[17:38] ago whenever the fees were paid. So that

[17:41] and that's that's needful because that

[17:44] recognizes that growth might not always

[17:46] happen while we expect it to or projects

[17:48] may become more costly and some may be

[17:51] less needful and some may appear on the project list. Technology changes

[17:56] a lot of reasons why the list of

[17:58] projects on the impact fee facilities

[17:59] plan will change over the years. So

[18:02] we're supporting Provo and Salt Lake

[18:03] City in in that argument

[18:06] if you're unless you feel otherwise.

[18:10] questions for Vaughn in joining that.

[18:13] >> I think the only question I have is is

[18:15] it amicus or amikas?

[18:17] >> I've heard amikas, but that's

[18:18] >> I've heard.

[18:19] >> I was the one who lost

[18:20] >> tomato tomato

[18:21] >> like anyone knows what you're talking

[18:23] about.

[18:23] >> It's actually in some meetings I've been

[18:25] in that's been the the whole topic of

[18:28] discussion is about is it amicus or amus

[18:30] not the issue which is kind of goofy but

[18:33] >> it's a big deal and and appreciate Bon

[18:35] reviewing that today. Okay. I think you

[18:37] only got it today in terms of the the

[18:38] legal argument, but it's a good

[18:40] framework and uh it the fact pattern I

[18:43] think fits a lot of how we do what we

[18:45] do. So, it's it's directly relative to how we operate.

[18:50] >> And that's it. Mayor,

[18:51] >> you'll hear us say this. It's said um

[18:54] closer to the state's legislative

[18:57] session all the time, but uh I think

[18:58] that's a good example of one-size

[19:00] misfits all with with cities. right

[19:02] here. We are signing a an amikas brief

[19:05] with Salt Lake City and and and Provo

[19:08] and in ways that are like, hey, you

[19:10] know, cities operate differently and and

[19:13] uh and have some similarities, but but

[19:15] also are unique in different ways, too.

[19:17] So, I think that's a that's a good good

[19:20] point there.

[19:22] >> And not in staff reports, but maybe just

[19:24] to to recognize and this is I think the

[19:27] first time since we've been in this

[19:28] space that we're actually using the

[19:29] overflow room. Uh, and so unbeknownst to

[19:32] you, you might not be seeing it, but

[19:34] there's probably now some 30 or 40

[19:37] people that are that are seated in the heritage room. They're watching this

[19:40] there. Um, and I want to make sure that

[19:43] they they recognize that we know they're

[19:45] in there. And and as we go through the

[19:47] couple of public hearings, there may be

[19:48] some people that we need to get from

[19:50] over there into here, which is why we

[19:51] have those in part why we have those

[19:53] seats reserved there on the front row.

[19:56] So yeah, you guys that are out in the

[19:57] hallway, if you want to have a seat,

[19:58] there is I think 120 115 seats in that

[20:02] space over there that they can sit in as

[20:04] well.

[20:04] >> Stadium seating. Pull it out. Yeah, the

[20:07] seats are out.

[20:08] >> All right. So yeah, uh if you didn't

[20:09] hear that, there's a heritage room right

[20:11] next to here that that is streaming this

[20:14] as well. So if you can't find a spot in

[20:15] here or a spot in the hallway, please join us in there. And uh as we

[20:19] get closer to the public hearing that

[20:21] you might be here for uh we'll we'll

[20:23] make sure you you you get your spot in

[20:25] the queue and come in. Uh okay, thank

[20:28] you for that. Uh Seth, anything else?

[20:30] Staff reports. That's what we wanted to

[20:32] cover there. Okay. Uh item six is the

[20:35] consent items. We've got uh one, two,

[20:38] three, four, It looks like consent items. Uh

[20:44] council minutes of last meeting. Utah

[20:46] County Tourism Tax Advisory Board Grant,

[20:49] FAA Federal Contract Tower Reimburseable

[20:52] Agreement, and HOA West LLC Vista View Fiber Service Agreement. Any

[20:58] questions on those consent items from

[21:00] the council?

[21:02] >> If not, I'd entertain a motion to

[21:03] approve the consent items.

[21:05] >> So, move.

[21:07] >> Motion made by Councilwoman Beck.

[21:09] >> Second.

[21:09] by Councilman Marshall. All in

[21:11] favor say yes.

[21:12] >> Yes.

[21:13] >> Consent items have been approved. That

[21:15] takes us to the public hearings uh of

[21:17] tonight. We've got a few of them. Um we

[21:20] uh uh I think maybe it's a good a good

[21:24] practice that some some of you are

[21:26] probably here for a public hearing that

[21:28] has to do with land use on the east side

[21:30] of town. I believe that was in in front

[21:32] of our uh planning commission just a

[21:35] couple of weeks ago. And so maybe that's

[21:37] a good a good practice run uh for our

[21:39] public hearings tonight. Many of you

[21:41] probably here for the the other public

[21:43] hearing that deals modifying Title 15.

[21:47] There's a couple of those tonight, but

[21:48] you're probably here for for the one

[21:50] that has to do with with power

[21:52] generation and and data centers. Uh the

[21:56] first one that we'll get to 7.2

[21:58] uh is an ordinance to amend Dave, if

[22:01] you're okay with getting to that one. Is

[22:03] that all right?

[22:04] >> Okay. Ordinance to amend the zoning map

[22:07] to change the zoning of a property to RR

[22:10] and R112 to C2 located approximately 400

[22:13] North Spanish Fork Parkway. I guess I

[22:15] should have checked. Maybe the

[22:16] applicant's not here for that. Is the

[22:20] We're covered. Okay, applicant's here.

[22:21] Perfect. Okay. Um, so Dave, if you'll

[22:25] excuse me, kind of this is a spot that I

[22:27] want to just maybe review our our public

[22:30] hearing uh um agenda or excuse me, our our

[22:35] rules of of our public hearings in

[22:38] Spanish Fork. And if if these need

[22:40] repeat, we can we can do this again um

[22:44] uh at the next public hearing. But let

[22:47] me just run through these really quick.

[22:50] Uh so so we all know the the rules that

[22:53] we're playing by in in our city council

[22:55] meeting. Um the first one speaker uh

[22:58] limited to three minutes each and we'll

[23:00] see a timer up there. So that'll be up

[23:02] there and and possibly one behind us. So

[23:04] you you'll be able to see it at that

[23:06] time. If when you reach three minutes on

[23:09] your on your uh comment, please please

[23:12] try to wrap it up. Uh you know, finish

[23:14] that sentence. If there's anything else

[23:16] that you'd like to say, please submit it

[23:18] to us in in writing. Uh we'll we'll

[23:21] receive that and take it under

[23:22] consideration. Um if you hear your

[23:24] comment maybe said, uh please uh please,

[23:28] you know, uh just count that as as we've

[23:30] heard the comment. Uh and so there's no

[23:32] need to repeat what what somebody else

[23:35] has said. Um we are taking notes up here

[23:38] and so during a public uh hearing

[23:40] section, you won't see us engage. If you

[23:43] ask us a question, we'll be writing that

[23:45] down. If you ask the applicant a

[23:46] question, you we'll be writing that

[23:48] down. And if you ask the city staff,

[23:50] we'll be writing that down as well. But

[23:52] so we don't eat up your your three

[23:54] minutes, we we won't um we won't answer

[23:56] those while we're talking. Um really

[23:59] proud of this part in Spanish fork, but

[24:01] shouting, yelling, clapping, not

[24:03] allowed. Either in disagreement or

[24:05] agreement with what somebody's saying.

[24:07] We want to hear from everybody and we

[24:09] don't want anybody feeling intimidated

[24:11] about getting up here and speaking one

[24:13] way or the other. So, please don't don't

[24:15] cheer or boo or or clap or anything. We want to hear from everybody while we

[24:19] have a a public hearing going on and we

[24:22] want everybody to be comfortable that

[24:23] way in speaking to us. Um, this is a

[24:26] limited public forum. So, you're you're

[24:28] you are free to address the council. Try

[24:31] to try to not address each other. Uh

[24:33] that could maybe be something that you do outside or on your own time. Um

[24:39] and then please uh when you get up uh to

[24:41] the mic in our public hearing, state

[24:42] your name and where you're from. We've

[24:45] got uh because we've got so many uh here

[24:48] for a public hearing tonight, we'll have

[24:49] a different system that we'll ask you to

[24:51] have a QR code and and and maybe that's

[24:54] so everybody's not standing up in line

[24:57] waiting to speak to us, but you can sit

[24:59] comfortably and then we'll call you when

[25:00] it's your time to come up. But we'll try

[25:02] to fill these seats. These front seats

[25:04] here are reserved for for maybe the next

[25:06] three or four that are going to be the the people to speak and we'll let

[25:09] you know your name so you can get up

[25:11] there and and uh sit down comfortably

[25:14] until it's time to come up. Um and like

[25:16] I said, if you can name and the city

[25:18] you're from, uh then uh that would be

[25:20] great so we get that on the on the

[25:22] record for you tonight. Okay, public

[25:24] hearing. Uh Dave, before we go to a

[25:28] public hearing, please uh if you could

[25:29] brief us on 7.2. too. Mr. Mayor, quick

[25:32] handoff to Mr. Snyder. Perfect. Mr.

[25:36] Snyder. Thank you. There he is.

[25:42] » Uh I'm a little more comfortable right

[25:44] here. Thank you.

[25:46] >> Uh this was reviewed by the planning

[25:48] commission recently um at their August

[25:51] meeting, August 5th. Um the request is a

[25:53] zoning map amendment. Um, this is on the

[25:56] east side of town at the corner of 400

[25:59] North and Spanish Fork Parkway. Let's go

[26:01] to the next slide.

[26:03] Uh, you can see the area that's

[26:05] highlighted. Um, it's just the north

[26:08] portion of the property that abut

[26:10] Spanish Fork Parkway. The, uh, south of

[26:13] it is already zoned R12 and will remain

[26:16] uh, that way. And the applicant is

[26:18] looking to change the zoning um, on the

[26:21] north half to commercial. On the right

[26:24] you see the general plan. It does

[26:26] embrace uh some type of commercial use

[26:28] uh at the intersection and along 400

[26:31] North. Let's go to the next slide.

[26:34] So once again, this is the request.

[26:35] They're taking uh portions of property

[26:37] from the RR, which is rural residential,

[26:41] and then a a portion 75 ft of the R112

[26:45] um to general commercial C2. Let's go to

[26:48] the next slide.

[26:49] Um this here is conceptual only. It was

[26:53] provided by the applicant um for

[26:56] reference. And so you can see the south

[26:58] half which is the right side of the

[27:00] screen that would still be developed in

[27:02] larger single family uh residential lots

[27:05] similar to what's uh surrounding it. And

[27:08] then the north portion um the applicants

[27:11] hoping to expand the commercial in the

[27:13] area um which is just to the north where

[27:16] the Harmons is is proposed to be

[27:18] located. Um let's go to the next slide.

[27:22] This was the recommendation from the

[27:24] planning commission. They unanimous

[27:27] unanimously, excuse me, uh recommended

[27:29] approval with a 60 vote. Um based on

[27:32] these findings that you see here, in

[27:34] their opinion, it was consistent with

[27:36] the general plan designation of

[27:37] commercial. Um it'll provide for

[27:40] commercial uses at an important and

[27:41] highly visible intersection. Um and that

[27:44] the proposal will enhance commercial

[27:46] uses and service in in the area. Uh and

[27:48] then lastly that the proposal will

[27:51] promote conveniently located commercial

[27:53] uses and services. Um we did hold a

[27:55] public uh hearing at the planning

[27:58] commission. We did have a number of the

[28:00] adjoining property owners um get up and

[28:02] share their comments. Um those are

[28:04] listed there in your staff report. Some

[28:06] of the things we did did hear um is the

[28:10] need for commercial services. U some

[28:12] felt this would be a beneficial use

[28:14] under the power lines that bisect the

[28:16] property. Um, others were in favor of

[28:18] commercial and not town homes a number

[28:21] of years ago. Um, there was a proposal

[28:24] for town homes on the property which was not wellreceived. Uh, we did

[28:28] hear some concerns from the neighbors

[28:30] about potential for headlights in the

[28:32] drive-thru, noise from the drive-thru,

[28:35] uh, traffic needed intersection

[28:37] improvements and road improvements um,

[28:39] along Spanish Fork Parkway. Um, any

[28:43] questions for staff at this time?

[28:47] Questions for Mr. Snyder.

[28:48] >> Brandon, I have one quick question. On

[28:50] that east side of where they're going to

[28:52] go commercial on the zoning map, would

[28:54] they need to put up a masonry fence

[28:56] since that's not zoned yet or would they

[28:59] have to wait to see what happens there?

[29:00] What would that look like?

[29:02] >> Sorry, on the east side.

[29:04] >> So, east is north on this

[29:06] >> whating

[29:08] the field. East is never north.

[29:11] >> It might be up.

[29:12] >> Hey, engineer speak. Be quiet.

[29:14] >> Oh, that's true.

[29:15] I see the masonry wall come into play is

[29:18] to the south where it abuts the three

[29:20] residential lots.

[29:21] >> So if the property on map north

[29:26] >> Thank you.

[29:27] >> would um if it went residential, let's

[29:30] say it went R12, which is in the general

[29:32] plan kind of in the area right now,

[29:34] would the commercial be required to

[29:35] build a fence at that point or what

[29:37] would that look like? um at this point.

[29:40] So, this is just conceptual. Those

[29:41] details we'd work out with the site plan

[29:43] and the subdivision plat, but in their

[29:45] current proposal, um there's a trail

[29:48] that's uh along Spanish Parkway as well

[29:50] as 400 North and then a trail that

[29:53] follows the power line corridor. And so,

[29:56] their current proposal in this concept

[29:58] is that trail would be on the east

[30:01] property line.

[30:03] >> Um but we can definitely make note of of

[30:05] that. Uh generally commercial at budding

[30:08] residential you do have a a landscape

[30:10] buffer with a masonry wall.

[30:13] >> So your question is about timing.

[30:14] >> Yeah because it's not zoned yet, right?

[30:16] It's RR right now. I don't know when and

[30:19] if that will change. I just don't know

[30:21] who would pay for that if it went

[30:24] residential. That's my question. I guess

[30:25] I probably asked it poorly.

[30:27] >> Council, I mean I I'll maybe add to what

[30:30] Brandon shared. Our ordinance would not

[30:32] require today a wall to be constructed

[30:34] there. And it would be next to

[30:37] impossible in the future to go back to a

[30:40] property owner that had developed

[30:42] sometime prior to

[30:45] a neighboring property developing and

[30:47] ask them to do something like build that

[30:48] wall.

[30:49] >> So if we wanted it, we would have to

[30:51] hold the new zone, whoever zoned it at

[30:54] that point to build that fence if that's

[30:56] what we wanted,

[30:57] >> which is somewhat common. Yeah. To do

[30:58] that. I'll also mention that the

[31:02] configuration of the general plan is

[31:03] such that at least part of that property

[31:05] to the east conceivably could develop

[31:07] non-residentially.

[31:08] >> Correct.

[31:09] >> Okay. Thank you,

[31:11] >> Brad. And I have a question for you

[31:13] about this. So just west of this

[31:15] proposed development on the 2550 East

[31:18] road right there that goes and you know

[31:20] if you were continue it be in front of

[31:21] the high school Maple Mountain High

[31:22] School right now on the corner there. So

[31:24] if we're looking at the map on the

[31:25] bottom right uh it curves you know you

[31:28] have to it's kind of dangerous in my

[31:30] opinion but will this development uh

[31:32] will finish a sidewalk and make it

[31:34] straight? Will it take out that curve

[31:36] that intersection? Do you know what I'm

[31:38] talking about?

[31:39] I don't have a pointer, but you're

[31:41] talking the far right side of the

[31:43] screen. Yep.

[31:43] >> Uh that was a question that was raised

[31:45] in the public hearing and I'll let Jared

[31:48] uh speak as as uh he sees fit to

[31:51] clarify, but um improvements happen as

[31:54] development occurs. And so if the uh

[31:57] developer were to phase it and start at

[31:59] the north end um with the commercial,

[32:01] then those improvements would go in um

[32:04] and then as the subdivision goes in,

[32:07] those improvements would then be

[32:08] completed. That was a concern that was

[32:11] shared with one of the neighbors as far

[32:12] as uh it'd be nice to try and get all

[32:14] the improvements on the east side of

[32:16] Spanish Fork Parkway in at once. Um but

[32:19] ultimately that happens as development

[32:21] occurs unless there's some other

[32:23] direction by the council.

[32:24] >> Okay, good. Yeah, I would be in favor of

[32:26] that too. So

[32:26] >> I would also be in favor of like

[32:28] finishing that whole road. I think it

[32:29] would be really dangerous to leave it

[32:31] open.

[32:32] >> Stacy, are you talking about the west

[32:33] side as well?

[32:35] >> Are you just talking about the

[32:36] development? Yeah. Let me make sure I'm

[32:38] understanding where you're are you

[32:39] talking on Spanish Parkway or are you

[32:41] talking on

[32:42] >> Yeah. Spanish Parkway will be that will

[32:44] be approved improved

[32:47] >> the whole piece that's outlined right

[32:49] there. Even the residential.

[32:51] >> Yeah. Yeah. It just may come with it may

[32:54] be phased, but I think you can talk with

[32:56] the applicant about not phasing it.

[32:58] >> Okay.

[33:00] Make sure I'm clear. Stacy, you're

[33:02] talking about both the east and the west

[33:05] side of Spanish park. No,

[33:07] >> no.

[33:09] Just the east side. So,

[33:14] >> the west side currently has

[33:15] >> You guys, we really do know our

[33:16] directions.

[33:17] >> The west side currently has homes. The

[33:18] east side is where we're looking at

[33:20] this.

[33:21] >> So, the west side of the proposed site,

[33:24] but the east side of the street.

[33:26] >> Okay. Thank you.

[33:27] >> Yes.

[33:28] >> Perfect. Well, this is oriented

[33:29] correctly.

[33:30] >> West of the development. That's good

[33:32] pointer.

[33:34] >> Who's driving?

[33:35] >> Jordan is. Good job, Jordan. Takes an

[33:37] accountant to get us straight. So,

[33:40] you're talking about where this pointer

[33:42] is, that side of the road will be you

[33:44] won't fully improve from the the full

[33:46] length of this proposal.

[33:48] >> Yeah. Otherwise, that's going to jut out

[33:50] and then

[33:51] >> it's going to look almost exactly like

[33:53] it does today.

[33:54] >> Yeah.

[33:55] >> It's just in a different jutting

[33:56] location.

[33:57] >> Yeah. Just right on the corner there,

[33:59] too. Just take off that edge.

[34:01] >> Is the applicant here?

[34:02] >> Yeah.

[34:02] >> Wait, before I come, they come up. I

[34:04] have a question.

[34:05] Um, can we go back to the slides,

[34:09] Brandon?

[34:11] So, the proposal is C2 all of this. How

[34:15] do you build residential in that C2

[34:17] zone?

[34:22] » So, the proposal is not for the entire

[34:24] property, it's for the north half.

[34:26] >> So, that that

[34:28] >> that rectangle there is the bottom of

[34:30] the commercial development. And from the

[34:33] rectangle to the south,

[34:36] no changes, but that is part of the

[34:38] overall development.

[34:40] >> There are changes. Right now, it's

[34:42] >> it's

[34:42] >> Sorry, go ahead.

[34:43] >> Oh, go ahead. Sorry. I was just going to

[34:45] say it's taking 75 ft of the north part.

[34:48] I don't if there's a pointer, but um

[34:51] >> I need some pointers. But the the

[34:53] concept will still allow for the

[34:56] remaining southern portion to develop in

[34:58] the R112 which I think it's nine lots

[35:01] shown and that was previously

[35:03] >> when you scroll forward two spots Jordan

[35:06] please

[35:06] >> to the concept

[35:07] >> clip right what just one that is that

[35:09] entire block

[35:11] >> and the commercial property is just the

[35:13] rectangle piece that we're changing

[35:15] zoning wise

[35:16] >> yes all right okay

[35:19] >> now can you go back to the general plan

[35:22] One more.

[35:22] >> A couple more right here.

[35:24] >> So, one of the findings from the

[35:27] planning commission was that it is

[35:28] consistent with the general plan. It

[35:30] doesn't seem consistent with the general

[35:31] plan.

[35:33] >> The planning commission when it was

[35:34] discussed with them, the general plan is

[35:37] a visionary document and so the lines

[35:39] for the general plan are not as static

[35:41] as the zoning district lines are. It's sort of semantics I think on my

[35:46] part, but we hang our hat on that so

[35:48] often that we say it's consistent with

[35:50] the general plan. Part of this is

[35:51] consistent with the general plan. Part

[35:53] of it is not consistent with the general

[35:54] plan.

[35:54] >> That's fair to say. And so when we look

[35:56] at the goals and policies and it

[35:58] encourages

[35:59] um commercial to be on the corner or

[36:02] commercial along hightra corridors. Uh

[36:05] in that regard it is.

[36:06] >> Okay. So they're extending that

[36:07] commercial general plan designation a

[36:09] little bit further to accommodate what

[36:11] they want to do there. Okay. That makes

[36:12] a ton of sense. Thanks.

[36:13] >> And I'll let the applicant speak to it,

[36:14] but I believe some of the reasons for

[36:16] that is just to offset the cost of some

[36:19] of the improvements that are being

[36:20] discussed such as along Spanish Fork

[36:22] Parkway.

[36:24] >> Mr. Mayor,

[36:25] >> yes.

[36:25] >> Maybe just one other thought on road

[36:27] improvements. Spanish city has been

[36:28] holding a certain amount of money to

[36:30] improve the west side of Spanish Fork

[36:32] Parkway along the subdivision frontage,

[36:35] the subdivision that Edge constructed.

[36:37] Boy, I think it was probably close to 10

[36:38] years ago now. Um so I understand that

[36:42] back at that time uh edge provided funds

[36:46] in lie of making those improvements

[36:47] partially so that they could be made in

[36:50] conjunction with development that would

[36:52] happen on the east side and therefore uh

[36:54] improve that portion of the road as

[36:56] well. So at least along that portion of

[37:00] 2550 east again on the west side that

[37:03] absuts that subdivision. We'd expect to

[37:05] see that improved uh at some point in

[37:08] time in concert with the development of

[37:10] this property if that proceeds.

[37:12] >> Dave, how many years ago was that?

[37:14] >> Uh I feel like I can check seems like

[37:18] 10.

[37:19] >> So 10 years costs have gone up. Is that

[37:22] enough to cover how much of

[37:24] >> Very likely not enough to cover all of

[37:26] it?

[37:26] >> We used it in a streets fund, but

[37:30] uh at that point we didn't know exactly

[37:32] how this road did line out. So we didn't

[37:33] want to put the improvements in just to

[37:35] term out. So likely the costs have gone

[37:37] up, but we use them funds elsewhere. So

[37:39] we'll just the city would fund this.

[37:41] Okay.

[37:45] » Any other questions for staff before we

[37:48] invite the applicant up here?

[37:50] Okay.

[37:52] >> Anything you want to add to it? Sorry,

[37:55] we need your name, too.

[37:57] >> Yeah. Uh, my name is Forest Gascoll. I

[37:59] represent the developer here. Um, I'll

[38:02] try to I'll try to touch on the things

[38:04] we talked about, um, as best I can

[38:07] remember them. So, um, our plan right

[38:10] now is to develop the entirety of the

[38:12] property, both the commercial and the

[38:13] residential at the same time. I want to

[38:15] clarify that because I believe in the

[38:17] planning commission meeting what I said

[38:19] might have not sounded like that. So

[38:22] that is our plan. We do want to pl and

[38:25] improve the residential portion at the

[38:27] same time as the commercial. Um so we

[38:29] would do we would improve the entirety

[38:31] of the length of Spanish fork parkway at

[38:33] that time. Um and then yeah, just to

[38:36] brush on the kind of um the slightly

[38:41] misalignment to the zoning and general

[38:43] plan, um the parcel to the east, and I

[38:46] apologize. I'll make sure next time I

[38:48] come in, I turn my map so that north is

[38:50] out.

[38:51] >> We'll get it.

[38:51] >> Um that is owned by Rock Mountain Power.

[38:54] We've had a lot of talks with them

[38:56] obviously with the power line corridor

[38:57] right there. They have told us they have

[38:59] no intention of selling that right now.

[39:01] So while that may be the um the you know

[39:05] the ideal uh general plan designation,

[39:09] we're not able to develop that as

[39:10] commercial uh at least in the

[39:13] foreseeable future. And then we designed

[39:15] our plan kind of around that power

[39:17] corridor power corridor. Um because that

[39:21] takes up a lot of that northern end, we

[39:23] had to kind of push some buildings to

[39:25] the south. And then we're showing four

[39:26] lots. Uh, and that acreage is about what

[39:29] we think it'll take to sort of um to uh

[39:34] be able to afford to improve put in the

[39:36] slip lane that I don't know if it showed

[39:38] up in this packet, but we were talking

[39:40] about in planning commission. There's a

[39:42] turn lane that they want us to put in.

[39:43] We've got to kind of fit it around some

[39:45] existing power lines. So, that's that's

[39:48] kind of how we came up with that um that

[39:52] acreage and that that size. And then

[39:54] yeah, on the residential side, we're

[39:56] just happy to uh do develop it as it is

[40:01] currently zoned and we think that that

[40:03] size lot and that type of street is

[40:06] something that, you know, will be uh

[40:08] that there's a market for in the city.

[40:10] So, we don't plan on asking for anything

[40:12] there. We're just going to develop it as

[40:14] per the current zoning.

[40:16] Um and yeah, that's if you have any

[40:18] questions, I'm happy to answer.

[40:20] >> Forest, you're not phasing this at all.

[40:21] plan on then developing the commercial

[40:23] and the residential at the same time?

[40:26] >> Yeah, we we think the commercial uh

[40:28] there's already, you know, a market for

[40:30] it and we can get moving on that right

[40:31] away. The residential, we're going to

[40:33] plat and with the platting and um and uh

[40:37] separating the lots, we'll do the

[40:39] improvements at that point. Um, we're

[40:41] not I wouldn't say our company I

[40:43] wouldn't consider us home builders, but

[40:45] we um we are developers, so we can do at

[40:47] least the the platting and uh and

[40:50] improving at the beginning.

[40:52] >> You plan on selling the lots or are you

[40:54] going to hire or work with a developer

[40:57] to do all of the building? And

[41:00] >> um

[41:02] at this point I'd say the plan is to

[41:05] probably work with somebody but um we we

[41:07] have done some home building in the past

[41:09] small scale which I'd say this fits. So

[41:12] we're kind of keeping our our options

[41:14] open there.

[41:18] » Any other questions for Forest before we

[41:21] go into public hearing?

[41:23] >> Thank you Forest. Appreciate it. Might

[41:25] have you back up.

[41:26] >> Okay. ought to entertain a motion to go

[41:27] into public hearing for item 7.2, the

[41:30] zoning map change at 400 North Spanish

[41:34] Parkway.

[41:34] >> So second

[41:36] >> motion made by Councilman Oiler, second

[41:38] by Councilman Carden. All in favor say

[41:40] yes.

[41:41] >> We're in public hearing uh for 7.2.

[41:44] Anybody from the public that would like

[41:46] to speak to this agenda item, please do

[41:49] manage.

[41:49] >> And then there are four people that are

[41:51] in that other room. And so yeah, you're good. You're good. But there are

[41:55] four people. Mhm. And so if you want to

[41:57] work them in, you've got their names on

[41:58] that sheet. So if you want to work them

[42:00] in however you can.

[42:01] >> Are you Eric?

[42:02] >> No, I don't find.

[42:04] >> Okay. Okay. I'll work I'll work them

[42:06] after you. John.

[42:07] >> Hey, sounds good. And Janine is here as

[42:10] well.

[42:10] >> Oh, hi. Perfect.

[42:12] >> Uh John Sumpion. I live across the

[42:14] street. Um,

[42:16] I was, um,

[42:19] pleased to see beneficial commercial

[42:22] use, um, especially because it allows

[42:26] improvement across the whole, um, east

[42:29] side of the road and it connects the

[42:32] trail from on Spanish Fork Parkway by

[42:34] where Harmons is going to be to the

[42:37] trail that is in front of the high

[42:38] school.

[42:40] Um, I didn't know whether it was going

[42:44] to be a phased thing or whatever. So, I

[42:47] expressed disapproval during the

[42:49] planning commission hearing that it was

[42:51] going to be developed and improved, at

[42:53] least improved along Spanish Fork

[42:56] Parkway at the same time. I'm in favor

[42:58] of the proposal.

[43:02] >> Thank you.

[43:02] John. Appreciate it, John.

[43:05] Miss Bazgard, as you come up, I'll I'll

[43:07] read out uh James, Bri, and Angie. If

[43:11] you're in the next room, please please

[43:13] make your way in to speak to this item.

[43:16] Thank you.

[43:18] >> Uh we submitted a letter and I was just

[43:21] wondering how many have had had a chance

[43:23] to read that.

[43:24] >> Yep.

[43:24] >> Okay. And if you had any questions. Um,

[43:28] and I just will briefly say that we

[43:31] loved moving up there when it was all

[43:33] barley and cornfields, but we also

[43:36] recognize that property owners have the

[43:38] right to um develop and their property

[43:42] that will be in their best interest. We

[43:44] know because the power line goes through

[43:47] there that a developer has a lot of

[43:49] convenience

[43:51] and we need to be able to afford to put

[43:54] the improvements in for that piece of

[43:57] road that's uh totally inadequate for

[44:01] the traffic that's on there. Uh we

[44:07] um are really glad that you brought up

[44:10] that the city will take care of the

[44:12] piece of that they have have not decided

[44:17] to develop until across the street was

[44:20] developed uh because that will really

[44:22] improve that too. We're grateful for

[44:24] that and we're grateful that you're

[44:26] going to do it all at once. That will be

[44:28] very helpful. Um

[44:31] the southern portion of the property uh

[44:33] being R zoned R12 is compatible with the

[44:37] surrounding homes and uh that looks

[44:40] really good to us. The northern portion

[44:42] is limited for development options

[44:45] because the power easement and we know

[44:47] that they're doing their best to make

[44:49] that um to be an attractive and

[44:52] beautiful place. We know that the the

[44:55] traffic's already there from the high

[44:57] school and connecting Spanish Fork

[44:59] Parkway down to the highway that goes to

[45:02] Springville. So, the traffic's already

[45:05] there. And so, we really don't think the

[45:07] commercial development will bring more

[45:09] traffic. It'll just be the people that

[45:11] are already using that. We do hope that

[45:13] the developer will be mindful of the

[45:16] three homes directly across the street

[45:18] and that they will be careful about um

[45:22] you know

[45:23] lights from your car flashing in our uh

[45:26] living room window and u their exits and

[45:30] entrances. If they're right by mine,

[45:32] it's going to be pretty hard for me to

[45:34] ever get out coming this way, this way,

[45:36] and this straight at me. So, I hope

[45:38] they'll all be be very careful of that.

[45:40] And um

[45:42] I really

[45:45] have looked at several different

[45:46] proposals and this one actually looks

[45:48] like the best option that we've seen and

[45:52] even though it's going to be really hard

[45:54] for us um we recognize that this will

[45:58] probably be the best option for that

[46:00] piece of property. So

[46:02] um we don't oppose.

[46:05] >> Thank you. Thank you. Can you get your name for Terara so she makes or

[46:09] excuse me for uh

[46:11] >> Shelly so she gets it in the minutes?

[46:13] >> Janine J A N E Bazgard B- A D S G A A R

[46:20] D.

[46:21] >> Thank you, Miss Bazgarden. And keep an

[46:23] eye out for Councilman Carden and

[46:24] Councilman Tuk that are in that

[46:26] neighborhood up there

[46:27] >> down the street from

[46:28] >> Make sure they don't drive too fast down

[46:30] that road ever. All right. Thank you.

[46:33] Appreciate it. Okay. Uh, next, uh, I had

[46:36] on the list here, Eric. Eric.

[46:40] >> Yes.

[46:42] >> Hi there. Thanks for the time. Um,

[46:45] looking at the plan, um, some of the

[46:48] concerns that I had. Um, I'm a resident,

[46:51] just so you know. I'm off 130 North

[46:53] right there on the corner. And, uh, the

[46:56] traffic I know has been mentioned. I

[46:58] have I have cameras on my back porch and

[47:00] there's many many accidents there

[47:02] especially with the high school and the

[47:03] young drivers. Uh, the one thing I did

[47:06] want to talk about is about a year and a

[47:08] half ago, they did some reasonzoning for

[47:11] the elementary schools. And one of the

[47:13] things that they did with that is they

[47:14] said that um over in that neighborhood

[47:17] directly south of where um the fields

[47:20] are, they reszoned them over to um

[47:23] Sierra Bonita and they are not offering

[47:26] a bus or any type of system like that.

[47:30] So those kids are walking across that

[47:32] street and at the time we requested, you

[47:34] know, some provisions be done. For

[47:36] example, you know, flashing lights, you

[47:38] know, crossing guards and they did do

[47:40] the the flashing lights were already

[47:42] there, but they did put a crossing

[47:43] guard, but I think there's going to be

[47:44] some additional measures that this goes

[47:46] through with the increased traffic and

[47:48] things like that. Um, I have some

[47:50] concerns about that and would like to

[47:52] see some additional measures looked at

[47:54] for that. um just for a safety concerns

[47:57] with this new development that's going

[47:59] in. Um as well as the you know like like

[48:05] they said that they're going to be doing

[48:06] all the the rework because there is that

[48:08] S-curve right there at the south that's

[48:10] very bad. It's it's hard to see

[48:12] especially with the um green box that's

[48:15] there on that corner. So those

[48:17] improvements again would I would like to

[48:19] echo that that needs to be done all at

[48:21] the same time so that it helps with that

[48:23] traffic flow. And uh that's everything

[48:26] that I have that I wanted to bring

[48:27] forward. Thank you.

[48:28] >> Thanks. Thanks.

[48:29] >> Appreciate that.

[48:35] » I had uh James Burky next. If James is

[48:39] here,

[48:43] while he's on his way, if Angie Parkin

[48:46] is here,

[48:48] >> I misunderstood. I'm actually here for

[48:50] the next the next.

[48:51] >> Perfect. Okay, thank you. Uh Jesse,

[48:55] Jessenne

[48:57] Rail,

[49:00] » got it. No, perfect. Anybody else uh for

[49:04] public hearing uh item 7.2 up on Yes.

[49:07] Sorry. Yeah.

[49:08] >> Hi. You said my name earlier and I was

[49:10] just being polite. Um, hi. My name is

[49:13] Bri. I actually live around the corner

[49:14] from Eric. Um, he has the really cool

[49:16] Halloween decorations on the corner that

[49:18] everybody comes and sees.

[49:20] >> Um, I am the mother of two young

[49:21] children who one of them is autistic and

[49:24] goes to Sierra Bonita. She loves being

[49:26] outside. She loves being around the the

[49:29] park. And while we monitor her closely,

[49:32] I do every day I'm concerned about

[49:35] pedestrian safety. I love that we have a

[49:38] ton of small kids in that neighborhood.

[49:40] I love the park. I love the community

[49:42] feel. So, that is a big thing of if this

[49:45] goes through, I would love to see the

[49:47] developer really um promote that and

[49:50] hopefully it will decrease some uh some

[49:52] of the vehicular traffic because if

[49:55] we're encouraging those high schoolers

[49:56] to hopefully go to Swig if there's one

[49:58] that goes there. Um they're already

[50:00] walking down the street to the holiday,

[50:02] which I being a nervous mom anyways, I

[50:06] will follow the high schoolers slowly

[50:07] just so there's not quick cars going

[50:10] past them because that makes me really

[50:11] nervous. Um, so the pedestrian and child

[50:14] safety is a huge issue for me with this

[50:16] going in. Uh, we do have a very active

[50:18] neighborhood. As soon as it's good

[50:20] weather, everyone's outside. And in

[50:22] addition to that, with the Harmons going

[50:24] in and with this going possibly going

[50:26] in, we have a lot of people who cut

[50:28] through our neighborhood to try to avoid

[50:30] Spanish Parkway at 40 plus miles an

[50:33] hour. And that is terrifying because I

[50:35] live kitty corner from the park. Um, so

[50:38] that I mean I'm constantly barking at my

[50:40] kids, which I'm sure my neighbors love.

[50:42] Um, so that I know that, you know, speed

[50:46] bumps are not economical, but um, we're

[50:51] right next to the high school. We're

[50:52] right next to all this proposed

[50:55] commercial. Like, we really need to

[50:57] avoid any potential tragedies that would

[51:00] come with quick drivers. Um, and again,

[51:03] echoing the Spanish Parkway is an

[51:05] absolute mess. We moved into this

[51:06] neighborhood four years ago. Um we I

[51:10] mean there's accidents all the time and

[51:12] I am again neurotic and emailed all of

[51:16] the Maple Mountain High School leaders

[51:19] and said please for all that you can

[51:21] please encourage the high schoolers to

[51:23] go slow. Um also that four-way stop

[51:26] that's just south of the high school.

[51:27] People who don't live in the area don't

[51:29] realize it's a four-way stop. Constantly

[51:31] blitzing through that. Um, so all the

[51:34] Spanish for parkways, particularly that

[51:36] stretch from the light down to the high

[51:39] school is a really scary place to be.

[51:43] Um, and then again, Sierra Bonita being

[51:45] a walking school, the high schoolers,

[51:46] they will walk to um, yeah, walk to the

[51:50] park. They'll, I'm sure, eventually walk

[51:51] here. But that would be my main like I

[51:54] want to support

[51:56] good business coming into the area. I've

[51:59] already convinced three family members

[52:00] to move to Spanish Fork in the years

[52:02] that we've been here. We love it. Uh

[52:04] would really love to see some measures

[52:06] put forth to make sure that our kids are

[52:08] safe. Um and our neighbors. So, thank

[52:11] you.

[52:12] >> Thank you, Bri.

[52:14] >> Can we Can we ask questions or we're not

[52:17] going to ask questions?

[52:17] >> You're going to hold your question.

[52:19] >> What is to her?

[52:20] >> Well, she'll she's sticking around. She

[52:22] >> Okay, Bri, can you stick around?

[52:25] >> All right.

[52:26] >> Right there. Yeah, right there. Thank

[52:28] you.

[52:29] Anyone else uh for this public hearing

[52:32] item up on Spanish Fork Parkway?

[52:38] » You could sit down brief.

[52:39] >> Yeah, we can. Yeah, please.

[52:40] >> We don't want

[52:41] >> uh Jake Lassley, Spanish Fork. I'm

[52:43] looking at the proposed I know it's just

[52:45] a mockup drawing, but they had three

[52:47] additional um places where you would

[52:50] enter or exit off of Spanish for Parkway

[52:53] for that. That's a huge concern for me.

[52:55] I could see maybe one, but three

[52:57] additional ones right there at that

[52:58] corner is a concern. That's all. Thanks.

[53:01] >> Thanks, Jake.

[53:06] » Anyone else for this public hearing?

[53:08] Spanish Fork Parkway.

[53:13] » Anybody in the other room, Seth?

[53:16] >> Not that I'm aware of. I think we've got

[53:17] them all.

[53:17] >> I think we got them all signed up from

[53:19] the other room. Perfect. Okay. If

[53:21] there's no no other public hearing uh

[53:24] participants for this item, I would

[53:26] entertain a motion to go out of public

[53:27] hearing for 7.2.

[53:29] >> So moved.

[53:30] >> Motion made by Councilman Carden.

[53:32] >> Second.

[53:32] by Councilman Tuk. All in favor

[53:34] say yes.

[53:35] >> Yes.

[53:35] >> Okay. Discussion back up here.

[53:37] Councilman Marcy. You had a question for

[53:39] >> for Bri.

[53:39] >> Bri.

[53:40] >> Yes.

[53:41] >> Um you mentioned you would like to see

[53:43] some pedestrian safety improvements. I'm

[53:46] curious in this little section. What are you envisioning

[53:50] would be the the improvements you'd like

[53:52] to see? Just so that I make sure that

[53:54] I'm saying the right things.

[53:56] >> Yeah. Um I mean wide walkways, trees. Uh

[54:00] I like that there's a burm. Is it called

[54:02] a burm? That between the um the pathway,

[54:06] it's right across the street from the

[54:07] high school where there's like that

[54:08] walkway. People are on that all the

[54:11] time. So having some distance. Um my

[54:14] daughter, she's Yeah, she's on the

[54:16] spectrum. She does alope. We've worked

[54:18] with her a ton on it, but having that

[54:19] extra space um really provides a lot of

[54:23] comfort between us and the street. And

[54:25] just on my street alone, we have five

[54:27] autistic kids and half of them are

[54:29] non-verbal. So,

[54:31] >> I would say some space between the

[54:33] sidewalk and the street, incentivizing

[54:36] people to walk to these commercial

[54:37] places. So, like whatever that may look

[54:40] like, and trying to disincentivize any

[54:43] um traffic going through the

[54:44] neighborhood, but

[54:45] >> Okay. So you're concerned about the

[54:47] entire stretch of Spanish Parkway in

[54:49] this area.

[54:49] >> Yeah.

[54:50] >> And while we are developing this one

[54:52] section almost first, get it right.

[54:55] Provide some buffer between the traffic

[54:57] and and people on the sidewalks. Okay.

[55:00] >> Yeah. I mean, yeah, tons of little kids

[55:02] are on their bikes all the time and the

[55:03] high schoolers.

[55:04] >> A crossing walk up by the intersection.

[55:06] >> Nothing mid block, I'm assuming.

[55:09] >> Yeah. like much like what Eric said,

[55:11] like some dedicated crosswalk that's

[55:12] like right and clear of like because

[55:15] kids will either cross at that line or

[55:18] at that four-way stop to go to Sierra

[55:19] Bonita and that's our entire

[55:22] neighborhood.

[55:22] >> Bri, which one has the four-way? Is it

[55:24] 130 130 north?

[55:26] >> No.

[55:26] >> Or is it the southern one?

[55:27] >> I'm so bad. Street number

[55:29] >> south of the seminary.

[55:30] >> Okay. South of the seminary. I mean,

[55:33] where the temple's eventually going to

[55:34] go, which obviously between the Harbins

[55:36] and the temple and like we're all very

[55:39] excited. We're the main thing we're

[55:41] nervous about is we don't want um our

[55:44] kids to be in danger. So, and also too,

[55:47] like we have I love the high schoolers

[55:49] in our neighborhood and the ones I do

[55:50] know, I tell them to go slow, but um

[55:53] yeah, there's there's really no

[55:57] protections other than right in front of

[55:59] the

[55:59] >> So, this is currently a four-way stop.

[56:02] >> That's currently a four-way stop and you

[56:04] can't see one of the stop signs. Like,

[56:06] it's covered by a tree right now. And

[56:08] so, there's constantly people driving

[56:10] through that four-way stop. And that's

[56:11] also the stretch of road that the high

[56:13] schoolers walk to go to the Holiday gas

[56:16] station. So that entire street is

[56:19] >> I just live south of you. They're down

[56:21] past that field. So I do have a question

[56:24] following up with Shane's. So I don't

[56:26] drive the Arrive homes maybe that that

[56:28] are east of you,

[56:29] >> but you know how they have their little

[56:31] jet outs there. Does that slow down

[56:33] traffic at all?

[56:34] >> No.

[56:36] >> Okay.

[56:36] >> Streets are way too wide.

[56:38] >> Oh, you're right. Yeah, the streets are

[56:39] wide, which is great for

[56:41] >> Yeah.

[56:41] >> for neighborhood, you know, community,

[56:43] but

[56:44] >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Bri.

[56:46] >> Oh, no, that's

[56:47] >> Jared. I've got a couple of questions

[56:48] for you. What's the long-term plan for

[56:50] this intersection?

[56:51] >> Thank you. Thank you.

[56:54] >> This intersection

[56:56] is going to be constructed as a

[56:57] roundabout. So, the plans are in design

[56:59] right now and should be built with the

[57:02] temple and the subdivision.

[57:03] >> Will this be a roundabout that has

[57:05] pedestrian islands?

[57:06] >> Yes.

[57:07] >> Okay. Can we go north, Jordan?

[57:13] Keep going.

[57:16] Right there. So, that

[57:17] intersection there, what will that one

[57:19] be?

[57:20] >> That currently in our master plan is an

[57:22] uncontrolled intersection with just stop

[57:23] signs from east to west.

[57:27] >> Okay. Because there, especially if

[57:30] depending on what we do, let me back up.

[57:33] So the Edge Homes improvements that

[57:37] we're talking about, is that just behind

[57:39] the edge homes or is that the entire

[57:41] length of the rest of Spanish Parkway to

[57:43] Forest South?

[57:46] >> That's just the frontage of the Edge

[57:48] Homes subdivision.

[57:50] >> Okay. So I think there's two fundamental

[57:51] questions we have to ask. So the first

[57:54] is if we think that we need to figure

[57:56] out how to improve those because there's

[57:58] not going to be development coming for

[57:59] those last is it three houses? Three

[58:01] houses. Yeah. So there's not going to be

[58:03] development there outside of those edge

[58:05] homes that we've already talked about

[58:06] paying for, right?

[58:08] >> So the question would be is does this

[58:11] intersection need to be approved to

[58:12] encourage crossing here to walk up the

[58:16] street

[58:17] >> or do we need to pay for the rest of the

[58:20] street to be improved, those three

[58:22] included houses, because we can approve

[58:24] up to the edge homes, but then there's

[58:26] those three last houses, that last

[58:27] little jog, and that creates an unsafe

[58:29] environment,

[58:30] >> right? or we need to help improve this.

[58:32] And if it's only scheduled to be a stop

[58:34] sign, that's not going to do it.

[58:35] >> So, I like that you've got the trail on

[58:38] that side with the develop development.

[58:41] Is that planned for the northern

[58:43] >> northern portion as well? That trail

[58:44] will go all the way to to 400.

[58:47] >> Correct.

[58:48] >> Okay. So, not to get away from what

[58:51] Jesse asked, there's a cross-section

[58:53] that we have adopted for Smashburg

[58:55] Parkway. Can you find that? Pull that up

[58:57] just so that everyone sees. But the full

[58:59] vision of what we would implement there,

[59:01] how we get to it is on the east side of

[59:05] the road, this development takes care of

[59:07] it.

[59:08] >> On the west side of the road, there's a

[59:09] section that we we will fund

[59:12] and there's a section of three homes

[59:14] that need we need to figure that out.

[59:15] Right,

[59:15] >> Jared? Isn't

[59:18] don't go. Isn't this cross-section

[59:22] what's in front of the high school the

[59:24] cross-section?

[59:25] >> Yes, it's what's along the whole park.

[59:27] >> Yeah. So,

[59:27] >> but the cross is

[59:28] >> So, if you just look at the southern

[59:31] portion of this image, that's the

[59:32] cross-section that we'll have three

[59:34] lanes, uh, middle turn lane, right? Some

[59:37] del capabilities on either side of the

[59:39] shoulder,

[59:41] >> shoulder buffer,

[59:42] >> shoulders, park strips. Yeah. And then a

[59:45] trail on the one side, a sidewalk on the

[59:47] other. That's the cross-section that

[59:48] will be continued to the north.

[59:51] >> And Bri, that's what you had in mind is

[59:52] that same crosssection. Okay,

[59:55] >> perfect. Let me ask a question to our

[59:57] police chief, Chief Johnson. If that's

[1:00:00] all right.

[1:00:02] >> Are they called What are they called?

[1:00:03] Hawk, if I got the right term, blinking

[1:00:05] lights.

[1:00:06] >> Yeah,

[1:00:07] >> hawk lights. What What goes into a study

[1:00:10] to determine if a hawk light should be

[1:00:12] installed or not?

[1:00:12] >> I'll refer to Jared, our engineer.

[1:00:17] >> We would do a pedestrian study. It would

[1:00:19] be a study that we'd count the

[1:00:21] pedestrians and look into whether it was

[1:00:22] warranted or not. Um the safe school

[1:00:26] routes does not have this designated as

[1:00:28] a safe crossing for the school routes.

[1:00:30] >> Who who determines the safe school

[1:00:33] routes?

[1:00:34] >> We have a traffic safety committee that

[1:00:35] works in conjunction with uh our staff

[1:00:38] and the Nebo school district and the

[1:00:40] school district is a very active

[1:00:41] participant in that safe school route.

[1:00:44] So they will be very much involved in

[1:00:46] creating the walk routes for students in

[1:00:48] this area.

[1:00:49] >> Is there is there a crossing guard at

[1:00:51] this intersection? No,

[1:00:53] >> this is at a high school. So, we don't

[1:00:55] have crossing guards at high schools,

[1:00:57] >> but we

[1:00:58] >> we could put one here for if there was

[1:00:59] an elementary crossing.

[1:01:01] >> We we we evaluate them every year with

[1:01:03] the schools and we certainly do that.

[1:01:05] The addition of the homes with this

[1:01:06] subdivision aren't really going to add,

[1:01:09] you know, a measurable change to to

[1:01:12] that. But, but I think just I think the

[1:01:15] question's been raised. You know,

[1:01:16] they're they're uncomfortable with the

[1:01:18] route that the school has set up. And so

[1:01:20] we can work with the school district and

[1:01:22] >> Matt I don't I don't know if you sit on

[1:01:24] that committee but Matt's people do and

[1:01:25] Jared I don't know if you sit on it but

[1:01:27] your people do. So you can bring that

[1:01:28] up.

[1:01:29] >> We'll put this in the traffic safety

[1:01:30] committee and take a look. Um a hawk

[1:01:32] signal probably would not be warranted.

[1:01:34] Those are the ones that go over the

[1:01:35] street.

[1:01:36] >> The RFBs are more the flashing beacons.

[1:01:39] >> That's what I was thinking. So what are

[1:01:40] those called?

[1:01:41] >> RFB.

[1:01:42] systems are above it and stalk.

[1:01:45] >> So RFP or B

[1:01:47] >> RFB B is in boy. There is one of those

[1:01:49] just south of this.

[1:01:50] >> There is one on

[1:01:52] >> the RFBs are usually put on all the

[1:01:54] roundabouts or they are put on all the

[1:01:56] roundabouts.

[1:01:56] >> Okay.

[1:01:59] >> But we'll certainly put this on our list

[1:02:01] and take a look at it.

[1:02:02] >> I think it needs to be broader than

[1:02:03] that. We probably need to have a

[1:02:04] conversation about how to complete

[1:02:06] Spanish Parkway

[1:02:10] » all the way to both sides.

[1:02:11] >> Certainly not tonight. This this

[1:02:13] development is going to do its part if

[1:02:14] it's approved.

[1:02:15] >> We do have some work to do for the rest

[1:02:17] of the corridor though. I'm a big fan.

[1:02:18] >> Great questions. But yeah,

[1:02:19] >> and I think the other part when we're

[1:02:21] talking about Spanish Parkway in this

[1:02:22] stretch, Jake said it well is that Smash

[1:02:26] Fork Parkway. I don't know the words

[1:02:28] that were used. I think hot mess, mess,

[1:02:29] I think those were interchangeable, but

[1:02:31] there's a lot of traffic on this,

[1:02:33] especially at 7:30 to about what time

[1:02:38] school started? 7:45. Yeah. And then

[1:02:40] from 3:00 on, Seth has a lot of pictures

[1:02:42] of me sending him of the roundabout on

[1:02:44] the south side from um Highway 6. But

[1:02:47] there there's a lot of traffic on

[1:02:48] Spanish Parkway. And so one of the

[1:02:50] things that I think that we I don't know

[1:02:52] if we need to put as a condition or as

[1:02:54] something to note is how many entrances

[1:02:56] we're adding to Spanish Parkway from the

[1:02:58] commercial area because it is going to

[1:03:01] be hard especially as we're closer to a

[1:03:03] light. I know there's standards that are

[1:03:04] going to be around that. So maybe maybe

[1:03:06] we can talk to that. How far away from

[1:03:08] the signal would they even be able to

[1:03:09] put an entrance to Spanish Parkway?

[1:03:11] >> Three, sorry, 350 ft would be the fir

[1:03:15] first access

[1:03:16] >> and then it' be spaced beyond that. So I

[1:03:19] would only see one access from the

[1:03:20] commercial district

[1:03:22] >> onto the parkway, one access from the

[1:03:23] subdivision and none of the houses would

[1:03:25] access.

[1:03:27] >> Got the parkway.

[1:03:27] >> So they'd have to come through this

[1:03:29] street here.

[1:03:30] >> They'd either have to come this street

[1:03:31] through the south or there would be the

[1:03:32] one street that's in between the

[1:03:34] commercial.

[1:03:34] >> Okay. So Jared, even you even though you

[1:03:37] say you could see one access for the

[1:03:39] residential, that doesn't mean there

[1:03:41] needs to be an access on Spanish Parkway

[1:03:44] for the residential. They could access

[1:03:46] it from the south, right?

[1:03:48] >> Correct.

[1:03:49] Or go through the commercial. But the

[1:03:52] way the concept is drawn, there's a road

[1:03:53] that's right between the two of them.

[1:03:55] >> The commercial, would they be able to go

[1:03:57] through the How does that work with the

[1:03:59] masonry? Well, I guess you you could

[1:04:02] still put a road through the commercial

[1:04:05] and the residential and then just

[1:04:08] >> the concept plan would have to be

[1:04:09] changed. Yes. For that to happen.

[1:04:11] >> Yeah.

[1:04:12] >> And that's approved by planning

[1:04:13] commission. Yeah.

[1:04:14] >> Uh in this case, it would be a

[1:04:17] subdivision that the planning commission

[1:04:19] would approve. Yes.

[1:04:22] >> I have one question or possible request

[1:04:24] from Chief Johnson. Would it be an

[1:04:25] appropriate time here in the next month

[1:04:26] or two to do a traffic study over there

[1:04:29] by the park? Bri said that there was a

[1:04:30] lot of speeding and maybe it'll be a

[1:04:33] good reminder for high school.

[1:04:34] >> Yeah, we can get our traffic trailer up

[1:04:35] there

[1:04:36] >> and see if there's anything we need to

[1:04:39] do in addition to that.

[1:04:41] >> There's one on Third West that slows me

[1:04:42] down every time.

[1:04:44] >> That one's getting moved to a different

[1:04:45] location, but still maintain your speed

[1:04:48] there, please.

[1:04:50] Now, heads up, Bri, that means there's

[1:04:52] going to be some tickets issued in your

[1:04:54] neighborhood, and it's probably going to

[1:04:55] be your neighbors that get the tickets.

[1:04:57] That's just how it usually goes. But,

[1:05:00] >> okay, your neighbors,

[1:05:01] >> that's what they always say.

[1:05:03] >> Perfect. Jared, if the developers uh

[1:05:06] amendable to this, as they're putting in

[1:05:08] the improvements on the east side of the

[1:05:10] road, um if we can take advantage of the

[1:05:13] mobilization and of the project that's

[1:05:15] happening to at least develop to the

[1:05:17] curb um on the west side and and pay the proportionate cost again that if

[1:05:23] they're amendable to that, we let's look

[1:05:25] at at doing that perhaps all at once.

[1:05:29] It'll be a little bit more of a

[1:05:30] headache, but it will be a little bit

[1:05:31] less of a headache in the in the long

[1:05:33] term.

[1:05:34] >> Yeah, if you'll work with the developer

[1:05:36] on that.

[1:05:36] >> That's a great idea. You got a you got a

[1:05:38] road crew out there improving the road.

[1:05:40] Why not improve both sides of it when we

[1:05:42] >> go to sleep?

[1:05:42] >> Got it uh got it planned to do it and

[1:05:45] not disrupt people too too much. I think

[1:05:47] that's a great recommendation.

[1:05:49] >> Mayor, I got one more question

[1:05:52] >> towards I guess city staff and the

[1:05:54] applicant. One of the concerns that was

[1:05:56] brought up and if if I lived where the

[1:05:59] Bazgarss lived, this would be a concern

[1:06:00] of mine as well. How do we make sure

[1:06:03] other than the developer saying, "I'm

[1:06:06] not going to do it," that lights don't

[1:06:08] end up in windows while people are

[1:06:10] waiting in drive-throughs.

[1:06:16] We don't have anything in our zoning

[1:06:17] code necessary that would require some

[1:06:19] of the things you typically would see to

[1:06:21] screen headlights. BMS a lot of times

[1:06:24] with some type of vegetation on top of

[1:06:25] them uh is used along the perimeter of a

[1:06:29] project where you have cues for

[1:06:32] drive-throughs and that type of thing

[1:06:33] where it could be a problem. Um so we

[1:06:37] could amend the zoning code to include

[1:06:40] requirements for that type of a thing.

[1:06:43] You could maybe um have this applicant

[1:06:46] enter into some type of an agreement to

[1:06:48] do that sort of a thing. You could take

[1:06:50] them at their word that they're going to

[1:06:51] do it voluntarily. Um

[1:06:54] >> would Sorry, Dave. Would the planning

[1:06:56] commission see their plan as far as

[1:06:59] drive-thru layouts and everything before

[1:07:01] it gets approved?

[1:07:04] >> Not if the zoning is changed.

[1:07:06] >> Then they're just ready to go. Once once

[1:07:09] the zoning's changed, they're

[1:07:10] commercial. they can start building. And

[1:07:14] >> if you want, you could make a motion,

[1:07:16] you could make a one of the conditions

[1:07:17] subject to

[1:07:18] >> so

[1:07:19] >> um

[1:07:21] especially if the if the applicant is

[1:07:22] willing to enter into that, then it's a

[1:07:25] part of the the the approval and I think

[1:07:28] is legally binding. Um and that I think

[1:07:32] what Dave is suggesting is that that

[1:07:34] they take care of that through the

[1:07:36] landscaping and that gets installed. It

[1:07:38] might take a year or two for that to

[1:07:39] grow to the right height, but in the

[1:07:41] long term it would be taken care of. Is

[1:07:42] that what you're suggesting?

[1:07:44] >> That's a pretty common way to

[1:07:46] >> to address that.

[1:07:47] >> Okay. You any concern? Yeah, I'd love to

[1:07:50] hear your thoughts.

[1:07:51] >> Um, yeah. So, I'm actually surprised

[1:07:54] that's not in the code already. That's

[1:07:56] uh sort of typical for us. We we try to

[1:07:59] screen all of our drive-throughs through

[1:08:01] a combination of um uh bushes, hedges,

[1:08:05] and and BMS. It sounds like um that the

[1:08:09] Spanish Fork Parkway cross-section

[1:08:12] there's a bit of landscaping between the

[1:08:15] trail and the road. So, and they were

[1:08:16] talking about there being a burm in

[1:08:18] another part. So, maybe that's a

[1:08:19] possibility to get it along a lot of

[1:08:21] that frontage.

[1:08:22] >> Um also, if you'll notice, we try to lay

[1:08:25] out our access points kind of in between

[1:08:26] the houses to make sure that we're not

[1:08:29] shining headlights into anybody's

[1:08:30] windows. But, yeah, that's that's pretty

[1:08:32] standard. And um even if it's not in the

[1:08:35] code that it's going to show up on our

[1:08:37] landscape plans. Um it sounds like site

[1:08:40] plan approval doesn't go through uh

[1:08:42] planning commission

[1:08:43] >> DRC.

[1:08:44] >> Okay. Um that's typically when you know

[1:08:46] we're held to it, but it'll go through

[1:08:49] staff and they'll see what we're

[1:08:50] planning on doing there.

[1:08:53] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:08:54] >> Thank you. I think it's smart to if you

[1:08:56] want it put it.

[1:08:57] >> Yeah. put us and mention it

[1:08:59] >> out of condition of some screening for

[1:09:00] lighting in the drive drive-throughs.

[1:09:02] >> Would we put something about that

[1:09:04] intersection down on the B that side the right side of the

[1:09:09] plan if we wanted it there? Seth

[1:09:14] » I'm asking you a question if that's

[1:09:15] where it

[1:09:19] » you can put whatever you want in the

[1:09:20] conditions. If they're not legal then

[1:09:22] they become problem problematic. So what

[1:09:23] what's the condition you think

[1:09:25] >> I just want I want us to evaluate that intersection better especially with

[1:09:28] the school district and also with the

[1:09:31] more traffic coming there.

[1:09:34] What does that mean?

[1:09:34] >> What does that mean? Evaluate it. What

[1:09:36] does that mean?

[1:09:37] >> Study study the the intersection. Do a

[1:09:40] traffic study.

[1:09:40] >> You want the applicant to do that.

[1:09:42] >> Correct.

[1:09:44] >> We don't have a a

[1:09:47] >> Yeah, I think

[1:09:47] >> we don't have a we have a standard

[1:09:49] cross-section for both roads

[1:09:50] >> that make an intersection. What in

[1:09:53] addition to that would you want

[1:09:54] >> a signaled crosswalk something?

[1:09:57] >> I think that would be on us. I don't

[1:09:58] think there are nine subdivision it

[1:10:01] would be

[1:10:02] >> no way that the Yeah, they're driving.

[1:10:04] >> So like we can do that then you just

[1:10:06] >> Okay,

[1:10:07] >> tell me what you are. We can evaluate

[1:10:08] subdivision or that cross-section. Yeah,

[1:10:10] >> that's

[1:10:11] >> that intersection.

[1:10:12] >> We're currently updating our master plan

[1:10:13] and I can pinpoint it to take a look at

[1:10:16] it.

[1:10:16] >> Thank you. Okay,

[1:10:18] >> perfect.

[1:10:19] Thank you for those

[1:10:21] recommendations. Good questions. Uh,

[1:10:23] thank you public for the questions there

[1:10:25] as well. If there's no other further

[1:10:27] questions for staff of the applicant,

[1:10:29] I'd entertain a motion for 7.2.

[1:10:32] >> I'll make a motion. I move the I move to

[1:10:35] approve the proposed Hollowac Acres

[1:10:37] commercial zone change based on the

[1:10:39] following findings. One, that the

[1:10:41] proposal is consistent with the city's

[1:10:43] general plan land use designation of

[1:10:45] commercial. Two, that the proposal will

[1:10:47] provide for commercial uses at an

[1:10:50] important and highly visible

[1:10:51] intersection. Three, that the proposal

[1:10:54] will enhance commercial uses and

[1:10:56] services in the area. And four, that the

[1:10:59] proposal will promote conveniently

[1:11:01] located commercial uses and services

[1:11:04] with an added condition that screening

[1:11:07] for headlights in the drive-thrus be

[1:11:11] evaluated during the site plan with the

[1:11:14] DRC.

[1:11:16] Second

[1:11:18] >> motion made by Councilman Oiler, second

[1:11:20] by Councilwoman Beck. Any questions on

[1:11:22] the motion?

[1:11:23] >> Yes, I have one. Okay.

[1:11:24] >> Can I

[1:11:25] >> add a a motion of my own? Can I What is

[1:11:29] my motion?

[1:11:30] >> It's called a friendly amendment if you

[1:11:31] like.

[1:11:32] >> Friendly amendment.

[1:11:33] >> Depends.

[1:11:34] >> It's super friendly. Let me just tell

[1:11:36] you and then we'll talk about it. Can we

[1:11:38] do that?

[1:11:38] >> Yeah, sure.

[1:11:39] >> Um I don't believe the number one is

[1:11:40] correct. I don't think that it is

[1:11:42] consistent with the general plan. it

[1:11:43] doesn't it's not gerine to the approval

[1:11:45] of this and I would suggest striking it

[1:11:47] and then the the last I would say let's

[1:11:50] put a uh a finding that although we've

[1:11:52] talked about it and the applicant has

[1:11:54] said they'll do it that they complete

[1:11:55] the entire length of the property on or

[1:11:57] the entire length of yeah the property

[1:11:59] on on Parkway in one phase.

[1:12:02] >> Okay.

[1:12:04] >> Are you amendable to that friendly

[1:12:06] amendment?

[1:12:06] >> I am. Von, do you want me to include

[1:12:08] those in my motion or is that clear what

[1:12:10] he's asked? Yeah, I would definitely

[1:12:11] make it on the record. So striking the

[1:12:14] finding one and adding a additional

[1:12:16] condition that the full length of the

[1:12:19] parkway be

[1:12:20] >> correct. So I would add to my motion the

[1:12:24] friendly suggestion to strike finding

[1:12:27] number one and to add an additional

[1:12:30] condition that the full improvements

[1:12:32] along Spanish Fork Parkway be done or

[1:12:36] completed in one phase. and I will

[1:12:38] continue with my friendly second.

[1:12:40] >> Perfect. Thank you for the

[1:12:42] >> We have an amended motion and the second

[1:12:44] to that amendment. Any questions on

[1:12:46] that?

[1:12:47] >> Okay, this is a roll call vote.

[1:12:48] Councilman Tuk, yes. Councilman Carden,

[1:12:50] yes. Councilman Oiler, yes.

[1:12:51] >> Councilwoman Beck,

[1:12:52] >> yes.

[1:12:52] >> And Councilman Marshall,

[1:12:53] >> yes.

[1:12:54] >> Perfect.

[1:12:55] >> Thanks, C.

[1:12:55] >> 7.2,

[1:12:56] >> thank you all.

[1:12:57] >> Is approved. Again, I appreciate

[1:12:59] everybody's involvement in u the

[1:13:01] applicant as well.

[1:13:03] Okay. Uh 7.3. We'll get to the the next

[1:13:06] public hearing that u uh that I think

[1:13:09] everybody's here for. Uh 7.3. I think

[1:13:12] the applicants here. Um this is an

[1:13:14] ordinance to amend title 15 to define

[1:13:16] and create requirements for data centers

[1:13:18] and facilities, generate their own

[1:13:20] electricity. The this proposal has been

[1:13:23] put forth by Valition, a company that

[1:13:24] would like to construct a data center in

[1:13:26] Spanish Fork. Valition's proposal has

[1:13:28] been updated to incorporate

[1:13:30] >> recommendations made by the planning

[1:13:31] commission. While the planning

[1:13:32] commission recommended the proposal be

[1:13:34] modified, the commission also failed to

[1:13:36] make a positive recommendation on the

[1:13:37] proposal. A motion to recommend approval

[1:13:39] failed to pass with a three to three tie

[1:13:42] vote. Uh Dave, I think I'll I'll pass it

[1:13:46] off uh to you uh or your staff to start

[1:13:49] off before the applicant Ron's right

[1:13:51] there. Before the applicant comes up, um

[1:13:54] I guess the uh the reminder here is we

[1:13:57] do have uh now the sign up that's been

[1:14:00] sent out. Let's do let's do it after the

[1:14:02] presentation.

[1:14:03] >> So I would encourage maybe the public

[1:14:05] that's here um this is the part to

[1:14:08] listen to these maybe the maybe the

[1:14:10] presentation either by some of the staff

[1:14:13] or uh by the applicant um might have

[1:14:16] some answers to questions you you you

[1:14:19] have uh there uh there's also been three

[1:14:22] open houses that there were a lot of

[1:14:25] questions asked and answered as well. So

[1:14:27] listen uh to to this part of it. Maybe

[1:14:31] it'll help answer some questions you you

[1:14:33] possibly came with. But uh if not, we'd

[1:14:35] love to hear from you in the public

[1:14:36] hearing section of it as well. Mr. Von

[1:14:39] H. Pale

[1:14:41] >> Herbert. Um, I'll introduce the text of

[1:14:45] the the amendment that those that's been

[1:14:47] applied for and then I'll go through the

[1:14:50] major, you know, the legal parts of that

[1:14:52] and then it'll be appropriate, I think,

[1:14:54] to turn the time to the applicant to

[1:14:56] explain their application and then your

[1:14:58] public hearing as you mentioned. Um, so

[1:15:01] the application is is to amend the text

[1:15:03] of our zoning ordinance, our land use

[1:15:05] ordinance in three main parts. Um, and

[1:15:09] scroll down, you'll see it in your

[1:15:10] agenda packet there that most of the

[1:15:12] text is in blue, and that's because

[1:15:14] that's what was requested by the

[1:15:15] applicant. The red lines are from either

[1:15:19] staff recommendations or the planning

[1:15:21] commission uh motion that they made. So,

[1:15:24] first part is definitions. They they

[1:15:27] define data center, which we don't have

[1:15:29] a definition today for an energy storage

[1:15:32] system, which is affiliated with the

[1:15:34] data center. uh controlled emission

[1:15:37] generation which is a emission gener

[1:15:41] emission excuse me power generation up

[1:15:43] to a certain level of of emissions and

[1:15:46] then there's ultra low uh emission

[1:15:48] generation as well and then the general

[1:15:50] definition of on-site power generation.

[1:15:53] So after we get the definitions, if you

[1:15:55] scroll a little bit further, we come to

[1:15:58] the the uses that are allowed in the I1

[1:16:01] zone. And so it lists their data center.

[1:16:04] You can see the addition of the staff

[1:16:06] and the that to require it to be an

[1:16:09] on-site power generation facility as

[1:16:12] well. So it's not just data centers

[1:16:14] generally, but only a data center that

[1:16:17] has that on-site power generation

[1:16:18] component. Um, and then the definition

[1:16:22] or the use of on-site power generation

[1:16:24] facilities. So, those two would be

[1:16:26] >> So, Von can ask it. Can we ask questions

[1:16:28] as it's going or you want me to wait?

[1:16:30] >> Wait just a second.

[1:16:31] >> Okay.

[1:16:31] >> Write it down.

[1:16:32] >> Yeah, sure.

[1:16:33] >> Oh, forget. Okay, I'll write it down.

[1:16:36] >> Um, let's see. Where are we?

[1:16:40] Okay. And then the next section is the

[1:16:41] supplementary rec regulations. Those are

[1:16:44] the standards and regulations that apply

[1:16:46] to on-site power generation facilities.

[1:16:49] Scroll just a bit more. Well, the first

[1:16:52] um purpose the applicability it's etc.

[1:16:56] In applicability there's that limitation

[1:16:59] that the planning commission imposed

[1:17:00] that have a maximum of 500 megawws which

[1:17:03] is of generation capacity which they

[1:17:06] call it name plate generation which I

[1:17:08] guess is the top rated productivity of the generation of those facilities

[1:17:14] under ideal conditions. They need a

[1:17:17] buffer above and beyond what they

[1:17:18] actually will be using um for redundancy

[1:17:21] and and to be able to service their

[1:17:23] equipment and so on. Um there's energy

[1:17:27] storage uh regulations that's there I

[1:17:30] think primarily to maintain an islanded

[1:17:32] operation which ensures the grid

[1:17:35] isolation. Um again the electric

[1:17:38] isolation from the grid so that it

[1:17:40] doesn't touch our grid our city grid or

[1:17:43] any electric grid another provider

[1:17:46] another Rocky Mount Power or somebody

[1:17:48] else. Um there's regulations for noise

[1:17:51] limitations. Those are consistent with

[1:17:53] the city's noise ordinance for

[1:17:55] residential zones. Even though this is a

[1:17:57] industrial zone, there's a residential

[1:17:59] zone right next door to it. And so the standards for on-site power

[1:18:04] generation will be the the residential

[1:18:06] zones. They're they're lower at

[1:18:09] nighttime, which makes sense. Um there's

[1:18:12] an air quality section. If you scroll

[1:18:15] further, uh it would require them to

[1:18:17] obtain the Utah Division of Air Quality

[1:18:19] approvals. Um again the there's the

[1:18:22] controlled emission um generation which

[1:18:25] is limited to.3 pounds of nitrous oxides

[1:18:30] per megawatt hour produced. And then

[1:18:34] there's an ultra low um

[1:18:37] generation as well and that's 007 pounds

[1:18:41] of nitrous oxides per megawatt hour

[1:18:44] produced.

[1:18:45] Then there's setbacks and screening and

[1:18:47] height section there. Those are

[1:18:49] consistent with the I1 zone. Also

[1:18:52] requiring walls and landscaping for

[1:18:54] screening.

[1:18:56] Um the water use is is detailed there

[1:18:58] and required to be a closed loop air

[1:19:01] cooled or dry cooling specifically

[1:19:03] prohibiting evaporative or once through

[1:19:06] cooling. Um, moving further, there is

[1:19:10] other regulations for wastewater

[1:19:12] discharge and decommissioning of of the

[1:19:16] facility once once they're done with

[1:19:18] their project. Um, so that is what's

[1:19:22] proposed. You can see the the red lines

[1:19:24] there. There's one more number 13.

[1:19:27] There'll be a citywide limitation. This

[1:19:28] is a planning commission recommendation

[1:19:31] um that there be no more than two of

[1:19:33] these uh self-generation

[1:19:36] uh data centers anywhere in the city at

[1:19:38] one time. Um

[1:19:41] the staff reviewed it and made some

[1:19:44] changes even before sending it to the

[1:19:46] DRC or the planning commission. Um

[1:19:48] rather than allowing data centers of any

[1:19:50] type, we recommend modifying the text to

[1:19:53] allow only data centers that have the

[1:19:55] on-site power generation. The reason is

[1:19:58] that

[1:20:00] um to allow any other sort of data

[1:20:02] center, a grid connected data center,

[1:20:05] that would require a future legislative

[1:20:07] change. And so it would come back to

[1:20:09] city council to determine if it wants to

[1:20:12] make that determination uh to allow grid

[1:20:15] connected data centers. Um the planning

[1:20:18] commission held their public hearing

[1:20:20] that they added those two limitations

[1:20:22] that we discussed the maximum of two and

[1:20:24] then the maximum generation capacity. Um

[1:20:29] after that the approve the motion to

[1:20:32] approve the the data the text amendment

[1:20:36] that failed to pass that was three to

[1:20:37] three and so it advanced on to you but

[1:20:39] without any recommendation either way.

[1:20:42] Um, and though it's not part of the

[1:20:46] application or a requirement of our

[1:20:49] zoning or anything like that, the

[1:20:51] applicants also submitted a draft

[1:20:53] development agreement which I reviewed.

[1:20:55] It includes

[1:20:57] many of the same things and more, but

[1:20:59] the water cap, the islanded uh provision

[1:21:03] that there's no connection to any grid,

[1:21:05] no no allowance for exporting power that

[1:21:08] they maybe they generate more than they

[1:21:10] need. That's not allowed. no diesel

[1:21:12] generator backup, the noise limits again

[1:21:15] with acoustical analysis and and

[1:21:17] compliance reports. There'll be annual

[1:21:20] public reporting. Um, and that report

[1:21:22] will be a public record. Uh, the

[1:21:26] allowing the city to audit their their

[1:21:28] claims. You know, we can go visit the

[1:21:29] site and see and inspect for ourselves.

[1:21:32] Um also an annual economic report that

[1:21:34] would list out jobs and wages and taxes

[1:21:37] that are produced and the capital

[1:21:39] expenditures that they have made. And

[1:21:42] then with the decommissioning there

[1:21:45] there's a provision that they would

[1:21:46] provide a financial assurance for that they would a bond of of sorts that

[1:21:51] they would ensure that enough is there

[1:21:55] to decommission the facility when that

[1:21:56] time comes. Um, and what I was

[1:21:59] specifically looking for in addition to

[1:22:01] the stuff that's already in the

[1:22:02] ordinance were the remedies. It' be

[1:22:03] like, "So what? So what if a breach

[1:22:06] happens? What if the noise level exceeds

[1:22:07] or or they use more water than than the

[1:22:10] cap allows?" First is a notice and cure

[1:22:12] provision, which is typical for

[1:22:14] contracts. We give them notice you've

[1:22:16] exceeded it and you need to cure it.

[1:22:19] That's that's step one. Then there's a

[1:22:21] stipulated damages for breach as well.

[1:22:24] um you know we could specify what the

[1:22:26] damage would be if if you have a water

[1:22:29] violation or a noise violation and so

[1:22:31] on. But more importantly for me I was

[1:22:34] happy to see that they included specific

[1:22:36] performance and injunction which are

[1:22:38] equitable remedies. The court can order

[1:22:40] them specific performance means order

[1:22:42] you to do X Y or Z. You must do this to

[1:22:45] come into compliance with your contract.

[1:22:47] Um injunction is kind of the opposite.

[1:22:49] we stop you from doing the court in

[1:22:51] order you to stop doing something that

[1:22:53] violates your contract. So those are

[1:22:56] great remedies in my opinion. We both

[1:22:58] have damages or or um money penalties,

[1:23:02] but we also have equitable remedies that

[1:23:04] the court can order. Um that agreement

[1:23:07] still needs to be finalized and will

[1:23:09] come to you at a later date. But uh

[1:23:12] again, that's additional and separate

[1:23:14] from the the land use application that

[1:23:16] you hear tonight. I just wanted to

[1:23:17] report that that came through as well.

[1:23:20] And finally, that the agreement runs

[1:23:22] with the land. It if they sell tomorrow

[1:23:24] or some some you know future owners,

[1:23:26] future um of the property would be

[1:23:30] required to buy by the same terms

[1:23:32] because it runs with the land at both

[1:23:34] burdens and benefits the land.

[1:23:37] Any questions?

[1:23:40] >> I should have just shut up because you

[1:23:41] did answer one of them.

[1:23:42] >> See, see, lesson learned. Um, but walk

[1:23:46] me through conditional subject to

[1:23:49] conditions.

[1:23:51] What does that mean? Who gets who's

[1:23:53] approving what? So, today we're talking

[1:23:54] about setting the rules, the limitations

[1:23:58] if if something like was this was to go

[1:24:00] in here. The the guardrails that would

[1:24:02] need would apply.

[1:24:05] >> Are we as a city council out at that

[1:24:07] point? If we approve this, we're not approving a site plan. We're

[1:24:10] not approving a data center

[1:24:12] >> anywhere. We're saying here are the

[1:24:14] rules to allow a data center.

[1:24:16] >> Exactly. Um yes, the the council would

[1:24:20] be out of that point. It would then a

[1:24:22] site plan application would come in

[1:24:23] which is an administrative action. The

[1:24:25] staff and the DRC specifically would

[1:24:28] review the site plan for conformity with

[1:24:30] these objective standards that would be

[1:24:32] set in the ordinance that is adopted.

[1:24:34] What whatever final version that takes.

[1:24:36] um it would be out of your hands even if

[1:24:39] it were a conditional use permit because

[1:24:40] then it would go to the planning

[1:24:42] commission. Again, that's still in a

[1:24:45] administrative act. It's not a

[1:24:46] legislative act. They need to apply the

[1:24:48] same standards. Um but there's a little

[1:24:51] less risk of I'll say it this way. I

[1:24:53] don't mean to imply our commission would

[1:24:56] do this, but impose any arbitrary type

[1:24:58] standards. um because there's not a you

[1:25:02] know public meeting where they have to

[1:25:05] you know look at other concerns beyond

[1:25:07] what are in the ordinance and that's

[1:25:08] >> no more public meetings hearings.

[1:25:10] >> There would be public meetings but not

[1:25:12] public hearings.

[1:25:12] >> Okay. So it would go before the planning

[1:25:14] commission. The planning commission

[1:25:15] would say here's what they're proposing.

[1:25:17] It meets all of the all of the

[1:25:20] guidelines all the guard rails that the council put in place. You're

[1:25:24] approved.

[1:25:25] >> Yeah. You're talking about conditional

[1:25:27] use

[1:25:27] >> if it were.

[1:25:29] >> Oh, excuse me. I misunderstood.

[1:25:30] >> This current

[1:25:31] >> uses subject to conditions would be

[1:25:34] applied by the staff through the

[1:25:35] development review committee. Okay. At a

[1:25:37] public meeting.

[1:25:38] >> Oh, okay.

[1:25:39] >> Public hearing.

[1:25:39] >> Not a public.

[1:25:40] hearing, but a plug

[1:25:41] meeting. Okay.

[1:25:42] >> Okay. So,

[1:25:44] >> question. The importance of getting

[1:25:46] guard rails right is is a pretty big

[1:25:49] deal.

[1:25:49] >> Yeah, I'd say so.

[1:25:51] >> Okay.

[1:25:52] Gotcha.

[1:25:55] Can I just confirm one thing? You said

[1:25:57] stipulated damages and that's not just a

[1:25:59] fee. It would also include where the

[1:26:03] court could come in and enforce

[1:26:04] something.

[1:26:05] >> Stipulated damages are the fee. So

[1:26:08] whatever we agree upon is is a right

[1:26:11] type of penalty to pay in dollars for

[1:26:14] violating the agreement.

[1:26:15] >> But there's additional remedies and they

[1:26:17] are cumulative. It's not one in place of

[1:26:19] the other. The court could order

[1:26:21] liquidated damages and injunction and

[1:26:23] specific performance. They could order

[1:26:25] that.

[1:26:26] >> But Von, you were saying that that's not

[1:26:27] currently spelled out yet. It is

[1:26:29] correct.

[1:26:29] >> Well, it was still to be finalized, but

[1:26:32] the nuts the key features of the

[1:26:34] contract I was pleased to see were

[1:26:35] there.

[1:26:37] >> We may have some minor back and forth on

[1:26:39] those finalizing terms, but I was happy

[1:26:42] to see the remedies there.

[1:26:45] >> So, all of that though is in a

[1:26:48] development agreement. Yes.

[1:26:51] >> None of those rules. Some of those rules

[1:26:54] are in here.

[1:26:54] >> Yeah.

[1:26:56] >> But not all of them. Does the I can't

[1:26:57] remember. Does it say you will have a

[1:26:58] development agreement with exactly what

[1:27:00] you just said in it

[1:27:01] >> or we are

[1:27:03] >> do we get an opportunity to discuss what

[1:27:05] is in a development agreement then?

[1:27:06] >> Sure. You certainly will.

[1:27:07] >> So there is a decision by a body outside

[1:27:10] of the permit.

[1:27:12] >> If the development agreement comes

[1:27:13] forward, like I said at the beginning,

[1:27:15] it's it's not a requirement of this text

[1:27:17] of this zoning. It's not a requirement

[1:27:20] um because you're setting what the

[1:27:23] administrative standards would be for.

[1:27:25] >> Right.

[1:27:26] >> But they've offered that.

[1:27:27] >> Sure. And and I think that I I

[1:27:30] understand what this applicant is doing.

[1:27:31] I'm thinking about more general if

[1:27:34] someone else to come in.

[1:27:35] >> Right. So So the point being

[1:27:37] >> you've mentioned already with the

[1:27:38] development agreement from what you've

[1:27:40] seen that there are things in there that

[1:27:41] are in addition to what we're asking as

[1:27:44] conditions. Does it make sense to take

[1:27:47] those things that are additional and

[1:27:50] actually make them conditions?

[1:27:52] >> Yeah, thanks Kevin.

[1:27:53] >> Or at the very least or at the very

[1:27:55] least one of the conditions be that they

[1:27:57] enter into a development agreement

[1:28:00] >> or Yeah. that way

[1:28:01] >> you add that as a second as another

[1:28:04] >> use subject to conditions that you

[1:28:06] consider that the applicant shall enter

[1:28:08] into a development agreement to further

[1:28:11] specify things.

[1:28:12] >> Yeah. Okay. Because what what I'm

[1:28:14] hearing you say is there are a lot of

[1:28:15] there are several things within that

[1:28:16] development agreement that go a long way

[1:28:19] to satisfying a lot of the questions

[1:28:21] that we have been getting.

[1:28:22] >> Yeah.

[1:28:22] >> Which are not necessarily addressed

[1:28:24] fully in our code.

[1:28:26] >> Yeah. Great point.

[1:28:27] >> Correct.

[1:28:28] >> Okay.

[1:28:29] >> Von, let me ask a question real quick.

[1:28:31] And Jordan, while you've got control, if

[1:28:32] you could scroll just below the

[1:28:34] definitions.

[1:28:37] Just want to get it other way.

[1:28:41] >> There you go. Oh,

[1:28:42] >> that's the end.

[1:28:43] >> Okay, I guess go up then.

[1:28:47] >> The uses.

[1:28:48] >> Oh, yeah. The definitions are at the

[1:28:49] top. So, yes. Thank you. Um down

[1:28:54] right right there. So, the first red

[1:28:56] line, the change uses subject to

[1:28:59] conditions. And then you've you've

[1:29:02] scratched out or lined out conditional

[1:29:04] use permit, but then you've still got

[1:29:06] the C153

[1:29:08] 8 060.

[1:29:10] >> Oh, good.

[1:29:12] Um, right. Is that

[1:29:14] >> which points which points you to

[1:29:17] conditional use permits.

[1:29:18] >> That's my mistake.

[1:29:20] >> Just wanted to make sure

[1:29:22] >> the intent is correct to classify it as

[1:29:24] a use subject to conditions.

[1:29:25] >> Yeah.

[1:29:29] » Thank you.

[1:29:30] >> Any other questions for Vaughn?

[1:29:34] >> Anything else, Von?

[1:29:35] >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr.

[1:29:39] David G.

[1:29:49] I'm going to go ahead and say I plan to

[1:29:51] be brief here. We'll see how that goes.

[1:29:53] Um, this is a unique situation. It's a

[1:29:55] really unique land use that um, this

[1:29:57] proposed text amendment would

[1:29:58] accommodate. And I think in light of

[1:30:00] that, uh, I owe everybody a little bit

[1:30:02] of an explanation at least as to how

[1:30:04] staff came to the conclusion of

[1:30:05] supporting the amendment that's before

[1:30:07] you. Um, I've been with Spanish Fork for

[1:30:10] about 20 years now, and this is the

[1:30:12] first time where a specific proposal's

[1:30:15] come forward with a type of land use

[1:30:18] where we formed a committee to evaluate

[1:30:22] it, and that's something that happened

[1:30:24] in February. That committee's met a

[1:30:26] number of different times. We've

[1:30:27] reported back to the council a number of

[1:30:29] times over the course of the past seven

[1:30:31] or eight months.

[1:30:33] Uh we've done homework to evaluate what

[1:30:37] this proposal potentially could mean for

[1:30:40] Spanish Fork City and for a local

[1:30:42] portion of the community, uh for

[1:30:44] neighbors and so forth. Um and I've

[1:30:48] appreciated the effort that everybody

[1:30:50] that's been involved in that has put

[1:30:51] into it. Again, it's unique. We

[1:30:54] understand that um the uh concept

[1:30:59] um as we've reviewed it has not been

[1:31:03] limited to the particular proposal that

[1:31:05] Valition has put forth. Um there are

[1:31:08] number of different groups that have uh

[1:31:10] made application with the city in

[1:31:11] various ways to pursue ultimately uh the

[1:31:15] prospect of building a data center in

[1:31:17] Spanish Fork. Um and for various reasons

[1:31:21] uh those different proposals at least to

[1:31:23] date have fallen by the wayside. Um some

[1:31:26] of them absolutely have been vetted out

[1:31:28] uh because of different um criteria that

[1:31:31] either the city can't meet or they

[1:31:33] can't. Um nonetheless here we are with

[1:31:35] valition tonight being really the

[1:31:38] proposal that's led to this this

[1:31:39] particular text amendment. Uh some of

[1:31:42] the things that uh the committee and

[1:31:44] staff have focused on. We're very very

[1:31:46] concerned about the prospect that for

[1:31:48] example Spanish Fork City rateayers

[1:31:50] would uh be impacted adversely by having

[1:31:54] a large power user tie into the power

[1:31:58] system in such a way that is Spanish

[1:31:59] Fork City's power system in such a way

[1:32:01] that um as has been the case in other

[1:32:03] parts of the country eventually

[1:32:06] uh residents power rates have gone up.

[1:32:09] Um, I'll let Jeff Chavez with Felician

[1:32:12] better describe how that doesn't come

[1:32:14] into play with their particular

[1:32:15] proposal. We're very concerned about the

[1:32:18] fundamentals, the things that we hear

[1:32:19] about day in and day out in our office

[1:32:22] when development occurs, when new land

[1:32:24] uses come to town and neighbors are

[1:32:26] impacted. It's the fundamentals

[1:32:28] typically traffic is at the top of the

[1:32:30] list in terms of concerns that people

[1:32:32] have. Uh, noise. Um it hasn't been often

[1:32:36] that we've been concerned about things

[1:32:38] like not excuse me odors or noxious uh

[1:32:42] emissions of different types. Uh but

[1:32:45] that is certainly something that's been

[1:32:46] part of the vetting that we've done with

[1:32:48] this particular proposal given the

[1:32:49] technology that um would be employed in

[1:32:53] accordance with the uh prescribed

[1:32:56] conditions that would have to be met for

[1:32:58] this to be allowed in Spanish Fork. And

[1:33:01] I could go on and I want to show some

[1:33:03] images and I don't in any way, shape or

[1:33:05] form mean to be flippant or to just take

[1:33:09] lightly the questions that are before

[1:33:11] the council tonight and some of the

[1:33:12] concerns that the residents of the area

[1:33:14] or the community at large have with the

[1:33:17] proposal. But there have been some

[1:33:19] moments

[1:33:21] as we've looked into what Valition would

[1:33:23] like to do that really have have um been

[1:33:26] poignant. So uh Mr. Mr. Hails, if you

[1:33:29] could go to the next slide. So, uh

[1:33:32] again, Mr. Chavez will talk more about

[1:33:35] uh the uh self generation of power as

[1:33:39] he's proposing to do it. A number of us

[1:33:41] in April of this year visited various

[1:33:46] sites um where the particular type of

[1:33:50] fuel cells are manufactured, where

[1:33:52] they're in use. images here on the right

[1:33:54] side of the screen. Uh those are of the

[1:33:57] fuel cells in operation. You can you can

[1:34:00] maybe kind of make out that um they're

[1:34:02] next to an Enterprise Renaar

[1:34:05] in between that business and the

[1:34:08] business that uses the power that's

[1:34:10] generated here. Um as we stood next to

[1:34:13] this field of generators, we couldn't

[1:34:15] smell anything. We couldn't really hear

[1:34:18] anything. and uh the co-orker or sorry

[1:34:22] the workers

[1:34:24] on their break from this company that uh

[1:34:27] again is using this power um you know

[1:34:31] they they took their breaks right next

[1:34:34] to these fuel cells in operation. Um we

[1:34:38] didn't add the picture of one of them

[1:34:39] that was taking a nap actually but uh

[1:34:42] that really is what we observed here on

[1:34:45] this site in terms of uh the impact from

[1:34:50] that particular part of what valition

[1:34:52] will talk about in action. Uh more

[1:34:54] recently we visited a site in Salt Lake

[1:34:56] County. You can go to the next photos

[1:34:59] that we have there. Um wasn't anything

[1:35:01] quite as dramatic as what I just showed

[1:35:03] happening there. There's a group of us

[1:35:05] in front of a data center um that

[1:35:09] operates in many ways very similarly to

[1:35:11] what would be allowed in Spanish fork if

[1:35:13] the text amendments approved. Um

[1:35:17] the image on the left again that's right

[1:35:21] in front of the data center. If you did

[1:35:25] not quite a 180 degree turn from where

[1:35:29] we were there and looked to the north,

[1:35:32] uh you'd see a residential neighborhood

[1:35:34] right next door. Um that uh as as it

[1:35:39] appeared to me was not suffering any

[1:35:41] adverse impacts from having been located

[1:35:45] uh for several years now in very close

[1:35:46] proximity to um this data center. Again,

[1:35:52] that is not representative of all of the

[1:35:54] work that we've done to try to make sure

[1:35:56] that um from a land's perspective, what

[1:35:59] Valition is talking about would not

[1:36:02] adversely impact the community. Um but

[1:36:06] uh again, we've done a lot more work

[1:36:08] than we ever have on anything else. the

[1:36:10] language of the text amendment with the

[1:36:12] conditions that are spelled out there. I

[1:36:14] think you'll likely see that it um it's

[1:36:17] atypical of what we have in our zoning

[1:36:20] code in terms of the uh level of

[1:36:23] specificity, the detail, the criteria

[1:36:26] and that sort of a thing. And those are

[1:36:28] things that we as staff feel very

[1:36:29] strongly about. um we believe the bar

[1:36:32] needs to be very very high for uh uses

[1:36:35] like this for a data center and for any operation that's going to generate

[1:36:40] its own power like what's being

[1:36:42] discussed here. So uh just a little bit

[1:36:44] more explanation about how we got here.

[1:36:46] Um that's partly my introduction as well

[1:36:48] for valition. I'd be happy to answer any

[1:36:50] questions that you have for me or

[1:36:54] >> say questions for Dave before you go to

[1:36:56] the applicant.

[1:36:57] >> Just just one Dave just c just so we all

[1:37:00] can hear this. So, this one that you

[1:37:01] toured in West Jordan, just what was the

[1:37:03] size of that data center and then the

[1:37:05] one that you showed pictures of

[1:37:06] previously? What do we know what the

[1:37:07] size of that one was?

[1:37:08] >> I Mr. Chavez, I'll maybe leave that for

[1:37:12] you. I I would Yeah, probably get it

[1:37:14] wrong. Sounds good.

[1:37:17] Anything else for Dave?

[1:37:20] >> Thank you, David.

[1:37:20] >> Thank you. Appreciate it.

[1:37:28] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. and council. It's

[1:37:30] good to be with you again. Landon, just

[1:37:32] real quick,

[1:37:34] >> um the uh the field of fuel cells where

[1:37:39] folks were taking naps represented about

[1:37:42] 40 megawatts of power. Uh Nova full

[1:37:47] campus runs about 300 megawatts of

[1:37:50] power, which is where we

[1:37:53] uh where we visited just the other day.

[1:37:55] Um

[1:37:57] it's good to be with you. Um,

[1:38:00] I maybe owe Dave an apology because when

[1:38:03] I walked into his office some 10 months

[1:38:05] ago, I I didn't know that, you know,

[1:38:09] we'd be here um dealing with such a

[1:38:14] hotly contested topic, but I should have

[1:38:16] known because the whole reason why we

[1:38:19] engaged

[1:38:21] uh as a company was to address the hotly

[1:38:26] contested concerns about data centers.

[1:38:30] Um, I think it's important for us to to

[1:38:33] stress that that is our history. That's

[1:38:37] where we came from. We focused on

[1:38:40] different ways to build power because we

[1:38:42] were concerned about what was going on

[1:38:43] with the grid. We were concerned about

[1:38:46] rates going up all around the country.

[1:38:49] And so our initial work was in building

[1:38:52] finding ways to build on-site power

[1:38:54] solutions that would give

[1:38:57] businesses and consumers a lower price,

[1:38:59] a fixed rate so it wouldn't go up.

[1:39:03] Uh we were really horrified by the

[1:39:05] amount of water that data centers have

[1:39:08] really gotten away with scot-free for

[1:39:12] decades

[1:39:14] um in really poorly designed facilities

[1:39:17] that nobody was paying attention to for

[1:39:21] a really long time.

[1:39:23] So that's really the genesis of this

[1:39:26] company. And part of our conversation in

[1:39:29] the city has been um

[1:39:32] it's I've really enjoyed it. Um the

[1:39:36] there's a few folks here that

[1:39:39] I feel like I kind of know now because

[1:39:41] we spent uh 10 hours staring at each

[1:39:44] other and you know talking about these

[1:39:46] good questions and it's been really

[1:39:49] informative and I think for me one of

[1:39:52] the most encouraging aspects has

[1:39:57] been um when when I look at like council

[1:40:02] meetings happening around happening

[1:40:03] around the country When I look at the

[1:40:05] absolute train wreck of a circumstance

[1:40:08] that the the those folks in box elder

[1:40:12] were forced to to deal with with this

[1:40:14] atrocious proposal and terrible process.

[1:40:18] Uh those dialogues um they seem to

[1:40:21] descend into a lot of anger um a lot of

[1:40:24] contention a lot of fighting and I have

[1:40:27] just been pleased that that has not been

[1:40:29] the case in our dialogue. Now, we have

[1:40:32] gotten a lot of interesting comments

[1:40:33] online and, you know, not everything has

[1:40:36] been, you know, roses, that's for sure.

[1:40:39] But

[1:40:40] it's been telling to me that in every

[1:40:44] meeting

[1:40:45] from the commission meeting to an update

[1:40:48] previously at this council in our open

[1:40:51] house meetings without fail

[1:40:55] more than one person stands up and says

[1:40:58] something to the effect of

[1:41:01] I was totally against this.

[1:41:04] But

[1:41:06] if we can verify if these things are

[1:41:10] accurate,

[1:41:12] you know, I'm kind of open because I

[1:41:15] think we all agree that um if there is a

[1:41:20] major problem in some part of our,

[1:41:24] you know, our country, our cities,

[1:41:28] we welcome solutions. And I've been

[1:41:31] impressed and pleased that while there's

[1:41:33] a lot of opposition and a lot of

[1:41:35] opposition still and we won't win

[1:41:38] everybody over on this topic, I've been

[1:41:42] pleased that folks have been willing to

[1:41:44] just listen a little bit. Uh, one of our

[1:41:48] major um oh, you know, I don't want to

[1:41:53] say adversary, but there was one who

[1:41:54] stood up who's really really opposed.

[1:41:57] doesn't trust the process.

[1:42:01] But four different times when he

[1:42:03] continued to stand with his opposition,

[1:42:07] each time he began to preface it with,

[1:42:11] "If this is true,

[1:42:14] you guys may have solved this problem.

[1:42:18] So you better do this, this, and this."

[1:42:20] And came up again. Now, if this is true,

[1:42:25] this is pretty unique.

[1:42:27] maybe maybe this could be beneficial.

[1:42:29] So, I've appreciated people's

[1:42:32] willingness to hear and listen. Um, and

[1:42:36] I think our intent here is to continue

[1:42:40] collaborating as the slide indicates.

[1:42:43] This conversation is not over. Um, I

[1:42:46] also would suggest um

[1:42:50] I think it's important to have a little

[1:42:52] bit of a little bit of trust that it is

[1:42:55] true.

[1:42:57] It's true that city councils can do real

[1:43:00] due diligence. It's true that city

[1:43:03] councils um can be honorable and not

[1:43:08] look for backroom deals and not make a

[1:43:11] decision before the city has a chance to

[1:43:14] weigh in. I know without question that

[1:43:19] this city has not made a decision. I am

[1:43:23] crystal clear and I want the the

[1:43:25] citizens to know that this decision is

[1:43:28] not rubber stamped by any stretch. I

[1:43:32] think it's important for people to

[1:43:33] understand this that there are some good

[1:43:36] councils and cities out here still who

[1:43:38] do things the right way and this is one

[1:43:40] of them. Um I think it's important for

[1:43:44] people to have a little bit of trust

[1:43:46] that perhaps some companies can move

[1:43:50] forward with good intentions also. We we

[1:43:53] are one of those and that's why we have

[1:43:55] had no interest in rushing or pushing or

[1:44:00] hiding

[1:44:01] uh but in fact to take the time that we

[1:44:04] need to open

[1:44:07] every conversation, every question and

[1:44:11] to address those the best we can and we

[1:44:13] can't answer every question. And this

[1:44:14] proposal is not 100% perfect. Um, but

[1:44:18] we're just laying it all out for the

[1:44:20] council and the city to consider. We're

[1:44:23] hopeful that this lands in a place that

[1:44:24] we can proceed, but it may not.

[1:44:34] I shared this u the other day. I think

[1:44:36] it's worth revisiting just to explain

[1:44:40] the foundation

[1:44:42] um around how data centers are not all

[1:44:44] the same and ultimately a data center um

[1:44:48] is a collection an outcome around

[1:44:51] decisions that developers make.

[1:44:55] So a developer can choose to invest more

[1:44:59] capital into emerging technologies

[1:45:04] that do a better job. We talk about uh

[1:45:08] residents around the country who deal

[1:45:11] with a hum, a drone, maddening. Um and

[1:45:16] it doesn't have to be that way. In the

[1:45:18] past, the equipment was so antiquated

[1:45:21] that that was kind of the outcome.

[1:45:23] diesel generators, large fans,

[1:45:26] um, unkempt promises. You know, there's

[1:45:29] a story of a city in New Jersey where

[1:45:31] they put on diesel generators and they

[1:45:33] said, "No, this will just be for

[1:45:34] backup." As soon as they got through the

[1:45:38] process, they turned those generators on

[1:45:40] and never turned them off. And so, this

[1:45:43] was before this was when people could

[1:45:45] get away with things. So we have made a

[1:45:49] choice to utilize the fuel,

[1:45:53] the power and the process

[1:45:57] that is most beneficial to creating as

[1:46:00] close to a sustainable operation

[1:46:04] as possible.

[1:46:14] We have outlined several times now um

[1:46:17] how our approach

[1:46:20] is designed to eliminate as much risk

[1:46:25] for the city and for its residents.

[1:46:30] um while still providing a substantial

[1:46:34] net positive impact for the city and its

[1:46:39] residents. And so these there's these

[1:46:42] six kind of pillars really

[1:46:45] that we've gone into great detail and

[1:46:47] explaining um that first of all we bring

[1:46:50] our own power. We will never connect to

[1:46:52] the grid. That's a big it's a big

[1:46:54] problem uh in designing data centers

[1:46:57] that grid just can't handle it. And

[1:46:59] typically when a city says that they

[1:47:01] will accommodate

[1:47:04] um a data center with grid power, then

[1:47:07] the developer asks the city to pay for

[1:47:08] that to fit the bill. Um and so

[1:47:13] everything about pulling from the grid

[1:47:15] right now is sort of a really a

[1:47:17] non-starter especially whoops

[1:47:22] especially for us. So we do not connect

[1:47:24] to the grid. We use natural gas that is

[1:47:28] powered powering a fuel cell that does

[1:47:32] not burn the natural gas. There's a

[1:47:35] chemical reaction that occurs that

[1:47:37] creates electricity and the byproduct is

[1:47:40] heat and and clean water. So that is why

[1:47:44] the fuel cell when we get into the topic

[1:47:48] of air

[1:47:50] um allows us to produce power with near

[1:47:53] zero emissions. not zero but very clean.

[1:47:57] We call it ultra clean as it relates to

[1:47:59] any particulate or smog that would come

[1:48:03] out of a traditional

[1:48:05] um fuelpowered system.

[1:48:09] Water is a major topic and um

[1:48:14] innovators have looked at the problem of

[1:48:19] wasteful water systems and created uh

[1:48:23] the closed loop system that allows us to

[1:48:26] fill um our data center cooling system

[1:48:30] one time about 500,000 gallons or two

[1:48:34] households equivalent

[1:48:37] and that's

[1:48:39] During the year, we need to use water to

[1:48:42] create humidity in the system. And that

[1:48:45] is about 250,000 gallons of water a year

[1:48:48] or one household.

[1:48:51] So when we look at actually the water

[1:48:52] that's currently being used or allowed

[1:48:55] on site as is,

[1:48:58] we make no additional impact.

[1:49:02] We will never request an increase in

[1:49:05] water at any time and we factually will

[1:49:11] utilize far less than many comparable

[1:49:13] businesses uh that we drive past and

[1:49:16] utilize uh on a regular basis in every

[1:49:19] city in Utah.

[1:49:22] We have focused on making sure that our

[1:49:24] noise impact is minimal. And this is a

[1:49:29] surprise because most data centers are

[1:49:32] utilizing older antiquated equipment

[1:49:35] that are just loud.

[1:49:39] Our engineers have also worked on a

[1:49:41] variety of ways to shield and engineer

[1:49:45] on the property so that we uh suppress

[1:49:48] as much noise as possible. For example,

[1:49:51] we're the first ones that we know of who

[1:49:54] have now engineered a way for our

[1:49:55] cooling system, which is the loudest of

[1:49:57] the components on the property to be

[1:50:00] indoor.

[1:50:02] Nobody has done that before, but we're

[1:50:05] putting our cooling equipment indoor

[1:50:07] dramatically suppresses the amount of

[1:50:10] sound on property.

[1:50:13] Our equipment is low heat. We capture

[1:50:17] and reuse as much heat as as we possibly

[1:50:21] can and we can demonstrate that the

[1:50:24] expected amount of increased heat on

[1:50:27] property is modest and the near impact

[1:50:33] talking less than a quarter mile half a

[1:50:35] mile off site is um an iniccernable

[1:50:39] amount of additional heat less than less

[1:50:43] than a degree in a very short period of

[1:50:45] time. What's interesting also when we

[1:50:47] talk about this property, and we'll get

[1:50:49] into this, um, it happens to be in a

[1:50:51] location that actually complements our

[1:50:54] desire to decrease sound and decrease

[1:50:56] heat because of its positioning at the

[1:50:58] mouth of the canyon and a constant flow

[1:51:02] of wind.

[1:51:04] And finally, we've gone into detail

[1:51:06] about uh the substantial community

[1:51:08] benefits um that we think um if a

[1:51:14] community has an opportunity to uh have

[1:51:17] a substantial financial impact for

[1:51:20] programs for infrastructure

[1:51:22] combined with a company like ours who

[1:51:24] will contribute a portion of our actual

[1:51:27] income to going above and beyond in

[1:51:30] local programs.

[1:51:32] We think this ends up netting out to an

[1:51:36] overall positive for everybody involved.

[1:51:41] But I want to share with you a little

[1:51:43] bit about what the process has

[1:51:46] um helped us accomplish.

[1:51:50] We have fielded

[1:51:53] hundreds and hundreds of extremely

[1:51:57] thoughtful questions.

[1:51:59] um everything around every one of the

[1:52:02] kind of pillars that I've that I have

[1:52:04] talked about. Um so much so we we have

[1:52:08] this is kind of what we're we're

[1:52:09] referring to now as this Q&A bible of

[1:52:14] direct answers to over 350 questions. Um

[1:52:20] we already knew the truth about our

[1:52:22] equipment and about our outputs. Um but

[1:52:26] this helped us go even deeper. And so,

[1:52:29] um, I'm going to take a minute and

[1:52:32] actually go through some of the

[1:52:34] questions that have come up that maybe

[1:52:36] some have brought here today. Um, just

[1:52:40] to address some of the the deeper

[1:52:42] questions that some folks here have been

[1:52:44] through a port a version of this

[1:52:46] presentation. This is different. Some in

[1:52:49] this room were not able to come to to

[1:52:51] the open house. So, I think that some of

[1:52:53] these answers will uh shed light on a

[1:52:56] few questions that um you know, maybe

[1:53:00] attendees are wondering about. Um so,

[1:53:02] I'm going to go through some of these

[1:53:03] quickly and then uh we're going to talk

[1:53:06] about um the use of the property. We're

[1:53:09] going to talk about uh the text

[1:53:12] amendment um the development agreement

[1:53:15] um and then have a conversation together

[1:53:17] and hear from the community on

[1:53:19] additional questions and also um how we

[1:53:22] may consider proceeding together.

[1:53:25] Um

[1:53:27] in water

[1:53:28] we've been asked um does the cooling

[1:53:31] water evaporate into the sky? It

[1:53:34] doesn't. We're not wasting. It's a

[1:53:35] sealed loop. How much water do we

[1:53:38] actually use? 500,000 gallons to fill

[1:53:41] 250,000 gallons a year.

[1:53:46] Lawns are going brown. Why does a data

[1:53:48] center get water that we don't?

[1:53:53] Our property has no need for extra

[1:53:56] water. It's a building that already uses

[1:53:58] about 15 million gallons of water a year

[1:54:01] just on its exterior. That's something

[1:54:04] that we will actually decrease. So,

[1:54:06] we're not asking or receiving any uh any

[1:54:10] more water that's than is already

[1:54:12] allotted.

[1:54:14] Hey, will these people quietly take more

[1:54:16] water later?

[1:54:18] We we we cannot we will not we cannot.

[1:54:23] We have designed a system that's

[1:54:24] extremely expensive that runs on the

[1:54:27] amount of water that it runs on. Uh we

[1:54:30] would be fools to think that we could go

[1:54:32] through this process knowing somehow in

[1:54:34] the background that we really need more

[1:54:37] water and that somehow we would pull

[1:54:40] that off and and get that. We would be

[1:54:42] fools to invest in something that would

[1:54:45] require us to do some kind of bait and

[1:54:46] switch. So there is no chance for us to

[1:54:50] quietly take more water later on. Are

[1:54:53] there chemicals in the loop? F PFAS

[1:54:56] these forever chemicals. There's nothing

[1:54:59] that we add to our water, no chemicals

[1:55:01] except for glycol that is a normal

[1:55:05] additive that we find in HVAC and in our

[1:55:07] homes and systems everywhere. Um, so

[1:55:10] there's no there's no additional

[1:55:13] chemical that goes into this into this

[1:55:15] system. There are trace elements of PFAS

[1:55:18] uh that you can't avoid because they're

[1:55:20] part of almost every structure that's

[1:55:22] built anywhere at the time.

[1:55:26] Where does the water go if it fails?

[1:55:28] People have been concerned that we're

[1:55:30] going to be putting water into uh into

[1:55:33] the drainage system. Uh we won't and we

[1:55:36] can't. And if there was ever a time that

[1:55:38] we need to treat our system, we're able

[1:55:40] to block off portions of that system,

[1:55:43] pump the water into a tank, treat it in

[1:55:46] a tank, and reapply it into our system

[1:55:49] without ever having been disposed of or

[1:55:53] offloaded uh in any nefarious way at

[1:55:56] all. Um, can it contaminate our drinking

[1:56:00] water? No, because we never get anywhere

[1:56:03] near uh the city water system at any

[1:56:08] time. Power and gas. Will this raise my

[1:56:11] electric bill? No, we don't touch the

[1:56:13] grid. There's no way for us to impact

[1:56:15] it. Will it strain the grid or cause

[1:56:17] black hats? No, because we don't touch

[1:56:20] it. We're not connected to it. Is the

[1:56:22] city or state paying them anything?

[1:56:24] Absolutely not. There are no waiverss.

[1:56:27] There's no concessions. There's no

[1:56:29] subsidies. We make no requests of the

[1:56:33] city for any kind of subsidy uh upfront

[1:56:37] or down the road of any kind at any

[1:56:40] time.

[1:56:42] How much gas will we consume every year?

[1:56:44] It's a lot. 14.9 million mm BTUs, which

[1:56:49] is basically expanding the natural gas

[1:56:52] pipe to about 12 in. But we pull that

[1:56:55] gas from a wholesale a wholesale supply

[1:56:59] that in no way touches the residential

[1:57:03] supply already set aside for Embridge.

[1:57:06] We in no way compete what with what the

[1:57:09] residents already have allotted to them.

[1:57:12] Has anyone uh run a data center that's

[1:57:14] this big on fuel cells alone? Not this

[1:57:17] size with no grid.

[1:57:21] What's important to understand there is

[1:57:23] that while that's the true answer today,

[1:57:26] we um are leading the pack along with

[1:57:30] Oracle and others who are doing large

[1:57:32] deployments,

[1:57:33] Bloom has sold over $60 billion worth of

[1:57:37] fuel cell in the last 24 months that are

[1:57:40] all now part of various engineering

[1:57:43] projects around the country. Um, and so,

[1:57:48] uh, we're ahead of the curve, but their

[1:57:51] technology has been validated for over

[1:57:53] 15 years in hundreds of thousands of

[1:57:55] fuel cells. We know and our capital

[1:57:58] decision makers know that this system

[1:58:01] will run um without without any hiccup

[1:58:05] because it's been doing so for 15 to 20

[1:58:07] years in a variety of locations. Um, you

[1:58:09] know, hey, why should we be first? Why

[1:58:12] should we be first? come back uh when

[1:58:15] it's something else. Um

[1:58:18] you know the the trade-off is that fuel

[1:58:21] cells today are going to admit um a

[1:58:25] third less of of carbon. Um there is a a series of events that have

[1:58:33] occurred that have brought us to this

[1:58:36] place. It happens to be that there is a great location here. And there's a

[1:58:41] part of it is just it it happens to have

[1:58:44] come together in this in this place. And

[1:58:47] you know, I think that if we're able to

[1:58:49] demonstrate that the that all of the

[1:58:52] parts are going to bring a net positive,

[1:58:55] uh we think it's going to be a great

[1:58:56] thing if this is uh the first place that

[1:58:59] you are able to lead out to see this

[1:59:01] type of technology running in place.

[1:59:04] Will there be smoke stacks? know what's

[1:59:07] permitted to come out of it. We're

[1:59:09] required to follow all of the state's uh

[1:59:11] permitted uses. We have initially been

[1:59:15] approved for this process to move

[1:59:18] forward. It's in the public uh comment

[1:59:21] period. Um but we expect that all of

[1:59:23] this will move forward without any uh we

[1:59:27] will have met all the requirements. Um

[1:59:30] how does that compare to something I can

[1:59:31] picture? You know, I think um it's about

[1:59:34] the same as a regional hospital, for

[1:59:37] example. Uh to give you some some

[1:59:39] comparison, the canyon wind blows right

[1:59:42] over our homes. Down we wind wind means

[1:59:44] us. Um the permutes permits total use um

[1:59:49] are everything that there is. It it

[1:59:51] could move it moves through the canyon

[1:59:55] uh without having any accumulative

[1:59:57] negative effect on anybody in in

[2:00:00] proximity.

[2:00:02] So we have continued to go through these

[2:00:05] hundreds of questions and um all of

[2:00:08] these questions around emissions have

[2:00:12] continued to prove out that everything

[2:00:14] we're doing falls below any expected

[2:00:17] requirement noise. Um, all of our

[2:00:22] studies have proven and indicated that

[2:00:26] our decibel ranges are lower than what

[2:00:31] is currently emanating from the property

[2:00:34] today. Um and so when we are seeing a 60

[2:00:39] to 65 decibel at our boundary and 50 or

[2:00:44] less close at uh at at homes, this is

[2:00:49] something that is a

[2:00:52] imperceptible

[2:00:54] accumulation

[2:00:56] um that blends with the existing sound,

[2:00:59] the existing decibel range that this

[2:01:01] entire area um is living with right Now,

[2:01:06] so we have continued to go through um

[2:01:09] all of the answers to hundreds of

[2:01:12] questions. Heat, where does the heat go?

[2:01:15] We've been able to understand that the

[2:01:18] heat that may accumulate up to 9 degrees

[2:01:21] on our property disseminates within a

[2:01:24] half a mile, quarter mile of less than a

[2:01:27] degree imperceptible

[2:01:28] amount of change. Um carbon emissions,

[2:01:33] we've gone done a deep deep dive and

[2:01:35] carbon emissions are something that um

[2:01:38] our system still produces

[2:01:42] um a substantial amount of carbon.

[2:01:44] That's something that is just part of

[2:01:47] the way that this fuel cell works. But

[2:01:50] compared to many other industrial and

[2:01:54] commercial facilities,

[2:01:56] um, we still

[2:01:58] fall into a category of

[2:02:02] it, it's debatable when you say

[2:02:04] reasonable compared to how people view

[2:02:06] carbon, but compared to what the entire

[2:02:09] city is emitting on a regular basis, um,

[2:02:12] you know, the carbon emissions are um,

[2:02:16] within range of something that you would

[2:02:19] have put together in an industrial in

[2:02:22] industrial development. It's not the

[2:02:25] carbon emission piece is um not

[2:02:28] something that we try and defend it. we

[2:02:30] put the the amount out. And what our

[2:02:34] focus really on is on the way that um

[2:02:41] the way that the emissions that create

[2:02:43] our smog, what we are required under a

[2:02:47] permit to meet um we fall below all of

[2:02:52] those standard requirements.

[2:02:55] So there's an additional question

[2:02:56] additional questions that came in around

[2:02:58] trusting the process. Um are we going to

[2:03:01] be able to increase the amount of

[2:03:04] revenue that we contribute

[2:03:06] um health and safety? Will it hurt my

[2:03:08] property value? What about lights at

[2:03:11] night? As we went through all of these

[2:03:14] questions, um, it brought us to a

[2:03:16] conclusion that I want to discuss in a

[2:03:18] minute about making sure that we find a

[2:03:21] way to allow the community to have a

[2:03:25] view of all of these hundreds of answers

[2:03:28] to questions. Before we get to that, we

[2:03:31] look at the building and how we look to

[2:03:34] utilize this this facility. There's

[2:03:38] really three things to look at that

[2:03:39] comes to kind of a decision around the

[2:03:42] current use of this building, how the

[2:03:45] building would be used from a a

[2:03:48] potential buyer compared to how we would

[2:03:51] utilize this building.

[2:03:54] Currently, you have a warehouse. Um,

[2:03:57] it's not it's not fully occupied. um

[2:04:01] it's not producing

[2:04:03] um a whole lot of emission, but you do

[2:04:05] have uh regular truck activity. Um

[2:04:11] they're utilizing um a property value of

[2:04:14] about 51 million and they're paying a a

[2:04:18] modest amount of annual property tax. uh

[2:04:21] noise is between 50 and 70 dB as is and

[2:04:26] there's a substantial amount of

[2:04:28] emissions in CO2.

[2:04:30] A potential buyer could potentially

[2:04:34] utilize

[2:04:36] over 80 uh loading bays and distribution

[2:04:40] points that would dramatically increase

[2:04:44] uh the monthly truck activity up to more

[2:04:46] than 10,000 trips.

[2:04:49] um

[2:04:50] they may be generating uh you know over

[2:04:53] a million dollars a year in annual

[2:04:55] property tax but there's a lot of

[2:04:57] emission that comes out of the use of

[2:05:00] that of that building in our use. We are

[2:05:05] dramatically less in emissions. We have

[2:05:10] at a certain point maybe up to 400

[2:05:12] employees operating out of this

[2:05:14] facility. our noise and traffic are all

[2:05:19] extremely modest and at the end of the

[2:05:22] day we end up generating a substantial

[2:05:26] economic impact for the city. And so

[2:05:30] aside from the text amendment that this

[2:05:32] is about and looking at uh voting on and

[2:05:35] approving at some point, um this is

[2:05:38] something that's substantial as it

[2:05:39] relates to just the current use of the

[2:05:42] building and comparing that against uh

[2:05:45] the risk of something that comes in that

[2:05:47] has uh a lot of sound and a lot of

[2:05:50] emission compared to this use.

[2:05:54] We mentioned that we took a trip up to

[2:05:56] the Nova facility in West Jordan. So,

[2:05:58] um, this is a good example of, you know,

[2:06:00] a bit of a comparable. That building is

[2:06:03] on 100 acres. They're utilizing grid.

[2:06:06] They're utilizing turbines. They're

[2:06:08] utilizing some uh bloom fuel cell. Um,

[2:06:12] by contrast,

[2:06:15] we're utilizing far less water. We're

[2:06:18] producing far less emissions. Um and

[2:06:21] this is a site that has been approved

[2:06:25] under the term of you know being a good

[2:06:27] neighbor and and we think that um this

[2:06:30] facility has proven to be actually a

[2:06:33] good neighbor and our design is

[2:06:36] dramatically more efficient. But kind of

[2:06:38] to the point about, you know, the the

[2:06:41] meeting that we we had there just the

[2:06:43] other day to visit, when we look at the

[2:06:46] sound, this is just right outside of

[2:06:48] this building.

[2:06:50] Less than 50 dB. Um there's over 300

[2:06:54] megawatts of power running throughout

[2:06:57] this throughout this whole facility.

[2:07:00] um right in direct view of cooling and

[2:07:04] fuel cell, we're still running under 60

[2:07:07] dB.

[2:07:09] And the picture that we've shown before,

[2:07:11] you know, you have homes in right within

[2:07:14] proximity that were there before this

[2:07:18] data center was even built.

[2:07:21] We actually got curious about those

[2:07:24] residents

[2:07:27] and Utah is weirdly the world of the

[2:07:30] land of going doortodoor. So we thought

[2:07:32] let's go doortodoor

[2:07:34] and um we went door to door and spoke

[2:07:39] with over 20 over 15 of the residents

[2:07:42] and we took them through a just a quick

[2:07:45] survey about do you know what's in the

[2:07:48] building? um have you noticed noise?

[2:07:51] Have you noticed any exhaust, vibration?

[2:07:55] And asked them to those who were willing

[2:07:57] to go on record and um give their

[2:08:00] feedback. These folks uh that we were

[2:08:03] able to talk to, each one said that

[2:08:06] they're they don't notice noise, they

[2:08:09] don't notice heat, they don't notice

[2:08:12] vibration, they forget that it's there.

[2:08:15] And in fact, a little bit down the road,

[2:08:19] there is a type of distribution center

[2:08:22] and they actively um complained about

[2:08:24] the fact that they hear beeping noises

[2:08:27] of diesel trucks moving in and out on a

[2:08:30] regular basis. So, it it has been um

[2:08:35] useful to make sure that we are

[2:08:37] physically working to validate the types

[2:08:40] of things that we're talking about.

[2:08:41] Another example, you've heard in the

[2:08:43] news about Eagle Mountain. Um, they're

[2:08:46] in the news now because they're having a

[2:08:48] tax problem. Um, but there's nothing in

[2:08:51] common with that facility and the

[2:08:54] facility that we are proposing to the

[2:08:57] city. Um, this was a facility that uh

[2:09:01] the client asked for all kinds of

[2:09:03] incentives. They gave tax breaks. Um,

[2:09:07] and those tax breaks have come back to

[2:09:10] haunt them. They have a much louder

[2:09:12] facility. They use much more water. And

[2:09:16] so it's important to look and compare

[2:09:19] when you hear about these other

[2:09:20] facilities in the state and elsewhere.

[2:09:23] Those that are producing these negative

[2:09:25] outcomes are not the same. They are a

[2:09:28] different design. They are a different

[2:09:30] structure and they are a different

[2:09:32] approval process.

[2:09:36] This facility

[2:09:39] will have a value on site of over$4

[2:09:43] billion.

[2:09:45] Um

[2:09:47] that value will generate at least $40

[2:09:51] million of tax revenue that is

[2:09:54] distributed to the city, that is

[2:09:57] distributed to the school district.

[2:10:02] That's a meaningful contribution to

[2:10:06] a city that is growing, that has

[2:10:08] infrastructure needs. There are many

[2:10:11] scenarios where cities have have have

[2:10:15] been dramatically changed for the good

[2:10:19] because of the financial impact that was

[2:10:22] available to to the city. We are

[2:10:25] pledging an additional contribution

[2:10:28] um that we also think is meaningful.

[2:10:31] This just gives you a view of where this

[2:10:33] money will land for the school district

[2:10:36] over $490 per student. Um, as a benefit,

[2:10:41] it's substantial.

[2:10:44] We're the first uh company in the

[2:10:48] country to dedicate a separate community

[2:10:51] fund with a minimum of $500,000 a year.

[2:10:54] We think this will will grow

[2:10:56] substantially

[2:10:58] to work with the community directly in

[2:11:00] building out a process where we can

[2:11:03] touch at risk youth and help in

[2:11:07] addiction recovery, help in training,

[2:11:09] professional

[2:11:11] uh education, helping people move into

[2:11:13] this industry to know how to find their

[2:11:15] way into this new economy. And it's

[2:11:19] something that we're proud of and look

[2:11:20] forward to to be able to contribute to

[2:11:22] the city.

[2:11:24] Our development agreement that we've

[2:11:26] referenced earlier, it it holds us

[2:11:30] accountable to everything that we're

[2:11:31] talking about. There is not a scenario

[2:11:33] where we can use more water that we can

[2:11:35] take from the grid. Um, we're we're

[2:11:39] creating really interesting enforcable

[2:11:42] noise limits that will allow us to

[2:11:44] actually have sensors

[2:11:46] um within certain areas that will allow

[2:11:49] us to on an annual basis or otherwise

[2:11:52] have a a clear understanding of anything

[2:11:54] abnormal and then work to improve that

[2:11:57] if we ever uh find that something is

[2:12:00] off. We can do more. We can put up

[2:12:02] barriers. We can enclose equipment. Um,

[2:12:06] right now we think we're at the a range

[2:12:08] that we meet all of the requirements,

[2:12:09] but we can improve it if if we need to.

[2:12:15] The text amendment is necessary

[2:12:19] uh because it will allow us to generate

[2:12:22] onsite power right now. That's just not

[2:12:24] something that the city um has provided

[2:12:28] approval for in a standard industrial

[2:12:30] zoning. And so within this text

[2:12:33] amendment, we have provided an amendment

[2:12:37] that ensures that we or anybody else

[2:12:41] has to work under these same uh

[2:12:44] requirements around electricity use, no

[2:12:47] diesel, no wa no wasteful uh water

[2:12:51] cooling systems, noise limits, um

[2:12:54] storage safety, air quality sealing.

[2:12:57] These are all embedded in this text

[2:13:00] amendment so that whether it's valition

[2:13:04] or somebody else is held to a standard

[2:13:07] that ensures that these systems are as

[2:13:10] close to sustainable

[2:13:13] as possible.

[2:13:17] So as we get into the the text

[2:13:19] amendment, you know, this is these are

[2:13:20] really the categories that ensure that

[2:13:24] this is managed properly around water

[2:13:26] noise storage, uh capping, growth, uh

[2:13:30] making sure wastewater is not in any way

[2:13:33] utilized improperly, review authority,

[2:13:35] screening, decommissioning, power and

[2:13:38] air emissions.

[2:13:45] So, as we as we begin to summarize this,

[2:13:48] um,

[2:13:49] the vote is really about

[2:13:53] making a change to the amendment. Um,

[2:13:57] and it's not just about us or about one

[2:14:01] project. And there are still many hoops

[2:14:04] that need to be met in order for us or

[2:14:07] anybody else to proceed. We'll still

[2:14:10] need to submit all of our final site u

[2:14:14] engineering. We have to meet all of the

[2:14:17] permitting that is already required by

[2:14:20] the state. We have to finalize our air

[2:14:23] quality. We have to meet all of the same

[2:14:26] uh strict requirements that any

[2:14:28] industrial developer would be required

[2:14:31] to meet. So this does not stamp us or

[2:14:34] somebody else through to um to move

[2:14:37] forward in a way that it's not

[2:14:39] continually gated and monitored

[2:14:42] throughout the entire process.

[2:14:49] So as we kind of look at the timeline

[2:14:52] um

[2:14:54] the statute doesn't compel any specific

[2:14:56] action tonight. Um you know this is sort

[2:14:59] of as we have gone through the the

[2:15:02] process

[2:15:03] um we have submitted the the proper uh

[2:15:08] requests we've had the appropriate

[2:15:11] conversations together. Uh we took the

[2:15:14] extra step to go through these open

[2:15:16] house sessions. We think that was

[2:15:19] unprecedented. We don't know anywhere in

[2:15:21] the country where a company has taken

[2:15:23] the time to open this dialogue. Um but

[2:15:28] as as we come to this point,

[2:15:31] we actually would recommend to the

[2:15:34] council that we be allowed to give more

[2:15:39] visibility of when I when I talk about

[2:15:41] all of the answers to these questions.

[2:15:44] Um we would like to be able to make all

[2:15:48] of these available on our website. Uh we

[2:15:51] have a site that uh is for Spanish fork

[2:15:54] only that kind of outlines this entire

[2:15:57] process. Um we understand that we can't

[2:16:02] answer all of these questions

[2:16:04] tonight. In the last three weeks, we

[2:16:07] have not been able to answer yet all of

[2:16:10] them for everyone concerned or those who

[2:16:12] are paying attention and want to weigh

[2:16:14] in.

[2:16:15] Um, and we know that the city council uh

[2:16:19] is doing everything they can to do a

[2:16:21] deep dive and get all of the information

[2:16:23] they possibly can. So, our understanding

[2:16:26] is that this can be voted on tonight,

[2:16:28] but it could also be uh moved to push this to the next meeting. And I

[2:16:37] think our position is that we welcome

[2:16:39] more time for the city. We welcome more

[2:16:41] time for the council to continue to do

[2:16:44] their due diligence and we support that.

[2:16:48] So actually our recommendation would be

[2:16:51] um that after we hear questions from the

[2:16:53] community, it allows us to continue to

[2:16:56] capture those and and provide answers.

[2:16:59] Um that you may consider allowing more

[2:17:02] time for the community to continue to

[2:17:05] learn and and we want to accommodate

[2:17:08] that process. Before we open this up to

[2:17:12] some questions, I would like to invite

[2:17:15] um John, who is one of the property

[2:17:17] owners, to uh just give a little bit of

[2:17:21] feedback around their view on uh the

[2:17:25] potential use of this property.

[2:17:31] » Not John. I know John Bankhead, you guys

[2:17:34] are tired of me. Um no, I appreciate the

[2:17:37] opportunity to be here. Um and I I think

[2:17:41] the first time I stood in front of this

[2:17:43] group was probably four years ago and uh

[2:17:46] that went fast. Um looking back at it,

[2:17:49] um I did want to just talk through our

[2:17:53] view of what Volition is doing and also

[2:17:56] put that um I want to talk about the

[2:18:00] impact that it it could have on our good

[2:18:02] friend partner Edge Holmes. As you know,

[2:18:04] we we worked with the planning

[2:18:06] commission and staff for a couple of

[2:18:08] years trying to figure out the best way

[2:18:11] to develop this

[2:18:13] um a little bit of a unique site. It's

[2:18:16] got a lot of opportunity and a lot of

[2:18:18] challenges. And ultimately, we I think

[2:18:21] did a by we I mean everybody. Uh the the

[2:18:25] staff, the planning commission, uh I met

[2:18:28] with them a thousand times. They're more

[2:18:29] tired of me than you are. Um, but we

[2:18:32] ended up with an entitlement for 600

[2:18:34] homes. As you'll recall, we went to the

[2:18:37] legislature and got a $13.5 million uh

[2:18:40] grant from the legislature to build the

[2:18:43] uh new interchange with a bridge from

[2:18:46] Highway 6 into this overall property.

[2:18:49] Uh, one that was a big connection point

[2:18:53] for the trail system to connect. It was

[2:18:55] a big part of being addressing a

[2:18:58] significant worry about the amount of

[2:19:00] truck traffic that would be going

[2:19:02] through a residential neighborhood.

[2:19:04] There was a significant concern which we

[2:19:07] did the best we could to deal with about

[2:19:10] the noise and that the proximity of an

[2:19:12] industrial distribution or manufacturing

[2:19:15] facility close to homes. We worked

[2:19:18] through all of that. Edge purchased the

[2:19:20] property and they've started

[2:19:21] construction.

[2:19:23] And so obviously we um as owners and

[2:19:28] partners with Edge on this project

[2:19:31] uh want to know what they think and that

[2:19:33] was a concern for us as well um of

[2:19:36] anybody that's going to be impacted.

[2:19:38] It's Whispering Pines and we've had a

[2:19:40] chance to talk at length with Edge and

[2:19:42] with and and they are very aware that

[2:19:47] they are building homes next to

[2:19:48] industrial building. And in the last 6

[2:19:51] months, my partner and I have been

[2:19:53] approached by multiple data center

[2:19:55] people. We've been approached by a

[2:19:57] cement block manufacturer that would

[2:19:59] love to get another 12 megawws from the

[2:20:01] Spanish Fork City and a lot of natural

[2:20:04] gas and they would use a lot more water

[2:20:07] than we currently do. We've had uh

[2:20:09] people that want to come and enlarge the

[2:20:12] distribution center, add another 50 dock

[2:20:14] doors and and you know that would

[2:20:17] increase the noise, the emissions and

[2:20:20] the number of trucks significantly. that not only would have a negative

[2:20:25] impact on Whispering Pines, but two or

[2:20:27] three or 4 thousand additional vehicles

[2:20:29] on the road in Spanish Fork. That that

[2:20:33] spreads the emissions and the traffic

[2:20:35] and all that across the city. Now,

[2:20:38] that's

[2:20:40] that that's not that's just those are

[2:20:42] some of the options that we have been

[2:20:44] exploring. And so we have been really

[2:20:47] feeling lucky, if I can say it that way,

[2:20:50] in Edge Homes is feeling like this

[2:20:52] particular use in terms of its noise, in

[2:20:56] terms of trucks beeping, in terms of

[2:20:58] traffic going through that neighborhood

[2:21:01] before and after the bridge is installed

[2:21:04] is a s, you know, this data center is a

[2:21:07] significantly better option than the

[2:21:10] options that my partner and I have been

[2:21:11] exploring because we have a million

[2:21:14] square foot building and that's what

[2:21:15] those things are typically used for. So,

[2:21:19] we think this is a slam dunk

[2:21:22] for the city for what we've been through

[2:21:25] um trying to figure out a solution to

[2:21:27] this site and an opportunity for the

[2:21:29] city. We can't think of anything that

[2:21:32] would give back more to the city in

[2:21:34] terms of less impact on your

[2:21:37] infrastructure and citizens and more

[2:21:40] resources through property tax and other

[2:21:42] things than any other use that Jeff

[2:21:44] Graasso and I can think of. So, are we a

[2:21:48] land owner? Yes. and we we want to

[2:21:51] maximize the value for our investment,

[2:21:54] but we're not so not so blind to think

[2:21:57] that whatever we do there has an impact

[2:21:59] on the community. So, as I have been on

[2:22:04] the sidelines watching Valition work and

[2:22:07] I know a lot about the technologies that

[2:22:09] they're doing, I put in Bloom Energy

[2:22:11] Boxes in the first Adobe building in

[2:22:13] 2011 up in Lehi. Um, I just think that

[2:22:18] of the options that we're considering

[2:22:20] and the options that Whispering Pines is

[2:22:24] going to be living next door to, we

[2:22:26] can't think of a better option. So, I

[2:22:28] just wanted to get up as the the land

[2:22:31] owner and as somebody that's concerned

[2:22:32] because we're partners with Edge and

[2:22:35] kind of give our perspective that we

[2:22:37] think this is a really great opportunity

[2:22:40] in terms of pride and progress. We think

[2:22:43] this is a really awesome thing for

[2:22:45] Spanish sport. So I appreciate your time

[2:22:48] and letting me say that.

[2:22:49] >> Thanks John.

[2:22:53] » Thank you John. Um so as I conclude um

[2:22:58] again I I just want to

[2:23:02] emphasize

[2:23:04] um that

[2:23:06] we've said from the beginning that we've

[2:23:08] wanted to collaborate on this. I think

[2:23:10] that we have demonstrated that that's

[2:23:13] genuine. Um, I think that we have

[2:23:17] demonstrated that the equipment does

[2:23:20] what we say that it will do. I think

[2:23:24] that we've demonstrated that sound and

[2:23:27] heat are all within

[2:23:29] uh allowable,

[2:23:31] non-intrusive

[2:23:33] ranges. I think we've demonstrated that

[2:23:36] emissions are low. Um I I don't think

[2:23:41] that we have said or tried to say that

[2:23:43] everything about it is perfect, but we

[2:23:45] do think that compared to other data

[2:23:48] centers, uh what we're doing is

[2:23:51] innovative and what we're doing is a

[2:23:55] solution to this national challenge

[2:23:58] around the growth of data center

[2:24:01] infrastructure

[2:24:02] um and finding a way to do it better.

[2:24:06] Um, so I would encourage uh the council

[2:24:10] to really um continue to do the due

[2:24:14] diligence around

[2:24:16] what is best for the city at large. Um,

[2:24:21] and we hope that you'll support this

[2:24:22] initiative as we continue to go through

[2:24:24] the process. So, we look forward to

[2:24:26] continued uh questions and we're happy

[2:24:29] to answer any questions now or later

[2:24:32] before we have uh any commentary from the residents.

[2:24:39] >> Thank you, Jeff. Appreciate that. Uh I I

[2:24:42] think my council might have some

[2:24:44] questions for you and they might have

[2:24:46] some questions for you after hearing

[2:24:48] from the public,

[2:24:49] >> but they're not going to listen very

[2:24:51] well to the public if I don't use let

[2:24:53] some of them use the restroom. So, I I'm getting a message that I need uh a

[2:24:59] fivem minute break really quick uh and then we'd be right back in here to open it up for a public hearing. Uh

[2:25:06] if council's okay with that, staff, you

[2:25:08] all right with that?

[2:25:09] >> Yeah. And while they're doing that, you

[2:25:10] comfortable if we put the QR code up, we

[2:25:12] can start having people queue up in that

[2:25:15] uh in that virtual spot.

[2:25:17] >> There's the good break. You can use the

[2:25:18] restroom with us. There's a couple in

[2:25:20] the facility here.

[2:25:20] >> People are going to use the bathroom.

[2:25:21] let these five use it first so that we

[2:25:23] can get them back.

[2:25:25] >> But there there is the QR code right

[2:25:26] there.

[2:25:26] >> Yeah, if you want to if you want to

[2:25:28] speak in the public comments and then

[2:25:31] >> um

[2:25:32] >> Jeff and John, you guys on the front row

[2:25:34] there, that's our row for people to um

[2:25:38] to sit as they're queuing up to speak.

[2:25:40] So Emily back there is going to grab a

[2:25:42] couple of chairs and she's going to

[2:25:43] throw you behind Bronco in that black

[2:25:45] shirt there. If you'll just

[2:25:48] make that uh make that spot available.

[2:25:50] Yes. I move that we take a fivem minute

[2:25:53] recess.

[2:25:54] >> Motion made by Councilman Oiler, second

[2:25:56] by Councilman Marshall. All in favor say

[2:25:58] yes.

[2:25:58] >> Yes.

[2:25:59] >> Thank you.

[2:34:58] Yes, ma'am.

[2:35:00] >> Okay, Travis says we're ready. Still

[2:35:03] rolling here. And uh perfect. Thank you,

[2:35:05] Travis.

[2:35:06] >> Oh, yes, he does.

[2:35:06] >> This is uh something I neglected to

[2:35:09] mention. Spanish Fork City now is I

[2:35:12] don't know, Seth, would you say 30 plus

[2:35:14] years of uh of you know recording our

[2:35:18] meetings and we're on YouTube and it's

[2:35:20] live and and uh that's something

[2:35:22] >> not 30 but 24ish.

[2:35:24] >> Yeah. So, so pretty good stuff that uh

[2:35:27] we've uh we've tried to to live in that

[2:35:30] space for a couple of decades now where

[2:35:32] hey, if you can't make it to our

[2:35:33] meetings, watch them live and and we

[2:35:35] sure appreciate our SFCN folks and and

[2:35:38] Travis and Adam and and uh everybody

[2:35:41] that Jared keeps us keeps us going so

[2:35:44] everybody can be involved together. So,

[2:35:46] thank you everyone. Um, I don't think it

[2:35:49] needs uh rereading uh the the public

[2:35:52] comments uh public hearing section. Um,

[2:35:55] I think uh I think we can all just take

[2:35:57] it to heart that uh part of what maybe

[2:36:00] the applicant mentioned of Spanish Fork

[2:36:02] is the Spanish Fork way. We're

[2:36:04] respectful of each other and and can do

[2:36:06] this in in a in a in a good way that

[2:36:08] we've always done in uh in public

[2:36:10] hearings. So, make sure to keep to that.

[2:36:12] Please watch for that three-minute

[2:36:13] clock. I do have some signups that have

[2:36:16] come in here to to speak. Um, but I am

[2:36:19] going to switch it up just a little bit

[2:36:21] that Crosby is third on my list, but

[2:36:26] she's got, I believe, a four-year-old

[2:36:27] daughter that's been a trooper with us

[2:36:29] for a bit. So, we're going to have her

[2:36:32] come up first and uh have have her

[2:36:35] address us and uh and then we'll go back

[2:36:37] up to the top of the list and work that

[2:36:39] day. If Jesse Anne Rail and Sarah

[2:36:41] Stevenson are here, please come sit up

[2:36:44] here in the front as well. And then if

[2:36:46] you can uh kind of the way to do this is

[2:36:48] if when we're done speaking, if we can

[2:36:50] rotate out and I'll call up the next

[2:36:52] ones so we can all sit up here and be

[2:36:54] comfortable when we come speak. Uh

[2:36:56] again, the you can direct questions to

[2:36:58] us. We're we're going to write those

[2:37:00] down. Staff write them down. Applicant

[2:37:02] write them down possibly. But uh then uh we'll we'll try to cover those

[2:37:06] questions after the public hearing is

[2:37:08] over. So I would uh entertain a motion.

[2:37:12] I think we're back already, so you don't

[2:37:14] need to do that, but I would entertain a

[2:37:15] motion to go in the public hearing

[2:37:16] portion of this meeting if you guys have

[2:37:18] no questions before that.

[2:37:20] >> I move that we go into public hearing.

[2:37:22] >> Motion made by Councilman Carden, second

[2:37:24] >> and second by Councilman Tuk to go in

[2:37:26] public hearing for item 7.3.

[2:37:29] All in favor say yes.

[2:37:31] >> Yes. Okay, we're in public hearing. Yes.

[2:37:35] >> Um, my name is Crosby Mosinger. I'm

[2:37:37] originally from Springville. Um, born

[2:37:39] and raised Red Devil, but I live in

[2:37:41] Mapleton, just off the 89, which is very

[2:37:45] close to where this site is being. Say

[2:37:47] that again.

[2:37:47] >> I missed your name. Sorry.

[2:37:48] >> Crosby Mosinger, like Crosby Stills and

[2:37:51] Nash.

[2:37:51] >> Thank you.

[2:37:52] >> Very cool.

[2:37:53] >> Thank you.

[2:37:54] >> Um, so I I I know that this is just a

[2:37:57] vote on the amendment to the title. Um,

[2:38:00] however, I being a Mapleton resident

[2:38:03] just found out about this maybe a month

[2:38:05] ago and haven't our neighbor two

[2:38:07] neighborhoods, Mapleton Village and

[2:38:09] Harmony Ridge have gotten together and

[2:38:11] had some opposition to this. So, I'm

[2:38:13] coming in kind of representation of that

[2:38:15] group to um state our opposition to this

[2:38:19] data center. I came to um Valition's

[2:38:22] public qua sessions um and I asked for

[2:38:27] data essentially on the claims that are

[2:38:30] being made here. Um I've yet to be

[2:38:32] provided that data and I've seen that as

[2:38:34] the past hour or so has gone on um a lot

[2:38:38] of claims have been made but you can't

[2:38:40] like for example the West Jordan um base

[2:38:44] um you can't show a picture of a house

[2:38:46] and say see these residents aren't

[2:38:48] affected by this. Where is the data to

[2:38:51] back these things? Um, and so I'm not

[2:38:54] interested and our neighborhoods are not

[2:38:55] interested in being a test site to see

[2:38:58] if these claims take place because what

[2:39:00] has actually been proven is the intense

[2:39:03] effect of data centers on communities

[2:39:05] that surround them. This is a highly

[2:39:08] dense and it's just in the past few

[2:39:09] years become very dense residential

[2:39:12] space. Um, and the ability that this

[2:39:16] company has to dramatically affect our

[2:39:18] lives, I think is substantial. And I

[2:39:21] don't feel that um the due diligence as

[2:39:24] they've described has been fully vetted

[2:39:27] um because again we don't have the data

[2:39:30] to back the claims. Um but I do have two

[2:39:32] questions for the council tonight and I

[2:39:35] probably I have to go get my daughter

[2:39:37] down. She's two and she's the best. But

[2:39:40] um my first one is because this is a

[2:39:42] behind the meter project that bypasses

[2:39:44] traditional utility timelines. What

[2:39:46] specific independent environmental

[2:39:48] impact studies have been conducted for

[2:39:50] the local neighborhoods and where can

[2:39:52] the public read them? And then why was

[2:39:55] this project fasttracked and what

[2:39:56] mechanisms are in place to ensure

[2:39:58] residents have a binding vote or say

[2:40:00] before final zoning approval is granted?

[2:40:03] And that's all. Thank you for your time.

[2:40:05] >> Crosby, thanks for staying with us.

[2:40:06] Appreciate it.

[2:40:11] » Hello, my name is Jesse Anreel. I'm a

[2:40:15] resident of Spanish work. Have been for

[2:40:17] most of

[2:40:19] 40 years almost. Um I did move to

[2:40:22] Springville shortly, but then I came

[2:40:24] back.

[2:40:25] >> Um I would like to urge you the same

[2:40:28] that Mr. Chavez did. Um if this feels

[2:40:31] too fast, which I kind of it kind of

[2:40:33] feels like that to me, uh you guys take

[2:40:35] more time to um so I would kind of urge

[2:40:39] you to follow his guideline guidance and

[2:40:42] kind of take your time with this. Um, my

[2:40:45] ultimate question is why would there why

[2:40:47] does there need to be two? If you vote

[2:40:49] on this and you approve it today, it's

[2:40:51] ultimately for two data centers, not

[2:40:53] just this one. And why does there need

[2:40:55] to be two? Uh, we're we're a growing

[2:40:58] expanding city, but we're not large by

[2:41:00] any means. We're not like, you know,

[2:41:02] Provo or ORM size, for instance. So, I

[2:41:04] don't know you guys know square footage

[2:41:06] about the city and stats more than I do,

[2:41:08] but um in terms of residents and then um

[2:41:13] I think Councilman Marshall pushed it

[2:41:15] kind of in the direction that I was

[2:41:17] leaning toward more where um included in

[2:41:20] the amendment would be a development

[2:41:22] agreement if you are more inclined to

[2:41:24] vote yes today. Um they listed six

[2:41:28] things on their own slides and that was

[2:41:32] um water use cap, no grid

[2:41:35] interconnectivity

[2:41:37] covenant um to do that uh

[2:41:39] decommissioning plan if they do go under

[2:41:42] and then um enforcement of a noise limit

[2:41:46] and no diesel generators and an annual

[2:41:49] third-party reporting for the compliance

[2:41:53] of those promises. So, I feel like that

[2:41:56] should be included in a development

[2:41:57] agreement. Um, as they listed it, the

[2:42:00] same covenants would be applied to any

[2:42:02] other data centers if you do keep the

[2:42:05] two data centers there. Um, so that's

[2:42:08] all I have. Thank you.

[2:42:09] >> Thank you, Jesse. Appreciate it.

[2:42:13] » Hi, my name is Sarah Stevenson and I

[2:42:16] live in Spanish Fork. Um, we have lived

[2:42:19] here for about five years and u moved

[2:42:21] here from Sacramento and have loved

[2:42:25] Spanish Fork and um the values that

[2:42:29] we've seen and I'm grateful that you

[2:42:31] guys give public comment. I spent some

[2:42:34] time at the Sacramento Capitol and they

[2:42:36] would remove public comment so I'm very

[2:42:38] grateful. So, thank you.

[2:42:41] Um,

[2:42:43] so I um,

[2:42:46] sorry I'm a little nervous. I I really

[2:42:49] loved what Crosby said, the the first

[2:42:52] um, personally gave at the public

[2:42:53] comment. I feel like I can just echo

[2:42:55] what she's saying. Um, but I also wanted

[2:42:58] to bring up I I do work at the Fit City

[2:43:01] Center and they had us memorize our the

[2:43:04] mission statement and it's we strive to

[2:43:06] build and maintain a vibrant city

[2:43:08] through personal community interactions

[2:43:10] and innovative local government

[2:43:12] services. And the biggest thing that

[2:43:14] stands out to me is just the community

[2:43:17] and listening to what the community

[2:43:19] wants. And like Crosby had said that

[2:43:22] there's no guarantee, there's no data to

[2:43:24] back these things up. And I think the

[2:43:26] number one thing

[2:43:28] um this should be the most important

[2:43:30] input is what the people of Spanish Fork

[2:43:32] want. And

[2:43:35] from people who I talked to and the

[2:43:38] turnout tonight, I would say that the

[2:43:40] majority of us do not want the data

[2:43:43] center here. And after like the

[2:43:46] presentation tonight,

[2:43:48] um I just don't think like when they say

[2:43:53] close to no um emission to like the air

[2:43:58] quality, I just want none. Like I I I

[2:44:02] want to keep the air as clean as

[2:44:03] possible here. We already struggle with

[2:44:05] that in Utah. I just don't think it's

[2:44:08] worth adding even a little bit. Um, and

[2:44:13] then even just with the water,

[2:44:16] it's we're still using water. It even

[2:44:18] though they propose that it's not a lot,

[2:44:21] I just don't see the need for

[2:44:24] any use of

[2:44:26] extra water. Um, I just

[2:44:30] Sorry.

[2:44:32] Um

[2:44:35] I just

[2:44:37] I feel like our community doesn't need

[2:44:40] to serve like this innovation. Um the innovation should serve the

[2:44:46] community if that makes sense. Sorry. Um if we're serious about building and

[2:44:53] maintaining a vibrant city through

[2:44:55] personal community interactions, I

[2:44:57] really hope you'll show us tonight that

[2:45:00] this community interaction matters. Um,

[2:45:02] please don't just hear us, listen to us.

[2:45:06] And

[2:45:07] um, thank you.

[2:45:09] >> Thank you, Sarah. Thanks, Sarah.

[2:45:10] >> Thank you, Sarah.

[2:45:12] >> Okay. Uh, next on the list, I have James

[2:45:15] Burrky, Scott Nichols, and Madison

[2:45:17] Bringhurst. If you guys can move up to

[2:45:20] those seats and go in that order and

[2:45:21] then we'll get to the next ones.

[2:45:25] >> Right here.

[2:45:25] >> Oh, okay. You already got a seat. All

[2:45:27] right. So, are you James? No, James is

[2:45:29] coming in.

[2:45:32] James.

[2:45:37] » Hi, my name is James Burrky. I've lived

[2:45:39] up by uh the Diamond Fork Junior High or

[2:45:42] is it a middle school now? I can't

[2:45:44] remember. Anyway, um my main concern

[2:45:47] with this initially was, you know, all

[2:45:49] the other bad stuff that other AI data

[2:45:52] centers have been doing. But I am

[2:45:54] convinced with if everything that our uh

[2:45:58] the company I was saying is true, all

[2:46:00] right, that that assuagages a lot of my

[2:46:02] concerns. However, one that I do have is

[2:46:05] when this company eventually does get

[2:46:07] bought out by whatever mega

[2:46:09] conglomeration, uh, Amazon, Google,

[2:46:12] Apple, whoever, um, do we have the

[2:46:15] proper

[2:46:17] hardlined, uh, bylaws and city codes to

[2:46:20] ensure that they can't with their army

[2:46:22] of lawyers completely override all the

[2:46:24] good stuff that Valition may have done

[2:46:26] and essentially screw the community over

[2:46:29] at some point in the future when they

[2:46:31] surely will get bought

[2:46:33] Um

[2:46:35] as well as this question is more uh for

[2:46:38] my dad who who is a programmer who uses

[2:46:40] a lot of AI in his work. Um would

[2:46:43] Spanish Fork residents

[2:46:46] on whatever systems the company is

[2:46:48] operating and processing? Would we have

[2:46:51] some kind of priority traffic? we have

[2:46:53] some kind of preference in, you know,

[2:46:55] what we could do or potentially if we

[2:46:57] could get access to some like uh local

[2:47:00] tokens, you know, maybe some crazy

[2:47:02] amount like 1 billion. I think it'd be

[2:47:05] really good and, you know, it would help a lot out with some uh local

[2:47:08] innovation. Thank you.

[2:47:09] >> Thank you.

[2:47:10] James. Appreciate that.

[2:47:12] >> Scott.

[2:47:16] » Hey there. I'm Scott Nichols, uh,

[2:47:19] Spanish Fork resident for 10 years. I

[2:47:22] got my whole crew here. So, I'm one

[2:47:24] voice speaking for many, right? Um,

[2:47:28] first wanted to thank you for this has

[2:47:30] been a wonderful experience overall. Um,

[2:47:32] and very much appreciate how much

[2:47:34] diligence you have all taken in in

[2:47:37] looking at how things are written in

[2:47:39] modernizing them for the um the times

[2:47:42] that we're in.

[2:47:44] It's interesting. Did like a quick uh a

[2:47:46] quick uh search of like Gallup polls. Um

[2:47:49] you know, how many fans of data centers

[2:47:52] are there out there? Shockingly, it's

[2:47:54] like 29%. I would love to meet these

[2:47:56] people, the 29% that are pro data

[2:47:59] center. Um I don't suspect there's many

[2:48:01] of them here tonight, though. Um, I

[2:48:05] think

[2:48:07] it's a wonderful approach that you're

[2:48:09] taking and and segregating some of the

[2:48:12] most damaging portions of of what data

[2:48:15] centers uh have been doing to

[2:48:16] communities, isolating those and

[2:48:18] identifying them. Um, I I think my

[2:48:21] question is based on what we're trying

[2:48:24] to be as a town, why any like why two,

[2:48:28] why one, why not zero? Um, uh, data

[2:48:32] centers in in Spanish Fork, especially

[2:48:35] um, now that it seems like technology is

[2:48:37] moving where they can be self-powered

[2:48:40] and um, with closed loop systems and all

[2:48:42] of that, why not put it in the middle of

[2:48:44] nowhere? Like, why right here with us?

[2:48:48] Um we happen to live just right

[2:48:51] downstream from those windmills where

[2:48:52] this is going. So um the heat is a

[2:48:55] concern even you know he said 9% I think

[2:48:58] uh or 9 degrees rather um and that might

[2:49:01] just be local but it's hard to imagine

[2:49:04] like from where I can see 9 degrees not

[2:49:07] making a difference. My tomatoes are

[2:49:09] already dying. Don't need uh additional

[2:49:11] heat. So, um I think one of the other uh

[2:49:15] speakers um had uh said that a binding

[2:49:19] referendum on the actual permitting of

[2:49:22] the data center would be great. I know

[2:49:24] that's not what we're talking about here

[2:49:25] tonight, but I would like to voice my

[2:49:27] support for a binding resolution for the

[2:49:30] actual data center when it comes time.

[2:49:32] So, thank you. Appreciate you.

[2:49:34] >> Thank you, Scott. Appreciate it,

[2:49:37] >> Madison.

[2:49:41] Thank you all and thank you all for the

[2:49:43] opportunity that I've had to email you

[2:49:45] and for those of you that actually

[2:49:47] responded to me with meaningful

[2:49:48] comments, especially you, Councilman

[2:49:50] Marshall. You did an amazing job. You

[2:49:52] actually gave me confidence that you're

[2:49:54] thinking and during the public comments

[2:49:56] with Mr. Pel Pickle. Mr. Pel, you asked

[2:50:00] a very important question. Why not just

[2:50:03] add everything that makes this data

[2:50:05] center acceptable to the title 15

[2:50:08] amendment? And why was the title 15

[2:50:11] amendment proposed by valition

[2:50:14] did they not hold themselves to every

[2:50:16] claim they made tonight? If they do not

[2:50:19] intend to break them, why not put them

[2:50:21] in in the first place? Two of my biggest

[2:50:24] concerns actually have to do with the

[2:50:26] redlinining that was done after the

[2:50:28] planning commission met. Uh Valition

[2:50:31] promised that they intend to run a

[2:50:32] completely electrical isolation.

[2:50:34] However, one of the red lines that was

[2:50:36] added by the city council to Valition's

[2:50:38] document allowed them to connect to the

[2:50:41] grid in order to function their office.

[2:50:45] However, if Bloom cells are so

[2:50:47] wonderful, the small amount of power

[2:50:50] that they need to use for their office

[2:50:51] can certainly be generated themselves.

[2:50:53] there's no reason to allow them an

[2:50:55] opportunity to connect to the grid when

[2:50:57] they promised there's no reason for them

[2:51:00] to do to do so. The second set the

[2:51:03] second issue that I have is actually

[2:51:05] near the bottom. You have taken out the

[2:51:08] language that provides us an opportunity

[2:51:10] to put in new restrictions when legally

[2:51:13] allowed and reasonable. Why would we

[2:51:15] give up that opportunity? That doesn't

[2:51:17] make any sense. That only helps them,

[2:51:19] not us.

[2:51:21] And I would just like to also discuss

[2:51:24] the positives that were discussed in the

[2:51:26] April 21st city council meeting minutes.

[2:51:29] We're very excited obviously to bring in

[2:51:32] new tax revenue. However, a large

[2:51:34] portion of this tax revenue, and I

[2:51:36] apologize, my husband's a tax

[2:51:37] accountant, so this is pillow talk. Um

[2:51:41] but a large portion of this tax revenue

[2:51:44] is actually based on personal property

[2:51:46] taxes which are related to legally

[2:51:49] depreciable assets. If we build a city

[2:51:52] budget around a tax revenue source that

[2:51:56] is intended by its legal measure to

[2:51:58] lessen over time then we are building an

[2:52:02] unsustainable budget. And since the city

[2:52:04] does not have its own revenue, the

[2:52:06] citizens will have to make up that diff

[2:52:09] difference themselves when the time

[2:52:11] comes, which just means raising property

[2:52:13] taxes on families that might not be able

[2:52:15] to afford it, though they love to live

[2:52:17] here. I'd also like to mention that

[2:52:20] they've discussed potentially moving

[2:52:22] their headquarters here. Without a

[2:52:24] contract in hand, that is a meaningless

[2:52:26] promise that has been promised to Texas.

[2:52:28] And Governor Abbott actually had to come

[2:52:29] out and say, "No more data centers until

[2:52:32] you actually bring your headquarters

[2:52:33] here because we're tired of it. We take

[2:52:36] this promise without an actual contract.

[2:52:39] It's meaningless and cannot influence

[2:52:41] our decisions." Thank you.

[2:52:43] >> Thank you, Madison.

[2:52:46] >> Uh, next I have uh on the list here

[2:52:48] Sadie, Josh, and Darren. If Sadi, Josh,

[2:52:52] and Darren could make their way.

[2:52:59] Jordan, stop that.

[2:53:00] >> Come on, Jordan.

[2:53:04] » You can you can wait for a second till

[2:53:05] we stop beeping you. Sorry.

[2:53:08] >> Come on. Okay, they got it.

[2:53:10] >> One job.

[2:53:10] >> They got it.

[2:53:11] >> Satie.

[2:53:12] >> Okay, perfect. My name is Satie Balof.

[2:53:14] I'm essentially a lifelong resident of

[2:53:16] Spanish work, 30 years. Um, I've just

[2:53:19] written down a statement because I'm a

[2:53:20] little bit nervous. But while I believe

[2:53:22] valition are seemingly earnest in their

[2:53:24] desire to improve how data centers could

[2:53:26] operate, ultimately their model is

[2:53:28] conceptual and untested in full. I would

[2:53:32] ask you to not amend the title 15 uh

[2:53:35] amend title 15 tonight until a more

[2:53:37] mature materialized and empirically

[2:53:40] tested and documented propo proposal is

[2:53:42] put in place or until the success and

[2:53:45] safety of the technology is proven and

[2:53:47] not simply calculated as valition has

[2:53:50] shared so far. Uh making this amendment

[2:53:53] will open the door for not only this

[2:53:55] proposal but additional development

[2:53:57] whether from valition or companies in

[2:53:58] the future to come in and propose

[2:54:00] similar or additional data center

[2:54:02] facilities of the future. In addition

[2:54:04] and I brought this up both at the open

[2:54:06] house last Thursday and email and in

[2:54:09] email communication with many of you

[2:54:10] Stacy thanks so much for getting back to

[2:54:12] me. Um, I would like to state that last

[2:54:16] Thursday, Valition said they have not

[2:54:19] and do not have plans to f perform or

[2:54:21] facilitate any environmental impact

[2:54:23] studies as they relate to the

[2:54:25] surrounding habitat. They have

[2:54:27] calculated heat and acoustic

[2:54:28] measurements in relation to proximity to

[2:54:30] the residential areas only. Given the

[2:54:33] prop property's proximity to the Spanish

[2:54:35] Fork River Trail, I'd ask you to please

[2:54:38] consider this as a part of your

[2:54:39] decision. This area of Spanish Fork um

[2:54:42] is unique and delicate. There's been so

[2:54:44] much discourse around how we use and

[2:54:46] protect this land and I feel strongly

[2:54:48] that it requires more consideration

[2:54:50] before a decision is made.

[2:54:52] >> Thanks.

[2:54:53] >> Thank you, Satie.

[2:54:55] >> Uh Josh,

[2:54:58] >> there only one Josh in here. That never

[2:55:00] happens. You called Josh. I was like,

[2:55:02] "All right, who am I fighting?" Anyways,

[2:55:04] uh I'm Josh. I live in here in Spanish

[2:55:06] Fork. I'm a Republican delegate, state

[2:55:08] delegate, and uh you know, so I've been

[2:55:10] around these kinds of hearings and I

[2:55:12] also go to UVU uh majoring in digital

[2:55:15] marketing and minoring in

[2:55:17] entrepreneurship. Um and you know, we

[2:55:20] know that we're living in very divided

[2:55:22] times right now. Uh but I actually think

[2:55:24] it's the opposite. I actually think

[2:55:26] we're living in one of the most unified

[2:55:28] times in America in the last 10 to 15

[2:55:30] years. And this is because I will go to

[2:55:33] UVU and talk to the most lefty liberal

[2:55:35] arts students and I will hear the same

[2:55:37] things that I hear at the Republican

[2:55:40] state convention. Uh when that when that

[2:55:43] is also going on, one of those unifying

[2:55:46] topics is data centers. Lots almost it

[2:55:50] is almost everybody agrees that they do

[2:55:52] not want them in their backyard. And

[2:55:55] it's not as if this data center is

[2:55:57] coming to the outskirts of town. it

[2:55:59] finds itself in the heart of Spanish

[2:56:01] Fork right next to the windmills as

[2:56:03] well. Right. Um so in this case I think

[2:56:08] that we have seen that I will admit it

[2:56:11] is a very good marketing campaign. It

[2:56:13] has been a very good marketing campaign

[2:56:14] here because they come with answers to a

[2:56:17] lot of the anxieties that people have.

[2:56:19] But by guiding our eyes towards their

[2:56:22] marketing campaign and answering all the

[2:56:24] little questions that become the hot

[2:56:26] button topics in the news, we miss out

[2:56:29] on some things that I'm sure you'll hear

[2:56:30] tonight uh by other people by the data

[2:56:33] that they have not been able to actually

[2:56:36] provide and other claims that just have

[2:56:39] not materialized or are not in the

[2:56:40] actual uh thing that we're passing here.

[2:56:44] Um when it comes to that passing of the

[2:56:47] zoning change to allow these types of

[2:56:49] data centers, it also opens a black box,

[2:56:52] Pandora's box into whatever may happen

[2:56:54] next, whatever might change next and

[2:56:57] whatever might data center might come.

[2:56:59] So even if we completely trust Valition,

[2:57:01] we have to completely trust the next

[2:57:03] guy. I just don't think that is a

[2:57:06] Pandora's box that is worth opening here

[2:57:08] tonight or in the future for Spanish

[2:57:11] Fork. All I'm hearing is how bad could

[2:57:13] it possibly be, right? And again, this

[2:57:17] is Spanish Fork. We are citizens of

[2:57:19] Spanish Fork. Pride and progress. I just

[2:57:22] don't see much pride in this progress.

[2:57:25] Thank you.

[2:57:26] >> Thank you, Josh.

[2:57:30] » Uh Darren, right?

[2:57:32] >> That's right. Give me pull my notes

[2:57:34] here.

[2:57:36] >> All right. So, yeah, my name is Darren.

[2:57:38] I live about three miles from the

[2:57:40] proposed uh valition data center. I

[2:57:43] understand the economic opportunities

[2:57:44] project represents. My concern is

[2:57:46] ensuring the protection of residents u

[2:57:50] and that that lasts for the lifetime of

[2:57:52] the facility, not just the first 10

[2:57:54] years or so when equipment's running at

[2:57:56] its optimum. The rep represented this

[2:57:59] project as a quiet lowwater safe and

[2:58:02] environmental respon environmentally

[2:58:04] responsible. If those represent uh

[2:58:06] representations help justify approval,

[2:58:08] they should become measurable and

[2:58:09] enforceable commitments. First, require

[2:58:12] independent unannounced noise testing.

[2:58:14] Every year, testing should occur at

[2:58:16] random times during both the day and

[2:58:17] night and include measures uh near

[2:58:20] surrounding residential areas, not just

[2:58:22] at the property line like proposed. Uh

[2:58:25] the city should establish acceptable

[2:58:27] noise limits. If the facility repeatedly

[2:58:28] exceeds those limits, there should be

[2:58:30] enforceable consequences, including

[2:58:32] stopping the equipment responsible until

[2:58:33] the problem is corrected. Second,

[2:58:35] require annual independent monitoring of

[2:58:37] water consumption and potential impacts

[2:58:39] of our water resources. Third, require

[2:58:42] environmental monitoring of natural gas

[2:58:44] used to generate this electricity. These

[2:58:46] fuel cells do not combust natural gas,

[2:58:48] but they still produce carbon dioxide.

[2:58:51] Methane leakage can also occur during

[2:58:53] natural gas production and

[2:58:54] transportation.

[2:58:56] Requiring uh require reporting of

[2:58:58] natural gas consumption, carbon

[2:59:00] emissions, and independently verified

[2:59:02] methane leakage associated with the gas

[2:59:04] supply. The city should also evaluate

[2:59:06] whether the facility's natural gas

[2:59:08] demand could affect infrastructure or

[2:59:10] future utility costs for residents.

[2:59:12] Fourth, this location creates another

[2:59:14] concern. This facility sits near the

[2:59:17] mouth of the canyon where we experience

[2:59:19] significant winds that move uh out

[2:59:21] towards Spanish Fork and surrounding

[2:59:23] residential areas. I would ask that the

[2:59:25] city require an independent air

[2:59:26] dispersement study using actual local

[2:59:29] wind, weather, and terrain data. We need

[2:59:32] to understand where facility emissions

[2:59:34] travel and what happens during the AC

[2:59:36] accidental natural gas release which

[2:59:39] will occur particularly when canyon

[2:59:41] winds move towards residential areas.

[2:59:43] finally require an independent fire and

[2:59:45] explosion explosion risk assessment.

[2:59:48] Like I said, it isn't being uh we're not

[2:59:52] using it to combust for uh power, but

[2:59:54] there's unburnt natural gas that can be

[2:59:56] a combustion risk. This uh I am I am not

[3:00:01] asking you to assume this project will

[3:00:02] cause these problems. I'm asking you

[3:00:05] make sure that promises being made today

[3:00:07] are independently verified and

[3:00:08] enforceable tomorrow. uh requiring noise

[3:00:11] and water monitoring, requiring

[3:00:12] emissions and methane reporting,

[3:00:14] studying our unique canyon winds,

[3:00:15] requiring independent safety

[3:00:16] assessments, and establishing meaningful

[3:00:18] consequences if the facility fails to

[3:00:20] meet the standards used to approve it.

[3:00:22] >> That's it. Thank you.

[3:00:23] >> Thank you, Darren. Thanks. Appreciate

[3:00:25] it.

[3:00:26] >> Uh next up, I've got Jordan, Anna, and

[3:00:29] Christie.

[3:00:31] If you guys are in the room or in the

[3:00:34] other room, Jordan Stevenson, Anna

[3:00:36] Winkler, and Christy Smith.

[3:00:49] You can go while while they're walking

[3:00:51] in if you want. Are you Anna or

[3:00:52] Christie? You go ahead, Christie.

[3:00:55] >> All right. I will try not to cover

[3:00:58] things that have already been brought

[3:00:59] up, but I did make notes. So,

[3:01:00] >> good.

[3:01:02] >> Uh, so I'm I'm really concerned about

[3:01:05] Oh, Christy Smith, Spanish work. Sorry.

[3:01:07] >> Thank Um, so I'm really concerned about

[3:01:10] the fact that the process has even

[3:01:11] gotten to this point. Um, it's no,

[3:01:15] uh, it's no secret that there's negative

[3:01:17] impacts left and right from data

[3:01:19] centers. Uh, the thought that they're

[3:01:21] being built in mass is terrifying

[3:01:23] enough. Um, tens of thousands across the

[3:01:26] United States is concerning, but if it's

[3:01:29] right here in our backyard, that's

[3:01:31] really concerning. there's no need for

[3:01:33] data centers in this quantity and

[3:01:35] there's definitely not a need for any

[3:01:37] more that don't already exist. Um so we

[3:01:40] should not be discussing new data

[3:01:42] centers or opening up our text to allow

[3:01:45] those. We should be discussing banning

[3:01:47] them. Uh so countless reports of

[3:01:50] negative impacts and I know they've

[3:01:52] addressed some of these. Um

[3:01:55] that's all well and good but you can put

[3:01:57] promises in one hand and water in the

[3:02:00] other. which one's going to fill up,

[3:02:02] right? So, uh there is an increase in

[3:02:05] the temperature on average 12 degrees in

[3:02:08] the areas near data centers. Uh we

[3:02:11] already have an issue with global

[3:02:12] warming warming that we need to address

[3:02:14] as it is. We don't need to add to that.

[3:02:16] Uh data centers use water. Um they have

[3:02:19] addressed part of that. Uh but again, we

[3:02:24] have data centers that have come in

[3:02:26] saying they won't use more water and

[3:02:28] then they end up turning around and

[3:02:29] suing for more. Then what do we do,

[3:02:32] right? Um nobody can survive without

[3:02:34] fresh water, but we definitely can

[3:02:36] survive without data centers. Uh data

[3:02:40] centers can infuse chemicals into the

[3:02:43] ground and or water and or sewer. We

[3:02:47] can't have any of that leech. uh that's

[3:02:49] going to affect not only just the

[3:02:51] ground, but it could go into our crops.

[3:02:52] It could go into anything. Uh noise

[3:02:55] pollution. I know that we've talked a

[3:02:57] bit about that. And so there are people

[3:02:59] that live near data centers that they

[3:03:02] are negatively impacted and it's

[3:03:05] affecting them mentally. And there's so

[3:03:08] many cases where they can't even move

[3:03:10] away or sell their property because

[3:03:13] nobody wants to live near a data center.

[3:03:15] So they can't even sell their house to

[3:03:16] get away from it. Um, and that doesn't

[3:03:19] even factor in the noise that we humans

[3:03:22] cannot hear. I don't know if any of of

[3:03:23] you have seen Hoppers. Um, it's a Disney

[3:03:26] movie. I suggest watching it. Um,

[3:03:29] animals can hear things we can't and

[3:03:31] it's driving animals away. Um, so

[3:03:34] animals bees, it's driving bees away and

[3:03:38] that has a major negative impact on our

[3:03:42] food supply. Um, and just in general, if

[3:03:45] we don't have bees, if we don't have

[3:03:46] pollinators, we don't have earth

[3:03:49] anymore. We're all gone. Uh, let's see.

[3:03:54] And then, uh, also in areas with data

[3:03:58] centers, farmers are reporting fertility

[3:04:00] issues in their animals. There's still

[3:04:02] births or complete lack of pregnancy.

[3:04:05] Uh, if it's doing that to animals,

[3:04:06] what's what is it doing to humans? So,

[3:04:09] thank you very much.

[3:04:10] >> Thank you, Christie. Appreciate it. Uh,

[3:04:14] Anna, is this Anna? Thank you, Anna.

[3:04:17] >> Sorry, let me pull this up. I'm a little

[3:04:19] nervous. You're

[3:04:20] >> all right.

[3:04:20] >> My name's Anna. I'm a senior at Maple

[3:04:22] Mountain High School. Disregarding the

[3:04:24] morality issues of data centers, we

[3:04:27] shouldn't be prioritizing profit over

[3:04:29] humanity. We shouldn't be using our

[3:04:31] limited resources to further harm our

[3:04:33] earth.

[3:04:35] Just because it doesn't affect um our

[3:04:37] gas or our water, like they were saying,

[3:04:40] doesn't mean we should be using it. We

[3:04:42] should be saving it. Um what long-term

[3:04:45] jobs are being made rather than being

[3:04:48] replaced by AI. Um I would like to think

[3:04:50] that the study of Spanish Fork is better

[3:04:52] than that. I believe very strongly in

[3:04:55] human creativity, the environment, and

[3:04:57] the community. AI, I feel like, goes

[3:05:00] against all of those things. I've talked

[3:05:02] to so many people in Utah County,

[3:05:05] especially students from all different

[3:05:06] beliefs and all different political

[3:05:08] parties, and it seems clear the younger

[3:05:11] generation doesn't want data centers.

[3:05:13] Respectfully, my opinion won't change.

[3:05:15] Before we make so-called cleaner data

[3:05:18] centers, we need to close or remodel the

[3:05:20] ones that are already unfortunately

[3:05:22] around. Thank you for your willingness

[3:05:24] to listen.

[3:05:27] >> Appreciate it.

[3:05:28] Uh Jordan Stevenson. I don't know if if

[3:05:30] we missed him or not, but uh we'll go on

[3:05:32] to the next three that we have here are

[3:05:34] Stacy Heus, Karen Crossley, and Kaylee

[3:05:37] Lowry.

[3:05:46] » Hi, I'm Stacy Himus. I've lived here in

[3:05:49] Spanish Fork for 10 years. And about a

[3:05:51] year ago, we got our dream house. Um,

[3:05:55] one of the reasons that we live in

[3:05:57] Spanish Fork is because we love the

[3:06:00] fresh air. We don't want that fresh air

[3:06:03] disturbed. In fact, I would be happy if

[3:06:06] the distribution center was torn down.

[3:06:08] It's okay to like not have things right

[3:06:11] there. But if we have homes there,

[3:06:13] that's fine, too. Um,

[3:06:16] now one of my concerns is that this

[3:06:20] facility is actually right next to

[3:06:22] Powerhouse Road, the fault line. What

[3:06:24] happens in an earthquake? What if

[3:06:27] there's an earthquake and all of a

[3:06:29] sudden these things like combust or

[3:06:32] whatever they can do? I don't know. But

[3:06:34] that is a big concern. Um, I don't feel

[3:06:38] like this spot is the right place for a

[3:06:41] data center. There's got to be better

[3:06:43] places.

[3:06:44] Um Utah already has 45 to 50 data

[3:06:50] centers. Um, they each have

[3:06:55] I don't know the internet said something

[3:06:58] like 125 million between 3 million to

[3:07:02] 125 million gallons of water which if

[3:07:05] you add all of them together 45 to 50 of

[3:07:08] those that

[3:07:10] comes to like a couple billion gallons

[3:07:13] of water I think a year is that anyway

[3:07:18] um and that would be the size of a

[3:07:20] couple cities. like Spanish fork uses a

[3:07:22] billion something like that according to

[3:07:25] what I've seen. Um

[3:07:29] let's see. Uh the noise now I know that

[3:07:34] they say it won't be bad but if you know

[3:07:38] I'm within half a mile to a mile of this

[3:07:43] place um it a lot of times they do make

[3:07:47] a high screech. Maybe it won't. But if

[3:07:50] they're saying that it's like somebody

[3:07:52] talking, can you imagine go home and

[3:07:56] talk and start humming that that level

[3:08:01] into your ear? Like it's very

[3:08:02] unpleasant. Um, I have kids that are

[3:08:05] very sensitive to both allergies, um,

[3:08:10] hearing and, uh,

[3:08:13] you know, like concern from like say

[3:08:15] carbon dioxide emissions or like, yeah,

[3:08:19] we're really sensitive with that. So,

[3:08:22] um,

[3:08:25] and then I know that they say there's no

[3:08:28] smell. the natural gas um is supposed to

[3:08:31] actually have a smell so that you know

[3:08:33] it's there. Um so if there is a smell,

[3:08:35] it would be really stinky, but I'm not

[3:08:37] sure about that either. So anyway, yeah,

[3:08:40] I'm hoping there's a better spot for a

[3:08:42] data center, if at all. I don't really

[3:08:44] care for one, but thanks.

[3:08:46] >> Thank you, Stacy. Appreciate it.

[3:08:51] » Hi. Uh my name is Karen Crossley. I live

[3:08:53] in Spanish Fork. Um, my concern tonight

[3:08:56] is the removal of public input from this

[3:08:59] proposed change. Under the current code,

[3:09:02] a data center like this would need a

[3:09:04] conditional use permit and that means a

[3:09:07] planning commission decides the

[3:09:08] application in a public hearing and they

[3:09:10] can attach conditions to protect the

[3:09:12] neighbors. The planning commission is

[3:09:14] composed of residents appointed by the

[3:09:16] mayor. In their August 5th, 2026

[3:09:18] meeting, they split three to three on

[3:09:20] this proposal. The version that is in

[3:09:22] front of you now tonight takes the

[3:09:25] planning commission out of the process

[3:09:27] entirely. The conditional use permit

[3:09:30] requirement is crossed out. Their

[3:09:32] authority to attach conditions is

[3:09:34] crossed out. What replaces them is the

[3:09:36] development review committee. The city's

[3:09:39] own website calls that committee a staff

[3:09:41] committee with no citizen members. Mr.

[3:09:44] Pel confirmed tonight that after your

[3:09:46] vote to change Title 15, whether that be

[3:09:48] tonight or in the future, this now

[3:09:50] becomes an administrative site plan

[3:09:52] reviewed by staff and the development

[3:09:54] review committee. He told you there

[3:09:56] would be public meetings, but not public

[3:09:58] hearings. In a public meeting, we can

[3:10:01] only quietly watch. In a public hearing,

[3:10:03] we can speak. The applicant's own

[3:10:06] statement in your packet promises that

[3:10:07] every project would still get its own

[3:10:09] conditional use permit and its own

[3:10:11] public hearing. Their slide tonight

[3:10:13] called these conditional uses. The

[3:10:15] ordinance text in that same packet

[3:10:17] crosses both of these out. Mr. Anderson

[3:10:21] told you tonight that this is the first

[3:10:22] time in his 20 years here that has

[3:10:24] staffed a staff has formed a committee

[3:10:26] to evaluate a proposal. If this use is

[3:10:29] unpre unprecedented enough to deserve

[3:10:32] that, it is unprecedented enough to

[3:10:34] deserve a public hearing at every step.

[3:10:37] I'm asking you to add the public voice

[3:10:38] back into this process. Keep the

[3:10:41] standards, keep the caps, require a

[3:10:43] development agreement as a condition,

[3:10:45] the way your own council members have

[3:10:47] raised tonight, and add one sentence.

[3:10:50] Before any specific data center is

[3:10:52] approved, let there be public hearings

[3:10:54] at each step of the way. The applicant

[3:10:56] told you tonight that he act he welcomes

[3:10:58] more time. Take it and fix this one

[3:11:01] thing before you vote. Thank you.

[3:11:03] >> Thank you, Karen.

[3:11:04] >> Okay,

[3:11:06] >> I have a quick question before the time.

[3:11:08] Um, I'm speaking on behalf of 29

[3:11:10] residents. Does that mean I can have

[3:11:13] five minutes? Is that a group?

[3:11:15] >> You have 29 times three minutes, which

[3:11:17] is I don't know what that mean. No, I'm

[3:11:18] just kidding. Uh, if you if you can try

[3:11:20] to keep it to

[3:11:21] >> I'll try to keep it to three, but I like

[3:11:23] just in case of

[3:11:24] >> And we got a lot of we got a lot of

[3:11:26] people behind you and we also got a lot

[3:11:28] of uh emails that we can read too. So,

[3:11:31] anything that you could submit in

[3:11:32] >> I have submitted and he responded to me.

[3:11:35] Yeah, I really appreciate it.

[3:11:36] >> It's really good.

[3:11:37] >> Thank you. What's your name again?

[3:11:38] >> Uh my name is Kaylee Lowry and I live in

[3:11:41] Spanish Fork. I live within like a

[3:11:42] kilometer of the data center, a proposed

[3:11:45] data center. Um I have I have been a

[3:11:48] manufacturing controller as well as a

[3:11:51] director of business intelligence and

[3:11:52] now I'm a mom that researches data

[3:11:54] centers and uh so this is what I found.

[3:11:58] Um I have been to all three of the

[3:12:00] Q&As's as much as I could. Not the whole

[3:12:02] thing every time, but I tried. Um, so I

[3:12:05] have a few questions um to consider and

[3:12:07] a few points. Um, so the email from Mr.

[3:12:10] Chavez that he sent out today that he

[3:12:12] brought up on the permit talked about

[3:12:13] having the caps on noise and property,

[3:12:15] no grid, no diesel, and then diesel

[3:12:18] generators, etc. And then he asked us to

[3:12:21] trust him. Um, but also in the Q&A,

[3:12:24] someone asked directly to have um

[3:12:28] something written in there with PFAS.

[3:12:30] And I don't know the exact terminology

[3:12:31] that they agreed to, but he said to

[3:12:33] somebody, "Let's put that in the in the

[3:12:34] permit." And then he also said that the

[3:12:36] 500k he would put in the permit. And

[3:12:38] that was not in the email today. And so

[3:12:40] he's asking for trust, but there's a few

[3:12:42] things that were mentioned in those

[3:12:43] meetings that did not enter that email

[3:12:45] that I was sent. And so there's a little

[3:12:47] bit of like a hesitancy about trust,

[3:12:50] which is why I asked that this um like

[3:12:55] this amendment that we have it it's kind

[3:12:57] of a cart blanc um from my perspective.

[3:13:01] Um a lot of the things in the permit as

[3:13:04] has been mentioned by a lot of other

[3:13:06] people should be labeled specifically in

[3:13:08] the amendment. Um

[3:13:11] my a few concerns that I have is that

[3:13:14] there's no residential setback. Um that

[3:13:18] the amendment allows a huge facility

[3:13:20] without proportional review. Um

[3:13:22] including the fact that there are two

[3:13:24] proposed or two in this amendment. Um

[3:13:27] and then it um let's see the ultra low

[3:13:31] emissions if they qualify for the 0 um 7

[3:13:35] of nitrous oxide. It means that they

[3:13:37] don't have to measure any other

[3:13:38] pollutants and there are more things

[3:13:40] that are caused for concern as far as

[3:13:42] pollution goes than just nitrous oxide.

[3:13:44] Um there's no chromium analysis um or

[3:13:48] requirements made. Um the noise

[3:13:51] provision should be strengthened. It

[3:13:53] only measures DBA. It doesn't measure

[3:13:54] low frequency noise, total tonal noise.

[3:13:57] All these again can be mitigated with

[3:13:59] policies that we just hold them to.

[3:14:01] Right? I'm not I'm not saying that this

[3:14:02] data center isn't like potentially the

[3:14:04] best option for this facility. What I'm

[3:14:06] saying is that we need to have standards

[3:14:08] and measurements in place that they have

[3:14:10] to abide by. Um and actually that brings

[3:14:13] me back to what Mayor um Menden Hall

[3:14:17] said to me directly. He said, "We don't

[3:14:20] need the business. Um we set the

[3:14:22] standards and if they don't measure up,

[3:14:24] we cut them off." Um, so what are the

[3:14:26] punishments for not abiding by the

[3:14:28] standards which we put in this amendment

[3:14:30] and what at what point do we cut them

[3:14:32] off? Um, and then I have a printed copy

[3:14:35] of the emails I have sent you uh here

[3:14:39] and plenty more to talk about, but I'll

[3:14:41] pass it on.

[3:14:43] >> You can and we can take those if you

[3:14:45] Yeah, you bet. If if you want to leave

[3:14:47] them with us,

[3:14:48] >> certainly take Thank you, Kaylee.

[3:14:50] Appreciate it. Thank you.

[3:14:52] >> Okay. Uh after Kaylee I have Angie uh

[3:14:54] Parkin, Ben Berlin, and Jess N. So

[3:14:57] Angie, Ben, and Jess if you're

[3:15:01] >> Okay. Okay. Thanks, Ben. Uh Angie Parkin

[3:15:07] and then Jess N after.

[3:15:09] >> So Ben, just for the record, you're

[3:15:10] good. You're positively supported or you

[3:15:13] your comments have been addressed

[3:15:14] somewhere else?

[3:15:16] >> Okay. All right. Thanks.

[3:15:17] >> Thanks, Ben.

[3:15:19] >> Angie.

[3:15:19] >> Okay. Hi, my name is Angie Parkin and

[3:15:22] I'm a concerned citizen of Utah County.

[3:15:25] Please consider the best practices that

[3:15:27] other municipalities in the US have

[3:15:30] begun to implement as a protection in

[3:15:32] this data center in its data center

[3:15:34] ordinance. That is requiring a

[3:15:36] decommissioning bond, not just a plan

[3:15:39] like he mentioned. It was currently

[3:15:41] stated, an actual decommissioning bond.

[3:15:43] This is money or financial collateral to

[3:15:46] cover the cost of shutting the facility

[3:15:48] down and cleaning up the property. So

[3:15:51] when a company decides this isn't

[3:15:53] profitable anymore, the taxpayers and

[3:15:55] the city isn't stuck with a gigantic

[3:15:58] industrial mess and demolition bill.

[3:16:00] Data centers come in with big talk, lots

[3:16:04] of promises. They should be prepared to

[3:16:06] clean up their own mess should they

[3:16:08] choose to leave. One last thing, as of

[3:16:11] 2025, solar panels with battery storage

[3:16:14] are now the cheapest and quickest way to

[3:16:17] get power. Why is it that the applicant

[3:16:19] is using fossil gas? Also, light

[3:16:23] pollution. That was something that was

[3:16:24] not addressed. No more dark sky. Hello

[3:16:27] to interrupted bird migration. Bottom

[3:16:30] line, let's keep the written standards.

[3:16:33] Restore conditional use permit. The

[3:16:36] applicant asked for it, staff removed

[3:16:38] it. Putting it back costs the city

[3:16:41] nothing and keeps the public hearing on

[3:16:43] every project that follows. Thank you.

[3:16:46] >> Thank you, Angie. Thanks, Angie.

[3:16:47] >> Appreciate it.

[3:16:52] » Jess.

[3:16:54] >> Hi, my name is Jess. I'm also a resident

[3:16:56] and I'd like to start by acknowledging

[3:16:58] the significant time spent by the

[3:17:00] council. Um, I know that these city

[3:17:03] council meetings are lengthy clearly for

[3:17:05] all of us and the time that you put into

[3:17:08] these decisions and considerations for

[3:17:10] our city is impactful and much beyond

[3:17:12] these meetings. I'd also like to

[3:17:14] acknowledge Valition and their efforts

[3:17:17] to improve data centers and I think they

[3:17:21] have great starts in terms of improving

[3:17:23] water usage a separate gas line with

[3:17:26] Nbridge as well as other measures to try

[3:17:29] and reduce the pollutants and the

[3:17:33] uses of different resources in the city

[3:17:36] including not connecting to the local

[3:17:38] power grid. I do have significant

[3:17:40] concerns regarding the data center that

[3:17:43] have not been

[3:17:46] proven yet to be safe. I am primarily

[3:17:49] concerned for the Spanish Fork residents

[3:17:52] health as well as the health of our

[3:17:53] wildlife and the agriculture.

[3:17:57] And I also want to acknowledge that the

[3:18:02] council has emphasized the importance of

[3:18:04] uses subject to conditions and the how

[3:18:08] imperative it is to build a more robust

[3:18:10] title 15. I think that there is

[3:18:12] additional parameters of other as others

[3:18:14] have mentioned to continue to build that

[3:18:17] robustness of title 15. For example, I'm

[3:18:20] not aware that Title 15 includes any

[3:18:22] regulations on temperature. And as

[3:18:25] people who live nearby to the proposed

[3:18:27] data center have expressed temperature

[3:18:29] increases on site of 4 to9 degrees with

[3:18:32] temperature increases up to one degree

[3:18:34] within a half mile of the the data

[3:18:36] center and some, from my understanding,

[3:18:37] ambiguity in between those distances is

[3:18:40] of major concern to me given there are

[3:18:43] water sources very close to the vicinity

[3:18:46] of the proposed data center. And we

[3:18:48] simply don't have the local studies and

[3:18:52] data to prove that this would be safe

[3:18:54] for our residents, for our water supply,

[3:18:57] for the animals that live in the area,

[3:18:59] for the unique populations of fireflies

[3:19:02] and the unique populations that live

[3:19:03] within this flood plane that's already

[3:19:05] very unique to Utah. And my third point

[3:19:09] is that as of 5:00 pm today, the August

[3:19:12] 4 Spanish Fork City Council meeting had

[3:19:15] 654 views. This is in relation to the

[3:19:19] estimated over 48,000 Spanish Fork City

[3:19:22] residents as of estimated July 2025 data

[3:19:27] based on the census. This would be 1.3%

[3:19:31] of Spanish Fork residents that have

[3:19:33] viewed a portion of or that full city

[3:19:35] council meeting and I believe that this

[3:19:38] issue deserves increased visibility and

[3:19:40] public feedback. Thank you.

[3:19:42] >> Thank you.

[3:19:42] Jess.

[3:19:45] >> I have uh the next three I have are

[3:19:47] Megan Banks, Jim

[3:19:50] Apodaka,

[3:19:51] and Heather Miller.

[3:19:57] Megan, Jim, and Heather.

[3:20:06] » Hi, I'm Megan. Um, Banks.

[3:20:10] I'm kind of short. Um, I grew up here in

[3:20:13] Spanish Fork my whole life. Um,

[3:20:18] I have a hard time trusting. Um, so I

[3:20:23] was just thinking of my grandmother that

[3:20:26] was mayor. Um Marie Huff, she would say

[3:20:28] if it's too good to be true, it's

[3:20:30] probably too good to be true. And I do

[3:20:32] feel that way. Um my concern is heat and

[3:20:38] with so many concerns actually. One is

[3:20:41] heat and with us in a drought and all

[3:20:45] the fires have been so horrible this

[3:20:47] year and um so even just a little bit of

[3:20:50] degree that is a big concern to me. And

[3:20:53] also um

[3:20:56] the water and the environment and um

[3:21:02] and if it doesn't work out what it's

[3:21:06] going to cost us more money to

[3:21:09] have them fix whatever. So, I think that

[3:21:13] um money is a concern and

[3:21:19] um yeah, I'm just not for it and I don't

[3:21:21] think a lot of our residents are for it

[3:21:23] and so um yeah, sorry, I'm super

[3:21:27] nervous, but I think that's all I've

[3:21:29] got.

[3:21:29] >> Your grandma would be proud.

[3:21:31] >> Thank you.

[3:21:31] >> Thanks, Megan.

[3:21:32] >> Thank you.

[3:21:35] >> Uh Megan, uh and then Jim. Uh

[3:21:43] Hello, my uh my name is Jim Apodaka. I'm

[3:21:45] a resident of Mapleton uh fairly new uh

[3:21:48] to Mapleton. My I moved my family there

[3:21:51] from from Bluffdale about uh about four

[3:21:54] months ago. So, we we love the area and

[3:21:57] I just found out about this last

[3:21:59] Wednesday and um I've learned a lot

[3:22:03] during this process. And um I guess one

[3:22:06] thing that one question that I would

[3:22:08] have is that you know we we've talked a

[3:22:12] lot about voluition. We've scrutinized

[3:22:14] them. We've gone through all of their

[3:22:15] data you know and I and I think we we

[3:22:18] need to continue to go through that

[3:22:19] data. But my question there is that

[3:22:23] they've provided this information and I

[3:22:25] understand that if we don't have what

[3:22:28] I'm hearing is that I've got two options

[3:22:31] as a uh as a resident of Mapleton and I don't I don't really get a

[3:22:35] decision because I live in Mapleton

[3:22:37] right but when I drive down my hill

[3:22:40] the data science it's right there and so

[3:22:42] but my question is is so if we are going

[3:22:45] to put valition under the microscope

[3:22:48] that we we are but the other option is,

[3:22:51] well, there's a a trucking company

[3:22:53] that's going to push out 6,900 trucks a

[3:22:55] month through that that little tiny

[3:22:58] intersection right there where the acorn

[3:22:59] is, right? What what what is that going

[3:23:02] to do to that area? You know, what help me

[3:23:08] understand how that is going to impact

[3:23:10] the area? And I think if anything, we

[3:23:13] should put that same that that other

[3:23:15] potential buyer, if that's what they're

[3:23:17] planning on doing with this space, we

[3:23:19] should put them under the same lens and and make a decision that is best for

[3:23:24] the community, not just Spanish Fork,

[3:23:27] but for Mapleton. We live right there,

[3:23:29] too, you know, and it's it is in our

[3:23:31] backyard. And so, why not evaluate both?

[3:23:35] And and I and I've heard people say,

[3:23:37] well, you know, I don't even want the

[3:23:39] data center. Building doesn't even have

[3:23:41] to be there. You know, that's an option,

[3:23:43] too, because of the way it's zoned. It

[3:23:46] will support other options, you know,

[3:23:49] and

[3:23:50] why not purchase that spot, Spanish

[3:23:53] Fork, and do something with it. Give

[3:23:56] something to the community. Develop in a way that takes advantage of those windmills. That's one of the

[3:24:03] things we love about that community is

[3:24:05] those windmills. And one of the things

[3:24:06] that we love is it's I have I have yet

[3:24:09] to experience a bad sunset. And part of

[3:24:13] that beauty is looking over and seeing

[3:24:15] Spanish Fork. I mean, it's such a such a

[3:24:17] beautiful town. Such a beautiful town.

[3:24:20] And all I'm asking is that before you

[3:24:22] make any decisions, evaluate this other

[3:24:25] buyer and this other option, you know,

[3:24:28] because the idea of 6,900 trucks on our

[3:24:30] road, you know, that's that's really

[3:24:33] concerning. That's really concerning.

[3:24:35] And it seems to me like your neighbors,

[3:24:38] your neighboring city, Mapleton, should

[3:24:40] have a say in that conversation also

[3:24:43] because that's a lot of traffic right

[3:24:44] there where the the roads meet and the and the counties meet, right?

[3:24:49] um why not bring them to the table and

[3:24:51] maybe involve you do DOT in the

[3:24:54] conversation as well. All I'm saying is

[3:24:56] address both options and make the make a

[3:24:59] decision that's good for both

[3:25:00] communities. I'll stop talking. Thank

[3:25:02] you for your time.

[3:25:03] >> Thank you, Jim. Appreciate you coming.

[3:25:06] >> Uh after Jim, I had Heather Miller,

[3:25:08] Charlie Anderson, and Tia Young.

[3:25:12] >> Hello.

[3:25:12] >> Hi, Heather.

[3:25:13] >> I am Heather Miller. Um resident of

[3:25:15] Maple Mapleton. I'm actually Jim's wife.

[3:25:18] don't know how we ended up right behind

[3:25:19] each other in line or I ended up behind

[3:25:21] him. I'm not I don't know how that

[3:25:22] happened. Um regardless, a couple of

[3:25:25] questions here. One of the things that

[3:25:27] is a little concerning to me is, you

[3:25:29] know, I have watched um the council

[3:25:31] meeting as well as the planning

[3:25:33] commission meetings um and attended

[3:25:36] between the two of us attended two of

[3:25:38] the three open houses with valition. Um,

[3:25:41] one of the concern concerns for me in

[3:25:43] particular, and I think it's it's been

[3:25:45] mentioned by others in a similar way, is

[3:25:47] that the numbers keep moving. The

[3:25:49] numbers were being presented with by

[3:25:50] abolition. Again, um, they're minor

[3:25:53] discrepancies, but again, because

[3:25:55] they're moving, it is creating some

[3:25:57] worry. And so, I do want to ask that you

[3:26:00] do your due diligence on your part and

[3:26:02] actually scrutinize those numbers, have

[3:26:04] them independently verified by somebody

[3:26:06] that's not hired by valition if

[3:26:08] possible. Um, one of the numbers

[3:26:11] presented tonight, you know, at the

[3:26:12] planning commission meeting and city

[3:26:14] council meeting, um, the 500,000 gallons

[3:26:18] is accurate and has remained consistent,

[3:26:21] but the 250,000galon

[3:26:23] number has actually changed slightly in

[3:26:27] that it initially described a refill.

[3:26:29] Today, it's describing a, you know, the

[3:26:32] humidity output. It's needed for

[3:26:33] humidity in in their facility. So, which

[3:26:36] is it? And is there 250,000 for humidity

[3:26:40] plus 250,000 for eventual refills? Do

[3:26:44] you see what I'm saying? Like there are

[3:26:45] some discrepancies in the numbers that

[3:26:47] are being pushed out um to to us that's

[3:26:51] available to the public. So I would just

[3:26:53] ask that you really do look at that and

[3:26:55] scrutinize those numbers, please. And

[3:26:57] then um in regards to the decibels, that

[3:27:00] is one thing that I personally brought

[3:27:01] up with Valition at their open house.

[3:27:04] Um, again, 58 dB sounds minor. Um, the

[3:27:09] numbers that keep being presented and

[3:27:10] how they sound are all being presented

[3:27:12] during the day. I want to know what that

[3:27:13] sounds like at 3:00 a.m. Um, and that's

[3:27:15] something I have asked from them. The

[3:27:18] World Health Organization does say

[3:27:20] anything between 35 and 40 is acceptable

[3:27:22] for the night. This 50 is still above

[3:27:24] that number. And so, just keeping that

[3:27:27] in mind. I don't I don't know what tests

[3:27:29] are being conducted at this point, what

[3:27:31] it actually sounds like. we live a half

[3:27:33] a mile from this place. Um so that is

[3:27:36] one thing I would love for you to keep

[3:27:39] in mind and maybe question a little bit

[3:27:41] more. And then um one of the things that

[3:27:44] has been brought up in the council

[3:27:46] meeting as well as with Valition in

[3:27:48] their open house is a governance board.

[3:27:49] And I would ask that even regardless of

[3:27:52] where you live in this city um whether

[3:27:55] you're on the Mapleton side or Spanish

[3:27:56] Fork side that you consider residents of

[3:27:58] Mapleton as well to be a part of that

[3:28:00] governance board that is going to hold

[3:28:02] them accountable um to the things that

[3:28:04] they are promising. Um and I'm running

[3:28:07] out of time unfortunately so that's

[3:28:09] where I'll end but thank you. Thank you,

[3:28:11] Heather. Appreciate that.

[3:28:15] >> Hi, my name is Tia Young. Um, I lived in

[3:28:17] Spanish Fork all growing up and I

[3:28:18] currently live also in Harmony Ridge

[3:28:20] just across the highway from the

[3:28:22] proposed data center. Um, I do want to

[3:28:24] say I appreciate the respect Jeff and

[3:28:26] Valition has shown. Um, I appreciate

[3:28:28] their openness also to give back to the

[3:28:29] community. I think that's great. I wish

[3:28:30] that the larger companies across the

[3:28:32] country had this same interest in mind

[3:28:34] um to limit these negative effects on

[3:28:36] cities. However, I also agree with what

[3:28:38] everyone here has said today um that

[3:28:40] valition prevents presents many

[3:28:42] appealing promises, but at the end of

[3:28:44] the day, they are still just promises um

[3:28:46] with um not backed by quantifiable data.

[3:28:50] And I'll refrain from repeating what

[3:28:51] other people have said, but I do want to

[3:28:53] say um Jeff himself mentioned that many

[3:28:56] people have used the phrase, if this

[3:28:57] works out, it will be great. First of

[3:28:59] all, I don't think anyone has said that

[3:29:00] here today. Um, but I would say that's a

[3:29:03] really really big if because if it does

[3:29:04] not work out, it is our health and our

[3:29:06] community that is at stake and you guys

[3:29:08] already know those potential hazards as

[3:29:10] people have said. Um, thus if this

[3:29:12] proposal does go through, I echo what

[3:29:14] others have said to include in writing

[3:29:16] clear and specific restrictions um and

[3:29:18] the corresponding penalties that will be

[3:29:20] enacted if they fail to meet these

[3:29:21] requirements. And in my opinion,

[3:29:23] increased fees are not a satisfactory

[3:29:25] measures of those um things. And

[3:29:28] ultimately, I still do not support any

[3:29:29] proposed data centers until these thor

[3:29:31] thorough, quantifiable, verifiable, and

[3:29:33] repeatable studies have been conducted

[3:29:35] to determine the reality of these

[3:29:37] consequences on our communities. Thank

[3:29:38] you.

[3:29:39] >> Thank you.

[3:29:40] to you,

[3:29:42] >> Cherry Anderson. I don't know if we

[3:29:43] missed you, but if you're still here,

[3:29:45] you're welcome to come up. Don Young and

[3:29:48] Nora Newer.

[3:29:51] Thank you.

[3:29:51] >> Uh my name is Sher Anderson. I've lived

[3:29:53] in Spanish Fork for 19 years and I live

[3:29:57] not far from where the data center is

[3:29:59] being proposed. Um I have concerns about

[3:30:01] the validity of the claims by the tech

[3:30:03] company that the center won't cause

[3:30:04] pollution or water shortages. Uh partly

[3:30:07] because the financial fines or

[3:30:08] consequences um they're meaningless to

[3:30:11] billionaires and big tech companies.

[3:30:12] They rely upon our inability to

[3:30:15] comprehend the vastness of their wealth.

[3:30:18] Um it would amount to slaps on the

[3:30:20] wrist. Um, you know, fines just really

[3:30:23] don't really matter that much to

[3:30:25] businesses that have that much money.

[3:30:26] Um, and Spanish Fork, you know, maybe it

[3:30:29] seems like an easy bark. I you don't

[3:30:31] have to go far to hear what people think

[3:30:33] of people in Spanish Fork of being Hicks

[3:30:37] or whatever kind of thing. So, um, but I hope that maybe that's been challenged

[3:30:42] a little bit by a lot of the really

[3:30:44] intelligent um, arguments that have been

[3:30:46] made here today. So, um I'm a little bit

[3:30:50] skeptical of the benefits to Spanish

[3:30:51] Fork, um as far as just AI in general.

[3:30:55] And I realize everybody thinks that AI

[3:30:56] is inevitable and that we're all going

[3:30:58] to have it be taken over. Um the purpose

[3:31:01] of AI is to eliminate the need for big

[3:31:03] companies to hire people. Um some

[3:31:07] businesses, um billionaire Sam Alman

[3:31:10] envisions making humans rent

[3:31:12] intelligence from him like a utility.

[3:31:14] Um, all of that may be inevitable, but

[3:31:16] I'm not interested in helping it along

[3:31:18] with a data center in spitting distance

[3:31:20] of my house. Um, I'm aware of the

[3:31:22] possibility um that a lot may have been

[3:31:26] promised to Spanish Fork and maybe even some of you individually if

[3:31:31] we can get this over the finish line.

[3:31:32] Um, but I hope that you really do take

[3:31:34] into account the the wishes of the

[3:31:37] citizens of Spanish Fork um in the

[3:31:39] process of all this. I do appreciate all

[3:31:42] of the um all of the things that

[3:31:44] Volition has been um I think that's the

[3:31:47] name of the company, I'm sorry. Um that

[3:31:49] they that they're saying that they will

[3:31:50] do to make it um a better data center

[3:31:53] than what we've heard about like in Box

[3:31:54] Elder. Um but I have the same concerns

[3:31:56] as others of of who might buy it out and

[3:31:59] what what they'll do with with even less

[3:32:01] um concern for small things like fines

[3:32:04] that are easy for them to pay. That's

[3:32:06] it.

[3:32:07] >> Thank you, Sher. Thank you.

[3:32:11] » Don Young and Nora New Miller.

[3:32:16] >> Okay.

[3:32:18] >> My name is Don Young. Uh I am a student

[3:32:21] at Maple Mountain High School and a

[3:32:23] resident of Spanish Fork. Ultimately

[3:32:25] allowing any data centers in the city

[3:32:27] will hurt its residents.

[3:32:31] Uh let's see. This s um valition is

[3:32:34] admirable admiraably interested in being

[3:32:37] more eco-friendly especially if every

[3:32:39] promise comes true. However, this

[3:32:41] meeting has skated around an important

[3:32:43] issue. The technology itself is the root

[3:32:46] and what I find issue. The issue I and

[3:32:49] many others are concerned about is LLMs.

[3:32:52] It is a dangerous tool that is a threat

[3:32:54] to learning and overall security. Um MIT

[3:32:58] Media Lab found that quote brain only

[3:33:01] participants exhibited the strongest

[3:33:03] most distributed neural networks and LLM

[3:33:06] users displayed the weakest connectivity

[3:33:09] or in my own words it weakens critical

[3:33:11] thinking skills. This is a risk not only

[3:33:14] now but in the future as this technology

[3:33:17] has been pushed further. Supporting this

[3:33:20] proposal furthers an attack on

[3:33:22] education. These companies want a

[3:33:25] further reliance on this technology and

[3:33:27] this proposal gives them more power.

[3:33:30] These companies want to decrease our

[3:33:31] cognitive ability and the and

[3:33:36] um are motivated by profit. In addition,

[3:33:38] it has been a main contributor to the

[3:33:40] current unemployment crisis including

[3:33:42] residents of Spanish Fork. This proposal

[3:33:45] is not um in support of residents or in

[3:33:48] the long run the city. It is primarily

[3:33:50] concerned about company profits. The

[3:33:53] real issue I think we all need to be

[3:33:54] asking is what is this AI being used

[3:33:57] for? This is a net negative. Zero AI

[3:34:00] data centers should be allowed in

[3:34:02] Spanish work. Thank you.

[3:34:04] >> Thank you Dan.

[3:34:05] >> Thank you.

[3:34:09] » Hi to everybody. My name is Noran Miller

[3:34:11] and resident four years here and I was

[3:34:14] gone for a year and I back a few months

[3:34:16] ago and I noticed a change in the city

[3:34:20] and from four year for a year and a half

[3:34:23] ago. So it's changing is growing the

[3:34:25] city and I remember meeting when

[3:34:30] Mr. parents on one time when I moved to

[3:34:32] the city to talk about things I see in

[3:34:34] the city how is these things work and

[3:34:37] now a friend told me about this meeting

[3:34:40] I wasn't aware what was happening and I

[3:34:43] came last week one of the presentations

[3:34:45] and I was impressed uh how they did it

[3:34:48] how they presented well done and all the

[3:34:51] questions they trying they seem like

[3:34:53] they are concerned and they they want to

[3:34:55] reach to answer to everybody and you

[3:34:58] guys were looking this for a few months

[3:35:00] already too. The way it sounds, that's

[3:35:02] what I understood. Um I I see the

[3:35:06] concerns of the citizens, the residents

[3:35:08] in Spanish Fork and the Mapleton because

[3:35:11] they will be too affected.

[3:35:14] One of my concerns is because with the

[3:35:16] way they present is great the way

[3:35:17] they're doing because sounds like it

[3:35:20] won't hurt as much if you guys put

[3:35:22] something else. Uh my concern is voting

[3:35:25] for the two data centers. Why two?

[3:35:29] Please, if you approve, don't do two.

[3:35:32] Uh later if the company because

[3:35:36] everybody invest and they're looking in

[3:35:38] the future, but who knows? Did they sell

[3:35:40] it? Like somebody mentioned that can

[3:35:42] bring a new owner on new things that

[3:35:45] need to have restrictions, a lot of

[3:35:48] restrictions before they do that. The

[3:35:51] city council, please take a good look.

[3:35:53] What are you doing? If you not prove

[3:35:56] this business,

[3:35:58] what are you will bring there? And

[3:36:00] that's a concern too. Everybody's

[3:36:02] talking about the trucks, talking about

[3:36:05] uh a distribution when a lot of trucks

[3:36:08] and that concerns me because already my

[3:36:10] house is too close to the six and I see

[3:36:13] the traffic. I see so many accidents

[3:36:15] happening.

[3:36:17] the permits and zoning, how is how how

[3:36:21] is changing because the zoning if you

[3:36:24] guys change zoning and permits that can

[3:36:26] affect in a lot of things for later for

[3:36:28] other businesses. So in the long run we

[3:36:31] need to be careful about that. The

[3:36:33] residents should have a voice. I I'm so

[3:36:36] concerned because one of the residents

[3:36:39] mentioned that why they don't invite to

[3:36:41] their residents to be participating

[3:36:43] more. I have a question about this. I

[3:36:47] moved recently. Like I say, I wasn't in

[3:36:50] uh around much, but the inland port in

[3:36:53] Spanish for it was approved without the

[3:36:56] residents

[3:36:58] vote.

[3:37:00] I had a question because I wasn't a I

[3:37:02] wasn't here. So, if it was, you can see

[3:37:06] it's already over there a lot of

[3:37:10] uh industrial development in that area

[3:37:12] on the other side of the 15. So, please

[3:37:14] take a look there and see what are you

[3:37:17] doing. Thank you.

[3:37:19] >> Thank you, Nora. Appreciate it.

[3:37:21] >> Uh, next I have Zack Zack Davis, Reed

[3:37:24] Warner, and James Westwwater. Zack Reed

[3:37:27] and James.

[3:37:32] » Hi, my name is Zach Davis. I am a

[3:37:34] resident of Salem City. Um, I have two

[3:37:37] main concerns about the zoning

[3:37:40] amendment, but first, I'd like to make a

[3:37:41] request of the council. We have heard so

[3:37:43] many public comments specifically about

[3:37:44] the data center itself, about data

[3:37:46] centers by and large, but not about the

[3:37:48] zoning amendment. But I think in the

[3:37:50] context of this public hearing, we have

[3:37:52] to weigh comments about this valition

[3:37:55] data center to the amendment. This

[3:37:57] amendment is very much so sponsoring

[3:38:00] valition adjacent data centers. These

[3:38:02] questions and like interrogations of the

[3:38:05] valition data center will come up again

[3:38:06] and again and again with other proposed

[3:38:08] data centers if this amendment is to be

[3:38:10] passed. And I think those comments need

[3:38:12] to be weighed on the same ground. But

[3:38:14] first, I want to talk about competition.

[3:38:16] The way this amendment is written

[3:38:18] annexes out many different types of data

[3:38:20] centers. I'm not here to like spout my

[3:38:22] own opinions on digital infrastructure

[3:38:24] or data centers and whether we should

[3:38:26] have them. But this is driving out the

[3:38:28] opportunity for other data center

[3:38:30] companies to come in. We're getting rid

[3:38:31] of combustion and most importantly,

[3:38:33] we're getting rid of the grid

[3:38:34] connection. When Mr. Chavez spoke

[3:38:36] earlier today. He specifically mentioned

[3:38:38] that a data center of this size has not

[3:38:40] been sustained solely on cell fuel

[3:38:43] cells. How are we supposed to know it's

[3:38:45] going to work? The amendment they wrote

[3:38:47] could potentially annex their own model

[3:38:49] and any other model from coming in

[3:38:52] because it might not be sustainable for

[3:38:53] years to come. We cannot pass an

[3:38:55] amendment when we do not know if it will

[3:38:57] even be workable in the end. The second

[3:38:59] is I want to talk about the rhetoric of

[3:39:01] valition. I honor a lot of the public

[3:39:04] comment about how it's admirable about

[3:39:06] what they're doing, but I think

[3:39:07] ultimately it more so reflects wanting

[3:39:09] to get past and wanting it to get passed

[3:39:11] now. I think the public hearings while

[3:39:14] admirable are ultimately hollow. They

[3:39:16] rally public cry and then when they

[3:39:18] found out that people with Spanish Fork

[3:39:19] didn't buy this kind of greenwashing

[3:39:21] that they were selling, they moved to

[3:39:23] push it. I don't think that is in good

[3:39:24] faith. I think that is because they

[3:39:27] didn't get the outcome they wanted. I

[3:39:28] think this promise of money to the

[3:39:30] community is helpful and it is good and

[3:39:32] that it isn't bad, but I think it takes

[3:39:34] away from the focus of what this is

[3:39:36] about. And it's the same thing with

[3:39:37] their framing of this versus the

[3:39:38] trucking distribution center. It's not

[3:39:40] that we are weighing this data center as

[3:39:42] is it good for the people of Spanish

[3:39:44] Fork. Is it good on its own? We're

[3:39:46] weighing it as a a better of two evils, that will reinvest

[3:39:51] in the community. We're not being asked

[3:39:53] as citizens to evaluate whether this is

[3:39:55] a good project. We're being asked to

[3:39:58] succumb to the less of two evils and

[3:40:00] just accept it because what else are we

[3:40:02] to do? And

[3:40:05] ultimately, I just do not believe we

[3:40:06] should be trusting an organization that

[3:40:08] keeps shifting the goalpost. And this

[3:40:09] has been echoed by other public

[3:40:10] commenters.

[3:40:12] Numbers are shifting. Ideation is

[3:40:14] changing. Specifically, when I went to

[3:40:16] the public hearing, I asked about the

[3:40:18] partnership with Bloom Energy and their

[3:40:19] EPA fines for leaking benzene into the

[3:40:22] ground in their manufacturing sites. I

[3:40:23] was initially told in front of everyone

[3:40:25] that it didn't matter because it was

[3:40:26] about the production of the fuel cell

[3:40:28] the fuel cells themselves, not about the

[3:40:30] actual use of them. When I went to Mr.

[3:40:32] Chavez after, he told me it was a

[3:40:33] question of efficiency. I don't think we

[3:40:35] should be weighing city policy based

[3:40:37] upon a goal shifting organization.

[3:40:39] >> Thank you. Thank you, Zach.

[3:40:41] >> Thank you.

[3:40:48] » Good evening. Reed Warner, Spanish fork

[3:40:51] lifelong. So that puts me at 55. So I've

[3:40:56] been here a while.

[3:40:57] >> Go class of 89 Reed

[3:40:59] >> right there. So the microphone closer.

[3:41:03] >> You bet. You can't hear me. Most people

[3:41:05] tell me to be quiet. So thank you. Um

[3:41:10] I'm probably on the opposite, not quite

[3:41:12] the opposite, but a little different

[3:41:14] take on some of this. That is I've

[3:41:17] worked in IT for the last 30 years.

[3:41:20] I've worked in data centers. I worked

[3:41:22] out at the NSA data center. I've been

[3:41:25] associated with some of these different

[3:41:28] components.

[3:41:29] Um, part of the questions that come up

[3:41:33] are are the closed circuit. I would love

[3:41:35] to learn more about the closed loop

[3:41:37] that's actually being utilized. I've

[3:41:39] never seen one or heard of one that

[3:41:42] actually stayed closed and didn't have

[3:41:44] to have resupply constantly

[3:41:48] and some kind of evacuation. I love the example of of how it was pumped out

[3:41:54] and then shipped. That's great. I think

[3:41:56] there's just some things that need to

[3:41:58] come back. One of the pieces that

[3:42:03] approached me was the the discussion on

[3:42:05] trust. And if there's anything I've ever

[3:42:07] learned in 21 years in the military and a million other things is it's trust

[3:42:14] but verify. And so I'm trusting that

[3:42:17] what you're telling me is the truth. I

[3:42:19] just want to see some validation of it.

[3:42:22] And I think those are good things. I I

[3:42:25] my other part is probably the valuation.

[3:42:29] A $4 billion valuation that's great. The

[3:42:33] depreciating assets not so great. And

[3:42:36] how did that come about? And what's the

[3:42:38] reality of it? Is that at full

[3:42:40] production? And is full production in 10

[3:42:43] years or is full production in one year

[3:42:45] or year two? What does that look like?

[3:42:47] What's that rolling time frame? Um the

[3:42:51] other part that I had was

[3:42:54] why the fast track? Why not the chance

[3:42:57] to to really walk through it? I don't um

[3:43:02] I honestly believe that this should be

[3:43:05] tabled and there should be a longer

[3:43:08] period for

[3:43:10] the council members and others to read

[3:43:12] through the the red lines and the

[3:43:14] changes and a chance to have public

[3:43:17] comment again on on the updated changes

[3:43:19] to that. That's my my honest belief

[3:43:22] right now. We don't know enough other

[3:43:24] than

[3:43:26] what we saw very quickly run through

[3:43:28] this. I couldn't read it that fast.

[3:43:31] Maybe somebody else can. Um, so for me,

[3:43:34] that's that's the biggest part. And then

[3:43:38] going back to

[3:43:43] we change it today, they're going to

[3:43:45] change it in the future.

[3:43:47] So whatever we do here today, we have to

[3:43:49] realize is going to get changed in the

[3:43:52] future. So how do you fix or prepare for

[3:43:54] that?

[3:43:55] >> Thank you.

[3:43:56] Reed. Appreciate that.

[3:43:58] >> I should have Jim Jim, while you're

[3:44:01] coming up here, uh I think that's a good

[3:44:03] point that Reed brought up. The the

[3:44:05] documents I think that have been showed

[3:44:08] here today are in the agenda packet. So,

[3:44:11] we should be able to find those not

[3:44:13] having to search too far, but just

[3:44:14] search the meeting tonight and you

[3:44:17] should find everything that's presented

[3:44:19] here.

[3:44:20] >> Yeah. Those aren't the these aren't like

[3:44:22] his presentation isn't in the packet

[3:44:24] yet, but it'll be there within a couple

[3:44:25] of days.

[3:44:25] >> Oh, perfect. So, our our memo's in

[3:44:27] there, but probably not that.

[3:44:28] >> Yeah. Yep. It'll be there within a day

[3:44:30] or two.

[3:44:31] >> Perfect. Look for it in the day. Thank

[3:44:32] you,

[3:44:33] >> Jim. Yes.

[3:44:34] >> I'm Dr. James Westwwater, a 20 plus year

[3:44:37] resident of Spanish Fork. I like living

[3:44:40] here and think the city has been very

[3:44:43] well-run.

[3:44:44] Please don't spoil your record.

[3:44:48] A

[3:44:49] >> question for the audience. Please raise

[3:44:51] your hand if you think bringing a data

[3:44:53] center to Spanish.

[3:44:55] >> Dr. Westwwater, we're we're not here to

[3:44:57] you can address us, but you could pull the residents out outside

[3:45:01] if you'd like, but okay. We we don't

[3:45:03] want to again if there's people that are

[3:45:04] here going to speak, we don't want them

[3:45:06] to see hands and then not get up and

[3:45:08] >> and speak to us. Okay. In in the way

[3:45:10] they want to. Thank you.

[3:45:11] >> Thank you. Um I live I'll live directly

[3:45:15] downwind of this new proposed data

[3:45:18] center AI data center. The renowned

[3:45:22] four-star US Army general Omar Bradley

[3:45:26] delivered his famous Armist to stay

[3:45:28] address on November 10th of 1948

[3:45:33] to the press club in Washington DC. Here

[3:45:36] is the most famous and widely quoted section of the speech. Quote,

[3:45:43] "Our knowledge of science has clearly

[3:45:45] outstripped our capacity to control it.

[3:45:50] We have many men of science, too few men

[3:45:53] of God. We have grasped the mystery of

[3:45:56] the atom and rejected the sermon on the

[3:45:59] mount. The world has achieved brilliance

[3:46:03] without wisdom, power without

[3:46:07] conscience.

[3:46:08] Ours is a world of nuclear giants and

[3:46:12] ethical infants. We know more about war

[3:46:15] than we know about peace. We know about

[3:46:18] more about killing than we know about

[3:46:21] living. If we continue to develop our

[3:46:25] technology without wisdom, our servant

[3:46:30] will become our executioner.

[3:46:33] That's a literal quote from General

[3:46:36] Fourstar General Omar Bradley. May city

[3:46:40] council have the conscience and the

[3:46:42] wisdom not to permit a data center data

[3:46:48] center to be built in Spanish Fork. It

[3:46:51] would be harmful to our health, the

[3:46:54] health of the environment and the

[3:46:56] quality of life on which we, our

[3:46:59] children, nature and future and the

[3:47:02] future depend. If you're interested,

[3:47:06] please see me for a list of many reasons

[3:47:09] why people oppose these data centers.

[3:47:12] I'm provide I'll provide the list to

[3:47:15] you. I I'm providing the list to all

[3:47:18] city council members. And if you're

[3:47:21] interested, see me afterwards and I can

[3:47:24] help you with u acquire this list. Thank

[3:47:27] you very much for the privilege of

[3:47:29] talking with you.

[3:47:30] >> Thanks, James. Thanks for being here

[3:47:32] tonight.

[3:47:33] Okay. The next three that I have

[3:47:34] addressing is Terresa Pierce, Rick

[3:47:36] Josephson, and Paul Wood. Teresa, Rick,

[3:47:39] and Paul.

[3:47:53] » My name is Teresa Pierce. I'm a resident

[3:47:55] of Spanish Fork. I live right next to

[3:47:57] this proposed site. It is essentially in

[3:47:59] my backyard. I have listened carefully

[3:48:01] to all of the points and solutions that

[3:48:03] Valition has put forward. We are told

[3:48:05] that this data center will make us

[3:48:07] pioneers.

[3:48:09] Well, I don't feel like a pioneer. I

[3:48:11] feel like a lab rat. Here's the thing

[3:48:13] about pioneers. They choose their own

[3:48:16] path. They take calculated risks and

[3:48:18] make a decision not for others but for

[3:48:20] themselves.

[3:48:22] Lab rats are at the mercy of those who

[3:48:24] rule over them. Each test conducted on a

[3:48:27] lab rat is supposed to be beneficial and

[3:48:29] supposedly backed by Rossy studies. Yet

[3:48:33] there is a reason that we test on rats

[3:48:35] and not on humans first.

[3:48:38] Because no one wants to risk their

[3:48:40] health on a promising experiment.

[3:48:43] But isn't this exactly what we're doing

[3:48:45] here? Local surveys already showed that

[3:48:47] we don't want this. Valition has never

[3:48:49] built a data center before. Sure, he has

[3:48:51] some data claims and experience with

[3:48:53] Bloom technology, but in reality, this

[3:48:56] would be his first build and his first

[3:48:57] location. To this, I say, let Spanish

[3:49:01] Fork be the second location for Valition

[3:49:04] and not the first. Let this experimental

[3:49:07] first location be done somewhere else.

[3:49:09] Let's watch and learn. It's also

[3:49:12] important to note that many are already

[3:49:14] finding flaws and concerns regarding the

[3:49:15] Rossy data we have been given. As we've

[3:49:17] seen tonight, uh just a few the

[3:49:20] frequencies cited by Valition come from

[3:49:23] an incomplete study. Why are we already

[3:49:25] passing numbers as facts when the study

[3:49:27] is not even complete? It doesn't measure

[3:49:29] all types of noise either. The data

[3:49:32] around the truck traffic is also

[3:49:34] questionable. Um Valition projected

[3:49:37] truck volume based on the buildings uh

[3:49:40] 36 loading bays without actually

[3:49:43] counting any real trucks. But here's my

[3:49:46] big question for valition. If we who

[3:49:48] live near the data center happen to have

[3:49:51] health issues from the 247 frequencies,

[3:49:54] if our home values plummet because no

[3:49:56] one wants to buy a home from our from a

[3:49:58] near a data center, is Valition willing

[3:50:01] to compensate us? And if not, then any

[3:50:04] money that the city receives, any of

[3:50:06] these promises that make us happy, is

[3:50:09] not actually a gift, but a tax stolen

[3:50:12] disproportionately by those of us who

[3:50:14] are near it, who had no say to begin

[3:50:16] with. It may be true that maybe we need

[3:50:19] data centers, but it is not true that we

[3:50:21] need any in our backyard.

[3:50:24] We all use the dump, but no one wants to

[3:50:26] live by one, right? That's why we have

[3:50:28] zoning laws. We have plenty of land

[3:50:31] outside of city limits. Let's start

[3:50:33] there. Please honor the true pioneer

[3:50:36] spirit of Spanish Fork by allowing us as

[3:50:38] a community to decide our own path

[3:50:41] instead of building experimental

[3:50:43] first-of-akind data centers because we

[3:50:45] are not lab rats. Thank you.

[3:50:48] >> Thank you, Teresa.

[3:50:56] » Mayor, city council, thank you for your

[3:50:58] time. All my u all of my thoughts have

[3:51:02] been addressed but I'd like to add to

[3:51:04] the gentleman here that about the closed

[3:51:07] loop uh data center that he was

[3:51:09] referring to. Uh the closed loop as you

[3:51:12] understand is he's saying one and done.

[3:51:14] It's not one and done. You and it you

[3:51:17] have it has to be cleaned. Anifreeze

[3:51:21] methyl

[3:51:23] what do you say was filled with anyway?

[3:51:26] It's anifreeze. That's what it is. It's

[3:51:28] car antifreeze. It's is closed loop.

[3:51:30] It's just like your car. It goes

[3:51:32] antifreeze goes through your radiator,

[3:51:34] goes to your car, pulls out the heat

[3:51:36] into the radiator, and there's a fan

[3:51:38] that does that. Somewhere there's got to

[3:51:40] be fans or something to pull the heat

[3:51:43] out of that um out of that anifreeze.

[3:51:47] And in this fan, I have never met a

[3:51:50] quiet fan. I don't know if you have

[3:51:52] either, but they're they're noisy. And I

[3:51:54] don't know what what that proposal was.

[3:51:57] The other thing was uh if they had a

[3:52:00] breach in the system that anifreeze

[3:52:02] kills animals it kills a lot of things

[3:52:04] and they are attracted to it because

[3:52:06] it's a sweet taste. They want to drink

[3:52:07] it and that Spanish Fork River where

[3:52:10] dripping rock and all those beautiful

[3:52:12] places are that water if that had a

[3:52:14] breach and it's all downhill right to

[3:52:17] that river. So I like to know if they're

[3:52:19] going to propose a holding pond if that

[3:52:21] does that or something like that. Um,

[3:52:25] and how do they clean this water out? I

[3:52:27] mean, I guess it's going to be trucked

[3:52:28] out maybe, but uh, how is it going to be

[3:52:31] filtered? And that's all I have. So,

[3:52:33] thank you.

[3:52:34] >> Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it,

[3:52:35] Rick.

[3:52:38] Uh, next I have John Wang, Steven, and

[3:52:44] Christine Menchling. Mchling, sorry.

[3:52:48] John, Stephen, and Christine.

[3:53:08] John. Yes.

[3:53:12] » Hi, and thanks for letting me talk. I

[3:53:16] live in Spanish Fork since 2001. So it's

[3:53:20] uh 26 years uh by the golf course. So

[3:53:24] it's very close to that uh

[3:53:28] data center. I don't like this idea. I

[3:53:33] think most of people don't like this

[3:53:34] idea. So that's why full of packed

[3:53:37] house.

[3:53:40] They speak uh strongly against this

[3:53:43] thing. And I did some study uh on the

[3:53:47] nationwide it's seems the same

[3:53:51] situation. Nobody like it. It's 70% of

[3:53:54] people uh the cities they deny those

[3:53:59] kind of proposal just like people

[3:54:02] mentioned many times you have many

[3:54:06] remote area. Why they have to pick one

[3:54:09] so close to the densely populated

[3:54:13] people? If they pick some place not

[3:54:18] surrounded by houses, so all those

[3:54:21] issues will be not exist. We don't need

[3:54:24] this huge

[3:54:27] uh public hearing things because it

[3:54:30] won't affect nobody. But now there's so

[3:54:34] many new buildings surrounding this

[3:54:36] area. I even just saw a big sign for a

[3:54:40] big condo will be next to the uh this

[3:54:45] location where we built we have a clever

[3:54:48] house we have we have many uh

[3:54:52] communities

[3:54:54] so those people will really don't like

[3:54:56] it and for the noise seems like they

[3:55:00] downplay this noise but you have to

[3:55:03] realize we are in the canyon

[3:55:07] any sound will be echoed by the

[3:55:09] surrounding mountains. So the the sound

[3:55:12] will be multiplied especially in the

[3:55:15] middle of night. So nobody knows how

[3:55:19] this uh uh noise will be. The lighting

[3:55:24] pollution is also another big issues.

[3:55:28] uh nobody knows how tall the building

[3:55:30] will be and how the bright light will be disturbing people's uh sleeping.

[3:55:40] So also this company give a very rosy uh

[3:55:46] description of their technology but I

[3:55:51] most people here is not tech service we

[3:55:54] don't know those details if it's such a

[3:55:57] perfect technology why all those other

[3:56:02] data center company don't apply uh adopt

[3:56:05] it because to to solve those issues why

[3:56:10] They seems they are the perfect solution

[3:56:14] but only used in Spanish Fork. Anyway,

[3:56:18] so that's my opinion.

[3:56:20] >> Thank you, John. Don't appreciate that.

[3:56:24] » Good evening. Uh my name is Steven. I'm

[3:56:26] a resident in Spanish Fork. Um I plan on

[3:56:28] just coming tonight and listening, but

[3:56:30] uh listen to the presentation. There's a

[3:56:32] couple misre misrepresentations that I I

[3:56:35] wanted to address. Uh the first one was

[3:56:36] talked about briefly already. The the

[3:56:38] property tax. I know that's that was

[3:56:41] presented as this, you know, really big

[3:56:43] number and that's a huge consideration

[3:56:45] of course that that you guys take is is

[3:56:47] that we have a budget and we have needs

[3:56:49] we need to fulfill and where property

[3:56:50] taxes go largely to to the school

[3:56:52] system. There is a big incentive there.

[3:56:54] And so when we look at that $44 million,

[3:56:56] know, hey, that that's a that's a big

[3:56:58] number that's going to help us out, help

[3:56:59] our kids out and everything. Um, like

[3:57:01] was stated earlier, um, I'm a business

[3:57:03] owner here. When we think of property

[3:57:05] tax, all of us think of our houses. we

[3:57:06] get taxed and and that tax goes up every

[3:57:08] year. And so we look at this, oh hey,

[3:57:10] this is a tax that's going to go up year

[3:57:11] over year every year when in reality the

[3:57:14] vast majority of that that roy number

[3:57:15] presented is based off of the equipment

[3:57:18] they are buying um these these bloom

[3:57:19] power generators as well as the servers

[3:57:22] and the that tax rate depreciates based

[3:57:24] on that depreciation schedule. Um and which is significant. So, so like I

[3:57:30] said, the significant amount of that

[3:57:32] over the next 5 years, say it was built

[3:57:33] today, could reduce down to, I believe,

[3:57:35] if you go to Utah County's uh personal

[3:57:38] property tax um depreciation schedule,

[3:57:40] it's down to like 7%. And so, I would I would ask that you guys take a

[3:57:44] really close look at that and really

[3:57:46] look at what those numbers actually are.

[3:57:48] You know, hey, maybe it might be 44

[3:57:49] million that first year, but if there's

[3:57:51] a six a 67% reduction the next year,

[3:57:54] that can cause a really big boomerang

[3:57:55] effect in your budget. as well as again

[3:57:57] it's a it's a very rosy view and and I

[3:58:01] didn't like that it was that misre

[3:58:02] representation of hey look at this big

[3:58:04] number that we're going to bring you

[3:58:05] when in reality it's it's not exactly of

[3:58:08] course it's still it's tax revenue of

[3:58:09] course but it's it's not what what the

[3:58:11] story was um so that was the first one

[3:58:12] like I said I asked you guys to take a

[3:58:14] really close look at that the second one

[3:58:16] was a lot of the basis of this argument

[3:58:19] is based off of this inevitability this

[3:58:22] fear that this is going to happen no

[3:58:25] matter

[3:58:26] and we're your you guys' best bet. So,

[3:58:29] let us do it to you. And as as a dad, as

[3:58:32] an American, that that kind of

[3:58:34] fear-based worldview really didn't sit

[3:58:37] right with me. And I I ask that that you

[3:58:39] guys reject that and and just look at it

[3:58:41] based off the merit of the argument

[3:58:42] itself and say, "Hey, is this what's

[3:58:44] best for for us in Spanish for this what

[3:58:47] our citizens want?" and and and don't

[3:58:50] accept that that worldview just cuz

[3:58:52] something has happened around the world

[3:58:53] that that it has to happen to us. Thank

[3:58:55] you.

[3:58:56] >> Thank you. Appreciate you, Stephen.

[3:59:03] » Hi, I am Christine Meckling. I am from

[3:59:06] Salem. So, my concern is water used

[3:59:09] directly or indirectly. They're saying

[3:59:11] they're going to use 250,000 gallons a

[3:59:14] year. Is that truthfully the whole

[3:59:16] number? Some of these data centers, they

[3:59:19] tell you this number, but that is the

[3:59:20] direct water being used for the cooling.

[3:59:22] They don't tell you the water that is

[3:59:24] being used for the power plant. I know

[3:59:26] it's not a power plant. I know this is

[3:59:28] um batteries, but that is a concern. Are

[3:59:31] they telling us truthfully how much

[3:59:33] water they're using or are they having a

[3:59:34] hidden number that we will not find out

[3:59:37] till later after everything is done?

[3:59:39] Another thing is priority. We are having

[3:59:42] water shortages. What are we going to

[3:59:43] do? Who's get the priority? The data

[3:59:45] center or the people? Who's gonna get

[3:59:47] cut? Natural gas. The natural gas.

[3:59:50] They're pulling it in. All of these data

[3:59:52] centers that are trying to make these

[3:59:54] power plants, they are using natural

[3:59:57] gas. We're going to start having

[3:59:58] shortages when all of these data centers

[4:00:00] come online over the next 10 years.

[4:00:03] That's a concern. Our costs on utilities

[4:00:05] are going up. That's going to be a

[4:00:07] problem eventually. The batteries

[4:00:09] they're going to use, they have to be

[4:00:11] replaced after a certain point. Are they

[4:00:13] going to not be able to want to pay that

[4:00:15] money to replace them? Is that going to

[4:00:17] cause us issues with, oh, now we need to

[4:00:20] hook up to your grid or we need to bring

[4:00:22] in a new power source? That's something

[4:00:24] else to be thought about.

[4:00:27] The last one I talk about is jobs. How

[4:00:29] many jobs are they really creating? When

[4:00:31] they bring in a power plant, they create

[4:00:33] more jobs. Okay, that's a good thing.

[4:00:35] But for these data centers and this

[4:00:37] battery function that the batteries that

[4:00:40] they're going to be using, are they

[4:00:41] really creating that many? Data centers

[4:00:43] don't create that many jobs. It's the

[4:00:45] power plant that comes with it. And this

[4:00:47] isn't going to be a full power plant.

[4:00:48] This is going to be something smaller.

[4:00:50] So, are they really bringing in over 200

[4:00:52] jobs or are they going to bring in maybe

[4:00:54] 20, which I know we need the jobs in

[4:00:56] this economy, but what other negatives

[4:00:58] is this going to bring to our area?

[4:01:01] Thank you.

[4:01:01] >> Thank you, Christine. Thank you.

[4:01:04] >> Uh the next three I have are Mia, uh

[4:01:07] Paul, and Rod. So Mia, Carlos, Paul

[4:01:10] Hill, and Rod Helm.

[4:01:14] » Hi. Um I'm Mia Carlos. I'm a citizen of

[4:01:17] Salem and I have a couple concerns.

[4:01:19] First of all, other people have

[4:01:20] mentioned this. I'm very concerned by

[4:01:22] the lack of empirical evidence and the

[4:01:23] lack of external evidence. We look at

[4:01:25] this noise study that was conducted by

[4:01:26] link engineering who is subcontracted by

[4:01:29] Valition. we look at, you know, taking

[4:01:32] city employees to walk around a data

[4:01:33] center and randomly knocking on doors to

[4:01:35] pull civilians. That's not rigorous.

[4:01:37] That's not empirical. You know, that's

[4:01:39] not a substantial look at the actual

[4:01:42] impact of the West Valley data center,

[4:01:44] for example. I'm also extremely

[4:01:46] concerned by greenwashing. Specifically,

[4:01:48] when we're talking about Bloom Energy,

[4:01:50] they've been faced with multiple class

[4:01:52] action lawsuits from the EPA, from OSHA,

[4:01:54] from all of these things. But Bloom

[4:01:56] Energy is currently in a lawsuit for

[4:01:58] misleading shareholders, lying about

[4:02:00] business operations and financial

[4:02:01] stability, and it's caused significant

[4:02:04] stockholder losses. The Bloom Energy

[4:02:05] stock now, as of like 5 minutes ago, is

[4:02:07] down 10% because people don't trust them

[4:02:09] to actually deliver on the promises

[4:02:11] they're making because time and time

[4:02:12] again, they've shown that they're not

[4:02:14] like they don't deliver. They make all

[4:02:16] these promises and it doesn't come to

[4:02:17] fruition. Um, additionally,

[4:02:21] like we just we wouldn't be the first

[4:02:23] community that Bloom has lied to. we

[4:02:24] wouldn't be the first community that

[4:02:26] they've intentionally misled. And closed

[4:02:28] loop systems as a whole have failed

[4:02:31] nationwide. Like there's promise, but

[4:02:34] there's also countless examples of

[4:02:36] closed loop systems where they are

[4:02:38] forced to bleed the lines, pollution

[4:02:40] happens, or the there's a failure to

[4:02:42] sufficiently cool the system via these

[4:02:44] fans and then, you know, other

[4:02:48] concessions have to be made because the

[4:02:49] data center is already there. That's a

[4:02:51] massive concern of mine. I spoke to Jeff

[4:02:53] Chavez about this in public comment and

[4:02:55] he said, "Well, you don't always like

[4:02:57] everyone that you work with." But I

[4:02:59] don't think that that's an excuse for

[4:03:00] continuing to work with a company who

[4:03:02] has systemically failed. I also have

[4:03:04] evaluated other manufacturers of these

[4:03:06] solid oxide fuel cells, and I've yet to

[4:03:08] find a single one that doesn't face some

[4:03:10] sort of controversy over environmental

[4:03:12] impact, labor, or just lying to like

[4:03:15] straight up lying to shareholders. I

[4:03:18] think that Jeff is a great salesman, and

[4:03:20] I like I do admire his vision. I think

[4:03:22] that the vision of a sustainable data

[4:03:24] center is great, but I'm really not

[4:03:26] interested in supporting his bid to

[4:03:28] become a billionaire uh at the extent of

[4:03:31] our community. And that's all I have to

[4:03:33] say. Thanks.

[4:03:33] >> Thanks, man.

[4:03:34] >> Thank you, Mia.

[4:03:38] » Paul, I got Paul and then Rod.

[4:03:43] » Excuse me. Hi. Uh Paul Hill. Uh I'm a

[4:03:47] resident of Spanish Fork. I've lived

[4:03:49] here for 25 years, but I've been in the

[4:03:51] area many, many years. I'm one of the

[4:03:54] kids that was dragging Maine in 1983,

[4:03:59] back in the day, back when you could.

[4:04:01] Um, so I I say that to preface that I'm

[4:04:04] not one of those people that want it to

[4:04:07] be the same little sleepy town that it

[4:04:10] used to be. I enjoy the progress. I love

[4:04:14] the restaurants and all the industries

[4:04:16] that we've had lately. And I'm really

[4:04:19] pro what we've been doing, but the data

[4:04:22] center itself,

[4:04:25] all I've heard today is vague uh

[4:04:29] promises that they're going to do it

[4:04:32] better than these data centers are

[4:04:35] horrible.

[4:04:36] All we've heard today is we want to it's going to be better than they did

[4:04:40] it. And all we've heard is that it's

[4:04:43] going to be better than dozens and

[4:04:45] dozens of trucks as if these two things

[4:04:50] is the only thing out there. I really

[4:04:54] urge the council, the mayors to really

[4:04:57] think about

[4:05:00] the community we want to live in

[4:05:03] permanently beyond what's going to make

[4:05:06] some money right now. like I I want to

[4:05:11] live here. I'm gonna die here and I'm

[4:05:15] going to haunt my house and that's my

[4:05:18] plan. And I want to live in this

[4:05:21] community

[4:05:23] uh long-term, not just we're going to

[4:05:27] get a couple million dollars from some

[4:05:29] billionaires and that's going to be

[4:05:31] great for recreation or whatever for a

[4:05:34] little while, but what is it going to be

[4:05:37] beyond that? And I really urge you to

[4:05:40] think about longterm

[4:05:43] what the company what the community

[4:05:47] needs long term for all of us. So thank

[4:05:51] you

[4:05:51] >> Paul. Thanks Paul.

[4:05:57] » Rod Yum. I've lived in Spanish Fork for

[4:05:59] the last 18 years and uh I want the uh

[4:06:04] I think the conditional use permit needs

[4:06:06] to be restored.

[4:06:08] Um

[4:06:10] I I think the uh we need to make sure that something

[4:06:16] of this magnitude for residents is uh uh

[4:06:20] people need to be able to address it.

[4:06:24] So um

[4:06:27] I was completely opposed to a data

[4:06:29] center in Spanish Fork when I came to

[4:06:31] the planning commission meeting almost

[4:06:32] two weeks ago. Valition's proposal

[4:06:34] resolved mo almost all of my concerns.

[4:06:38] Their technology provides solutions to

[4:06:40] concerns about water power consumption

[4:06:44] and I appreciate their willingness to

[4:06:45] make contractual commitments to Spanish

[4:06:47] Fork.

[4:06:49] And I ask that contractual commitments

[4:06:53] are will be strong, stiff, and

[4:06:54] maintained by by Spanish Fork and make

[4:06:58] sure that they're enforceable.

[4:07:01] Um,

[4:07:04] I appreciate the seriousness that the

[4:07:06] city's approached this in, but uh, we're

[4:07:09] talking about a facility that could

[4:07:10] ultimately ultimately reach 500

[4:07:13] megawatts with homes as close as roughly

[4:07:15] a quarter mile away.

[4:07:18] Uh, my concern is noise and vibration,

[4:07:20] particularly persistent low frequency

[4:07:23] and tonal tonal noise. I'm not simply

[4:07:26] concerned about whether the facility

[4:07:28] will be loud. Highway six and the

[4:07:30] railroad and the windmills already

[4:07:34] create substantial uh noise and and

[4:07:37] vibration. The traffic comes and goes

[4:07:40] and trains pass periodically. A data a

[4:07:43] data center is different as cooling

[4:07:45] systems, fans, pumps, motors,

[4:07:46] transformers, and other equipment

[4:07:48] operate continuously 24 hours a day.

[4:07:52] If that equipment produces a persistent

[4:07:54] low-frequency hum, rumble, or vibration,

[4:07:57] that could create a very different kind

[4:07:59] of problem for nearby residents. Some

[4:08:01] people who are most particularly

[4:08:03] sensitive to sound or vibration,

[4:08:05] including people with sensory processing

[4:08:07] differences, such as autism. I'm not

[4:08:10] suggesting everyone will experience it

[4:08:12] that way or that this project

[4:08:14] necessarily will create a problem. We

[4:08:16] should know what the cumulative effect

[4:08:18] will be before we build it.

[4:08:20] I would ask the city to require an

[4:08:22] independent full spectrum acoustic study

[4:08:24] before final approval covering both the

[4:08:27] initial 250 megawatt configuration and

[4:08:30] the potential 500 megawatt buildout.

[4:08:34] That study should include DBA, DBC, low

[4:08:39] frequency and one-third octave

[4:08:41] measurements along with appropriate

[4:08:43] vibration analysis at the nearest

[4:08:45] residences, not simply at the property

[4:08:48] line. I'd also like the city to

[4:08:50] establish baseline measurements before

[4:08:52] construction.

[4:08:53] That baseline should account for the

[4:08:55] existing highway, railroad, and other

[4:08:57] sources so we can determine what the

[4:09:00] data center actually adds to the

[4:09:01] environment.

[4:09:07] Um,

[4:09:10] » thank you.

[4:09:10] Rod.

[4:09:11] >> Thanks, Rod.

[4:09:12] >> Appreciate it. Okay, the last uh two

[4:09:15] that I've got on my list here are Megan

[4:09:17] Williams and Paul Heber. Megan and Paul

[4:09:23] Weber.

[4:09:24] >> Oh, Weber. Sorry. Oh, good.

[4:09:26] >> Oh, man.

[4:09:29] We have

[4:09:30] >> Megan and Paul. Oh, sorry.

[4:09:34] >> Did you say Paul Weber or Paul Weber?

[4:09:37] >> Paul Weber.

[4:09:40] >> Okay. Thanks, Paul. You're after Megan.

[4:09:43] >> Megan Williams. I live in Spanish Fork.

[4:09:45] I live near the area of the proposed

[4:09:47] data center site. Um I'm opposed to it,

[4:09:49] but I wanted to mostly talk about um

[4:09:51] it's mentioned previously um about the

[4:09:54] environmental effects especially on like

[4:09:56] livestock and animals, the wildlife. Um

[4:10:00] nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas

[4:10:03] and um any part of that in the

[4:10:05] atmosphere becomes PM2.5 which is like

[4:10:08] fine particulate matter and that um

[4:10:10] settles on forage feed and um that

[4:10:13] transfers um is triggered boine asthma,

[4:10:16] respiratory disease and cattle and um I

[4:10:21] know that this um council has stated

[4:10:24] that they would plan regionally and act

[4:10:25] locally. So, I just wanted you to

[4:10:28] consider please consider um looking

[4:10:30] further into studies on the effects of

[4:10:32] our livestock and um wildlife in this

[4:10:35] agricultural community. Thanks.

[4:10:37] >> Thank you.

[4:10:37] Megan.

[4:10:49] » Hi, I'm Paul Weber. I lived uh less than

[4:10:52] um half a mile away from the proposed

[4:10:55] site on the other side of the golf

[4:10:57] course. So when I found out about this

[4:11:00] proposal less than two weeks ago, I was

[4:11:02] horrified. I was concerned. Uh we even

[4:11:06] started to talk about do we need to move

[4:11:08] away from here? But after looking

[4:11:12] carefully at the uh proposed uh facility

[4:11:16] and going to the public hearings,

[4:11:19] um I've really swung almost 180 degrees

[4:11:23] in my uh overall assessment. And let me

[4:11:27] tell you why. I think that data centers

[4:11:31] have a really bad name deservedly

[4:11:35] uh from some previous um constructions

[4:11:38] including the one in the bo in box Elder

[4:11:41] County and you heard various numbers

[4:11:43] that are quoted 9 degrees temperature

[4:11:45] rise within a half a mile um distance

[4:11:50] away but this facility

[4:11:53] I I think is uh is is much better in in

[4:11:58] terms of the design, in terms of the

[4:12:00] physics. The fuel cell design is much

[4:12:03] more efficient. They're using an

[4:12:06] existing building and they're putting

[4:12:08] the fuel cells inside of the building.

[4:12:11] So, this will uh I I I believe there's a

[4:12:14] lot of merit in their figures about how

[4:12:17] low the sound levels will be simply

[4:12:19] because it'll be enclosed within a a

[4:12:22] structural building. I do have concerns

[4:12:25] about environmental effects and I agree

[4:12:29] that environmental a careful

[4:12:31] environmental assessment needs to be

[4:12:33] done. Um

[4:12:36] but I I come back to the point that was

[4:12:39] made by the gentleman from Mapleton

[4:12:41] which I think is a very good one. I know

[4:12:44] we there's it's nice to talk about um um

[4:12:50] higher more altruistic uses of the site

[4:12:53] that's there, but the fact of the matter

[4:12:55] is this is a $14 million facility and

[4:12:58] unless Spanish for can pony up and buy

[4:13:01] this, which I don't see happening, um

[4:13:04] something's going to happen to it,

[4:13:06] something industrial. And I agree that a

[4:13:11] good head-to-head study of a a major

[4:13:15] expansion, three-fold expansion in

[4:13:18] trucking facility versus what this um

[4:13:22] more efficient um data center um

[4:13:26] proposes is is worth uh carefully

[4:13:31] embarking on in making your decision

[4:13:33] about what to do with this site. And

[4:13:36] lastly, I just mention I do believe data

[4:13:38] centers will built in will be built

[4:13:41] inevitably

[4:13:43] and um the the proposal I think should

[4:13:47] be base though it should be judged in

[4:13:50] terms of its uh ultimate which is the

[4:13:53] better use of this site.

[4:13:55] >> Thank you.

[4:13:56] Paul. appreciate it.

[4:13:58] >> Uh,

[4:14:02] » I've got uh one more person that looks

[4:14:05] like uh signed up after I read that

[4:14:07] those last two. Brady Redern

[4:14:10] is there's Brady.

[4:14:16] » Good evening. My name is Brady Redfern.

[4:14:19] I live at the corner of Highway 6 and

[4:14:20] Canyon Road. So, I see the warehouse

[4:14:22] every day from my house. I have a PhD in

[4:14:25] industrial and systems engineering. I

[4:14:27] have degrees in IT and cyber security

[4:14:30] and I have built AI products and written

[4:14:32] AI policy since 2012. I have 20 years of

[4:14:35] experience related to this topic. So, I

[4:14:38] took it upon myself to spend 50 hours of

[4:14:40] personal time last week looking into

[4:14:43] this proposal, including site visits and

[4:14:45] in-person interviews at the various

[4:14:48] locations that have been mentioned.

[4:14:49] Nobody paid me for any of this. Uh the

[4:14:52] choice that the amendment offers the

[4:14:54] community is a fully leased warehouse

[4:14:56] versus a sustainable data center with

[4:14:58] protections written into law. The

[4:15:00] warehouse means up to 6,400 diesel

[4:15:04] trucks. That's my my calculation based

[4:15:06] on uh New Jersey estimates. Um there's

[4:15:10] different ways to calculate that. So

[4:15:12] 6,400 diesel trucks a month on Highway

[4:15:15] 6. The data center has zero. Nothing

[4:15:18] burns in a fuel cell. The main outputs

[4:15:20] are water and carbon dioxide. That is

[4:15:22] why the nitrogen oxide is so low. It's

[4:15:24] three and a half times lower than the

[4:15:27] aluminum plant we already have in this

[4:15:28] city and it's about the same as uh

[4:15:32] Provo's hospital. The warehouse draws on

[4:15:35] our grid. The data center cannot. It

[4:15:38] generates its own permanently islanded

[4:15:40] no interconnection and no export written

[4:15:42] into the ordinance. The diesel trucks

[4:15:44] and the train are louder than any

[4:15:46] equipment in the data center and limits

[4:15:48] are already in the ordinance. The

[4:15:50] warehouse is assessed at $51 million

[4:15:53] today in property tax value. The data

[4:15:56] center is $4 billion investment into the

[4:15:59] same building. The city share of the

[4:16:02] property tax would be about $4 million

[4:16:04] in the first year. That is almost 70%

[4:16:06] more property tax revenue for the city

[4:16:09] from a single site and roughly 120 times

[4:16:13] what the city's largest commercial

[4:16:15] taxpayer pays today.

[4:16:18] Valition has also committed to over

[4:16:20] $500,000 a year for the community, twice

[4:16:23] what the city collects from its 11

[4:16:26] largest taxpayers in property tax

[4:16:28] combined.

[4:16:30] Spanish Fork wrote real limits into the

[4:16:33] code. There's power limits, there's

[4:16:35] noise limits, there's pollution limits,

[4:16:36] there's water limits. No other Utah city

[4:16:39] has done that before. Tonight is about

[4:16:42] title 15 and title 15 is the strongest

[4:16:44] version of this ordinance in our entire

[4:16:47] state. I looked at every effect I could

[4:16:49] measure and I found no drawback to the

[4:16:52] community. I have no reservations in

[4:16:54] having Valition build this in my

[4:16:56] backyard. Thank you.

[4:16:58] >> Thank you Brady.

[4:17:00] >> Uh looks like I had another addition

[4:17:03] here on the list. I've got Adam Allen

[4:17:06] from Mapleton.

[4:17:11] How's it going? Adam from Mapleton. I

[4:17:13] live in Harmony Ridge, just kitty corner

[4:17:15] to the proposed data center site. I'll

[4:17:17] be quick because it's late and my kids

[4:17:19] asleep, so I probably got to get home

[4:17:20] for the wife um get her out of the bath

[4:17:22] and stuff. But um but yeah, I I came

[4:17:25] into this I learned about this a couple

[4:17:26] weeks ago. Um was not super thrilled

[4:17:29] after seeing the box elder announcement

[4:17:30] and stuff and all this all the

[4:17:32] controversy surrounding that. Um, I will

[4:17:34] say I've watched all the the different

[4:17:36] council meetings you guys have had and

[4:17:37] the planning commission and stuff and

[4:17:38] I've been really impressed with Jeff um

[4:17:41] with his ability to either be a really

[4:17:43] good pest control salesman basically or

[4:17:45] to really follow through on this stuff.

[4:17:47] Um, and I hope he does follow through on

[4:17:49] it. And you know, I I'm at the point

[4:17:51] where where I do feel pretty comfortable

[4:17:52] with it. Um, I have a young child,

[4:17:54] another kid on the way and we live again

[4:17:55] just Kitty Corner to it and Harmony

[4:17:57] Ridge. And so, um, talking to my wife

[4:17:59] and stuff, like I feel pretty

[4:18:01] comfortable with all the promises

[4:18:02] they've made. I just hope they follow

[4:18:04] through on them, right? Um, one of my

[4:18:05] concerns is, and I'm sure you guys have

[4:18:07] talked about this and addressed it, but

[4:18:09] um, does have to do with my property

[4:18:11] value, right? We bought a home there two

[4:18:12] years ago. We had no idea this was going

[4:18:14] in. Now, if it does go in, I'm not in

[4:18:16] Spanish Fork. I don't get to reap any of

[4:18:18] the tax benefits that come from this,

[4:18:19] the property taxes that are collected.

[4:18:21] Um, so I'm concerned with, hey, does my

[4:18:24] property value, you know, get dumped

[4:18:26] from this, right? 20, 40, $60,000. And

[4:18:28] so I'm curious what has happened with

[4:18:30] other Bloom sites. And I know this is

[4:18:31] Valition's first full data center. And

[4:18:33] so I'd be curious to do to look at a

[4:18:35] study. I've tried to research it with AI

[4:18:37] coincidentally, but I'm sure most of us

[4:18:39] have, right? Um and so we're part of the

[4:18:42] problem, guys. Um but uh but no, I you

[4:18:46] know, I've tried to research it. There just isn't a lot of data right

[4:18:48] now. And so there's a lot of unknowns, I

[4:18:50] think, with a lot of these figures that

[4:18:51] are thrown out. And that's why I think a

[4:18:52] lot of us are hesitant. But what he's

[4:18:54] saying is awesome. Like if that's the

[4:18:56] case and if that's what's going to go

[4:18:57] in, let's do it. I wish it was two miles

[4:18:59] further in the canyon, but if that's

[4:19:01] where it needs to be, that's where it

[4:19:02] needs to be. So that's it for me.

[4:19:04] Thanks.

[4:19:06] >> Appreciate that.

[4:19:07] >> I've got Dan Davis sign up next. Daniel

[4:19:11] Davis.

[4:19:16] I don't live up there, so I don't have

[4:19:21] um I'm not sure that it's fair for me to

[4:19:24] speak as if it's going to affect me. I

[4:19:26] live on that side of town, so but it

[4:19:28] could do. Um,

[4:19:34] I'm for the data center as long as the

[4:19:36] city holds their feet to the fire and uh

[4:19:40] puts them under the right rules and we

[4:19:41] run this thing so that it works out good

[4:19:45] and best for everybody.

[4:19:48] And as a smart elk, I'll say if uh you

[4:19:52] guys allow the data center, the second

[4:19:53] one to be put in, put it down on my

[4:19:55] place.

[4:19:59] Wait. Okay.

[4:20:05] » Okay. Uh, that's all I had signed up.

[4:20:07] Um, any anybody else that that is trying

[4:20:11] to sign up and in the middle of it that

[4:20:13] wants to come up here and speak.

[4:20:19] » Aiden Scott. I'm from Oram. Uh, less

[4:20:21] importantly, I'm a candidate. I'm an

[4:20:23] unaffiliated candidate for the US House

[4:20:24] of Representatives, Congressional

[4:20:26] District 3. Um, I've had the unique

[4:20:28] opportunity to knock thousands of doors

[4:20:31] uh in your neighborhoods and neighboring

[4:20:33] cities as well. Um, and there has been a

[4:20:37] direct opposition for data centers even

[4:20:39] before this announcement. Um, I'd feel

[4:20:41] I'd be doing a disservice to those that

[4:20:43] I've knocked into and they show support

[4:20:45] for me um if I didn't voice their

[4:20:47] opinions. Um, but what I will say is I I

[4:20:50] want to tip my hat to Valition. um

[4:20:52] they've nearly answered all of the

[4:20:55] concerns of those people that I've

[4:20:56] knocked into. Um which I think is

[4:20:59] amazing. Um what I can say is I I do

[4:21:02] want to tip my hat to you guys as well.

[4:21:04] It sounds like you guys have been

[4:21:05] holding uh really rigorous uh hearings

[4:21:08] with each other and opening up to the

[4:21:10] public's amazing. Um what I can say is

[4:21:12] uh and just a reminder and reiteration

[4:21:14] that um you guys represent Spanish Fork

[4:21:17] and uh you have no obligation to

[4:21:20] valition but you do to the people of

[4:21:22] Spanish Fork. Um what I can say from

[4:21:24] knocking doors down in Cedar um with

[4:21:26] their data center is they feel totally

[4:21:29] misrepresented and totally unheard. Um

[4:21:33] today you guys have a really good unique

[4:21:35] opportunity to hear the concerns of many

[4:21:37] of the community and I saw taking notes

[4:21:39] and that's awesome. Um just consider

[4:21:42] them. Um you have one of the greatest

[4:21:45] and fastest growing cities in the state

[4:21:47] and that's because of you guys and the

[4:21:50] hard work that you guys do and your

[4:21:52] ability to represent well. Um, but I

[4:21:55] just want to voice those concerns and

[4:21:58] what I'll say is that those that oppose

[4:22:01] it are probably because they have lack

[4:22:03] of information. I'm not saying whether

[4:22:05] I, you know, am for or against it, but

[4:22:08] information kind of deems their

[4:22:10] perception of our representation. So

[4:22:13] getting those independent studies goes a

[4:22:15] long way. And then having avenues to

[4:22:18] dispel that information to the public

[4:22:20] will probably be the best down the road.

[4:22:22] But I think you guys are doing great

[4:22:23] work and uh just want to shout out the

[4:22:26] public for participating in our

[4:22:28] government because that's the only way

[4:22:30] we see the beauty of it. Thank you.

[4:22:33] >> Appreciate it.

[4:22:37] » Okay. Thank you everybody. I'm not

[4:22:39] getting uh any other any other requests

[4:22:42] here of people that have signed up. Um I

[4:22:45] would uh yeah, we could hear from the

[4:22:48] applicant again. We can we could close

[4:22:51] the public hearing if somebody wants to

[4:22:54] entertain that motion. That doesn't mean

[4:22:56] we can't hear from the applicant and

[4:22:58] staff still and ask questions.

[4:23:01] >> Before we close it, can we maybe give

[4:23:03] just few more seconds to see if there is

[4:23:06] anybody else that wants to speak to

[4:23:07] this?

[4:23:08] >> Can I make one comf?

[4:23:12] » What would it like to be Dr. Westwwater?

[4:23:16] >> Sure.

[4:23:18] I live immediately downwind of the site

[4:23:21] and as we all know if you live downwind

[4:23:24] of Spanish Fort Canyon you're going to

[4:23:26] get a nice blast of wind and that wind

[4:23:28] is going to carry sound. It's going to

[4:23:31] carry heat. So the previous studies of

[4:23:35] how uh contained the the heat and the uh

[4:23:39] sound are I think may not apply in our

[4:23:43] Spanish Fork situation because we get

[4:23:46] that very powerful wind coming down the

[4:23:48] canyon uh uh in the morning. So we're

[4:23:52] going to feel that heat and we're going

[4:23:54] to feel uh hear that noise. Thank you.

[4:23:57] >> Thank you. I uh this is truth that I'm

[4:24:01] going to tell you here, but I have been

[4:24:02] a elected official for 13 years. There

[4:24:05] was an email sent to me when a new

[4:24:08] subdivision at the mouth of the canyon

[4:24:10] was built and some shingles were blown

[4:24:14] off the top of the roof and an email was

[4:24:16] sent to the governing body that said,

[4:24:18] "It's really windy here. The windmills

[4:24:21] were already up, so yes, you should be

[4:24:23] able to know that it's windy there. What

[4:24:25] are you going to do about the wind

[4:24:27] problem in Spanish fork? It's taken off

[4:24:30] my shingles. And uh that's a that was a

[4:24:33] real email.

[4:24:34] >> We don't want to know how you replied.

[4:24:35] >> Yeah, I didn't reply that one. Good.

[4:24:37] >> But that yes, there was a response sent,

[4:24:40] but that was a very real email.

[4:24:42] >> Really?

[4:24:42] >> It was a very real email.

[4:24:44] >> Real email.

[4:24:44] >> Mayor, I would move that we close public

[4:24:46] hearing.

[4:24:47] >> Motion made by Councilman Oiler.

[4:24:50] >> Second. Seconded by Councilwoman Beck to

[4:24:53] close the public hearing portion of

[4:24:54] this. All in favor say yes.

[4:24:55] >> Yes.

[4:24:56] >> The public hearing of this item is

[4:24:59] closed. Again, it goes without saying,

[4:25:01] but thank you. Thank you everybody for,

[4:25:03] you know, we've got your names and notes

[4:25:05] and everything that that were said. So,

[4:25:07] we sure appreciate you sticking with us,

[4:25:08] especially the ones with kids here and

[4:25:11] kids at home. Uh it's uh it's great to

[4:25:13] see you involved in the public

[4:25:16] discussion. Uh Mr. Chavez, is there

[4:25:19] something that

[4:25:20] >> Yeah, I just uh echo appreciate the

[4:25:23] comments. Um I uh there are notes that

[4:25:27] we take. There's things that we'd like

[4:25:28] to be able to, you know, respond to, but

[4:25:31] I don't think that we need to take more

[4:25:32] time to do that. Um we want to make sure

[4:25:36] that we direct people to what will be

[4:25:38] this um you know, growing list of

[4:25:42] answers to detailed questions. We've

[4:25:44] collected you know new angles on some of the similar questions that we've

[4:25:48] heard before. I think uh there are

[4:25:50] things around depreciation that we've uh

[4:25:52] presented before. We will we will

[4:25:54] resurface so that you understand that we

[4:25:57] are factoring in the depreciation of

[4:26:00] equipment how our equipment depreciates

[4:26:02] at a different pace than the GPUs. Also

[4:26:05] I think it's worth noting we'll be

[4:26:06] clarifying that the figures that we put

[4:26:09] up are actually conservative. we're not

[4:26:11] factoring in the additional value that

[4:26:13] will come into the building uh with our

[4:26:15] clients, it may actually be double the

[4:26:17] amount. So, we look forward to, you

[4:26:19] know, showing more data to you and that

[4:26:22] the public can access. Um, and I think

[4:26:25] also going a little deeper on helping

[4:26:27] you understand the viability and

[4:26:28] reliability of the Bloom Fuel cell. Um,

[4:26:31] while their stock may have dropped 10%,

[4:26:33] I think she mentioned uh over the last

[4:26:35] year it's up 300%. And the reason it's

[4:26:38] up 300% is because the market is

[4:26:40] collectively uh validating that the fuel

[4:26:43] cell works. Um it's reliable. It is 15

[4:26:48] years proven. And so I think we'll look

[4:26:51] to demonstrate a variety of additional

[4:26:53] areas where the Bloom and other fuel

[4:26:55] cells have uh been extremely reliable.

[4:26:57] So there's just a couple examples of

[4:26:59] things that we look forward to providing

[4:27:00] more information on. But I think now

[4:27:03] we'd love to hear from you and then if

[4:27:04] you have any questions for me, I'm I'm

[4:27:06] here. Thank you. Perfect. Appreciate you

[4:27:08] staying here, too.

[4:27:09] >> Yeah. Don't go too far, Jeff.

[4:27:10] >> And we'll be here for questions,

[4:27:12] discussion, uh, up here. That's a lot of

[4:27:15] notes, council, that we've taken and, uh, and again, I think, uh, I think

[4:27:19] there's some wisdom in in what's been

[4:27:21] discussed here of of, um, of questions

[4:27:24] and issues that that if you don't feel

[4:27:26] like, you know, that there's answers

[4:27:28] that you want to get to and things like

[4:27:30] that that there's, you know, possibly

[4:27:32] time to do that. So, uh, I don't know

[4:27:35] when you all turn into pumpkins. Uh, if

[4:27:37] it's at to It's early.

[4:27:39] >> Okay. It's early. Kevin's

[4:27:41] >> Kevin's had his going to say caffeine,

[4:27:44] but he's just have water. Let's see how

[4:27:45] far the Mountain Dew.

[4:27:47] >> Yeah. I would I I would say again, um,

[4:27:50] thanks for the the the respectful nature

[4:27:52] of, you know, I think Mr. Chavez, you

[4:27:56] said there's something different about

[4:27:57] Spanish Fork. There is something

[4:27:58] different about Spanish Fork. and what

[4:28:00] it is, whether you live in Mapleton, and

[4:28:02] I did talk to your mayor and said, "Hey,

[4:28:03] we're going to have some of your

[4:28:04] residents here tonight." And I'm going

[4:28:05] to let them speak, and it's going to be

[4:28:06] great. So, let them know they can come

[4:28:07] to our our city and and speak. That's

[4:28:10] not always a common thing, but thank

[4:28:12] you. Thank you for coming uh uh wherever

[4:28:14] you came from. Uh and the the way we do it in Spanish for is we ask questions

[4:28:19] and we try to get answers and we try to

[4:28:21] get facts uh o over maybe fiction or

[4:28:24] emotion or whatever it may be. Um even

[4:28:27] those subjects are emotion. And the

[4:28:29] reason is is because we have a history

[4:28:31] of seeing each other in the grocery

[4:28:32] store or in the schools or in the church

[4:28:35] pews and not necessarily attacking each

[4:28:37] other on on on the way we think or why

[4:28:40] we think what we think, but that we are

[4:28:42] a community together. And so I

[4:28:43] appreciate all of you keeping keeping

[4:28:46] that respect in your in your public

[4:28:47] comments and your questions here and and

[4:28:49] you're going to see that from your

[4:28:50] elected officials as well uh to to to

[4:28:53] talk about the merits of things and and

[4:28:55] not not the personal side of things. So

[4:28:58] that's my warning to Kevin because

[4:28:59] sometimes he gets in that way. I mean, I

[4:29:01] was just going to start.

[4:29:02] >> He goes after I he went after someone

[4:29:04] from PAC a couple weeks ago and

[4:29:06] >> there was a guy from PAC here. He said

[4:29:08] something about PAC.

[4:29:09] >> Oh, it's PAC

[4:29:11] >> again here tonight.

[4:29:13] >> Um, mayor, I would just like to say the

[4:29:16] similar thing that the conversation

[4:29:18] tonight was really good. Um, I learned

[4:29:21] some things that, you know, I need to

[4:29:23] ask more questions about. I appreciate

[4:29:26] some passion that was shown. Um,

[4:29:30] some

[4:29:32] really good points, but all in a in a

[4:29:34] very

[4:29:35] >> Yeah.

[4:29:36] >> productive way tonight. Um, we only got

[4:29:39] told one time that there is in in it

[4:29:42] there's something in it for us

[4:29:43] personally. Um, and I thought that might

[4:29:45] come up more than it did. So, I thank

[4:29:47] you all. There was nothing in it

[4:29:48] personally for us, only the benefit of

[4:29:50] our community. Um, one way or the other,

[4:29:52] that's what we're that's what we're

[4:29:53] looking out for. So, I appreciate the

[4:29:55] citizens coming and coming with the

[4:29:58] passions you brought and really giving

[4:30:00] us something to think about. Um, I guess

[4:30:04] buckle up for the next couple hours and

[4:30:05] let's have some more conversations about

[4:30:06] this thing.

[4:30:07] >> I turn into a pumpkin at 10:30.

[4:30:10] >> Well,

[4:30:11] >> and it's

[4:30:12] now

[4:30:13] >> I wanted to also say quickly if there

[4:30:14] are people in the room next door, we

[4:30:16] probably have 20 empty seats. If you

[4:30:19] guys would like to join us in here, it

[4:30:20] might be a little more comfortable.

[4:30:22] >> Nobody's over there. Okay.

[4:30:24] >> I think maybe adding to what you guys

[4:30:25] just said though too is I think it's

[4:30:27] important to note that we've received at

[4:30:29] least I personally have received I put

[4:30:31] it into a folder because never in my

[4:30:33] four years of serving and I guess I

[4:30:35] haven't I don't have as long as some of

[4:30:36] the folks up here. I haven't had asking

[4:30:38] about wind blowing my shingles off but

[4:30:40] um I have 80 emails about this data

[4:30:43] center both for and against the the idea

[4:30:46] of the data center. So um our community

[4:30:49] is involved. They're they are voicing

[4:30:51] what they feel and I I appreciate it.

[4:30:54] And most of those emails are productive.

[4:30:56] Most of them are not saying things that

[4:30:59] are negative. It's this is why I want

[4:31:01] this or this is why I don't want this.

[4:31:02] And so I appreciate all of the comments

[4:31:05] both from email, from conversations I've

[4:31:07] had in public, but also in here. So

[4:31:10] thank you.

[4:31:14] Uh

[4:31:16] yeah. Is is there some questions that

[4:31:18] were were burning at the top that you

[4:31:21] thought were were some new things that

[4:31:22] you maybe wanted to to ask the applicant

[4:31:25] about or or the or the city staff about?

[4:31:27] I I will tell you again um you saw from

[4:31:32] other public hearings the to even

[4:31:34] tonight but if you follow Spanish fork

[4:31:36] politics too much you'll know that um

[4:31:41] we're looking for ways to to uh you know

[4:31:44] there's a private business that's

[4:31:46] approached the city about doing

[4:31:47] something and so we I've tried to look

[4:31:50] at it in that lens uh all the time of

[4:31:53] that that um that there's been instances

[4:31:56] over the past decade where uh for one

[4:31:59] reason or another we've we've said yes

[4:32:02] to to to private companies coming and and maybe stretched it on parking or

[4:32:07] something like that. I can I can think

[4:32:08] of a couple now uh that that come to

[4:32:11] mind and uh thankfully some of those

[4:32:14] companies have made right after after

[4:32:17] we've probably been like, "Yeah, we

[4:32:19] really want that building to be redone

[4:32:21] or whatever it may be." and and and

[4:32:24] thankfully those things have been, you

[4:32:26] know, have been remedied and and and

[4:32:28] things like that. The lens we're looking

[4:32:30] at when a private business like this is applying to something, this is a

[4:32:34] little bit special because they're

[4:32:35] asking to not pay a power bill to

[4:32:38] Spanish Fork. If you or I and our

[4:32:40] business say we don't want to pay a

[4:32:41] power bill,

[4:32:43] that's that would be a public hearing,

[4:32:45] too. So, remember, that's what we're talking about here.

[4:32:48] It's not that we get to say,

[4:32:52] uh, this chicken restaurant's better

[4:32:54] than this chicken restaurant, so we're

[4:32:55] allowing that chicken restaurant. I know

[4:32:57] everybody loves the chicken restaurant

[4:32:59] analogy, but that's what government,

[4:33:02] let's especially local government

[4:33:04] doesn't get that, you know, and and

[4:33:07] really, do you would you want that

[4:33:08] oversight? Would you want government to

[4:33:10] just say this is what private business

[4:33:13] can and can't do? We're we're we're for

[4:33:14] private business being safe and uh and

[4:33:17] effective and and generating revenue for all of what we do. And that's what

[4:33:22] we're trying to weigh here as a council

[4:33:24] in this uh in this private business

[4:33:26] application.

[4:33:28] Um

[4:33:29] questions. Did you highlight any that

[4:33:31] you wanted to start off with uh and and

[4:33:34] try to get answers to?

[4:33:36] >> Yes. Jeff, we'll start with you if

[4:33:38] that's all right. Got a few questions

[4:33:40] for you first. if you could in your best

[4:33:44] voice possible share your website where

[4:33:46] people can go to see the questions that

[4:33:50] you've been answering kind of what you

[4:33:51] showed earlier.

[4:33:53] >> Yeah, it's valition.eco

[4:33:59] Spanishfork.

[4:34:00] >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Couple of

[4:34:04] questions for you. Um,

[4:34:07] how much are you paying to purchase the

[4:34:09] building? That was kind of

[4:34:10] >> Yeah. I know. It's great that you

[4:34:11] brought it up because uh somebody just

[4:34:13] mentioned 14 million.

[4:34:15] >> It's we're buying the building for 142

[4:34:18] million.

[4:34:19] >> Yeah. I would love for Spanish for to

[4:34:21] put a park there or a bike track, but

[4:34:24] it' be an expensive park.

[4:34:27] >> 142

[4:34:29] afterwards.

[4:34:30] >> Yeah.

[4:34:31] >> Okay.

[4:34:32] >> Thank you for sharing that. Um do you

[4:34:34] plan on using any battery storage with

[4:34:36] your facility? No, there's no no battery

[4:34:40] storage on this design. Uh, let me let me correct that.

[4:34:47] Um,

[4:34:49] our design with Bloom

[4:34:52] does not require battery.

[4:34:54] If for some reason we utilized another

[4:34:58] fuel cell, um if there was an inventory

[4:35:02] problem with bloom or something like

[4:35:04] that, if we were to use something like

[4:35:06] the um fuel cell energy product,

[4:35:12] we probably would feel comfortable

[4:35:15] adding some battery storage to

[4:35:17] complement that battery because there is

[4:35:22] a a process of evening out what we call

[4:35:27] workloads coming in and out of the

[4:35:30] facility and so there could be a

[4:35:33] scenario where uh a battery could be

[4:35:36] used in a configuration with a fuel cell

[4:35:39] other than bloom.

[4:35:40] >> Okay. Thank you. Not looking at just

[4:35:44] valition but the industry in general.

[4:35:46] What can you give an estimate as to what

[4:35:50] it would cost

[4:35:52] Valition or a data center when it comes

[4:35:55] to your customers if you were down for a

[4:35:58] day?

[4:36:00] Yeah. So, um we have the SLA service

[4:36:05] level agreement that we agree to that

[4:36:09] requires our uptime.

[4:36:12] Um and so we have a very small grace

[4:36:15] period like 4 minutes if we're down

[4:36:20] where there's no penalty and then it

[4:36:21] increases from there. Um

[4:36:25] so forget about a day. If we are down

[4:36:29] for eight hours, for example,

[4:36:33] um it could theoretically cost us

[4:36:37] uh

[4:36:40] over $50 million,

[4:36:44] eight hours.

[4:36:46] >> Yes.

[4:36:48] What are some scenarios that could cause

[4:36:50] that to happen?

[4:36:53] >> Um catastrophic.

[4:36:56] So when we look at the way the fuel cell

[4:36:58] is built, so the primary way that

[4:37:00] something would cause us to go down to

[4:37:03] that level is just an you know a total

[4:37:07] uh reduction in power.

[4:37:10] And so we build the system so that we

[4:37:13] have uh a huge amount of backup.

[4:37:17] I'm making something up. If there's a

[4:37:20] forklift driver who somehow lost control

[4:37:22] and knocked out a portion of the fuel

[4:37:24] cell, then we immediately move into

[4:37:28] emergency scenario where natural gas is

[4:37:30] shut off. Um but we have enough

[4:37:34] redundancy

[4:37:36] on the property that that kind of

[4:37:39] scenario will not affect um our our

[4:37:42] uptime. Uh but a massive earthquake

[4:37:46] um you know a real substantial event

[4:37:50] that's knocking down all of our power in

[4:37:52] the city and nobody has power and nobody

[4:37:55] has a gas. Uh that's a scenario but we

[4:37:59] do that that is also the one scenario

[4:38:01] where in our agreement we actually have

[4:38:03] coverage uh force majour where uh we

[4:38:07] would not face those penalties. So where

[4:38:10] we're uh primarily at risk would be um

[4:38:15] you know some kind of on-site

[4:38:16] operational

[4:38:18] breakdown where we would have to see a

[4:38:21] really large section of fu of fuel cells

[4:38:24] all at once go down. Um, and the way

[4:38:28] that the fuel cells are built, uh, where

[4:38:30] they are kind of daisychained, islanded

[4:38:34] blocks, uh, they're built so that if one

[4:38:37] goes down, the rest don't go down. So,

[4:38:40] we are comfortable, it's a little

[4:38:44] nerve-wracking, but we're comfortable

[4:38:46] with that seriously punitive risk of

[4:38:50] being down for several hours. Um we

[4:38:55] don't expect that to happen.

[4:38:58] >> Um one more question from me. A lot of

[4:39:02] people or a lot of concerns have been

[4:39:04] raised about Volition as a company. Um

[4:39:08] speak to that a little bit meaning the

[4:39:12] concern of Spanish Fork being a guinea

[4:39:14] pig. Speak to

[4:39:18] your team and the people around you.

[4:39:20] >> Yeah. Um, I'd prefer to put, you know,

[4:39:23] these slides up that illustrate. I don't

[4:39:25] want to do that. We're just going to

[4:39:26] talk right now. Um, so the way that we

[4:39:30] operate is not different than the way

[4:39:33] many

[4:39:34] large uh companies still operate today.

[4:39:37] Nike is one, Nvidia is one where the

[4:39:41] company has a core team, a vision, a

[4:39:44] capability, but to accomplish that

[4:39:48] vision, they have to rely on a myriad of

[4:39:51] third-party contractors to um

[4:39:56] manufacture chips, any number of

[4:39:59] mechanisms to bring about a final

[4:40:02] product. and valition uh operates in the

[4:40:06] same way as really an orchestrator. So

[4:40:09] we are a group of original team that has

[4:40:12] expertise in uh identifying business

[4:40:16] models, managing capital, um very well

[4:40:20] networked in the technology industry. uh

[4:40:23] decades of experience in managing a P&L,

[4:40:27] managing teams, uh understanding

[4:40:29] technology, understanding trends,

[4:40:32] understanding software, understanding

[4:40:34] data to give us enough insight to

[4:40:37] understand uh the opportunity at hand

[4:40:40] and the way that we could innovate. Um

[4:40:43] so the company was formed three years

[4:40:45] ago um after having understood that

[4:40:49] there is a way to do data centers

[4:40:51] better. Um we are a team of seasoned

[4:40:55] professionals. Um our uh chief strategy

[4:40:59] officer Brian who is here with us for

[4:41:02] example spent uh over a decade or about

[4:41:06] a decade um high level Fortune50

[4:41:10] um projects while on the strategy team

[4:41:14] at Salesforce. Um, our head of capital

[4:41:17] development has been involved in

[4:41:19] billions of dollars of clean energy

[4:41:23] projects and financing and mechanisms to

[4:41:25] ensure that those are successful. And I

[4:41:27] could go down down the list. Uh, we're

[4:41:30] small but extremely experienced as a

[4:41:32] team. We've also stayed small because we

[4:41:35] are economically prudent. Uh, we could

[4:41:38] have hired 30 people by now. Um, but

[4:41:41] we're trying to make sure that our

[4:41:43] business model, uh, is healthy as we

[4:41:46] move into these projects that we have

[4:41:48] the opportunity to build. So, uh, we

[4:41:51] think we're a very well-qualified team.

[4:41:54] And because we're qualified, we have

[4:41:56] gained the trust of third-party

[4:41:57] operators who have decades of experience

[4:42:01] in implementing everything that we

[4:42:02] propose to implement. Big D

[4:42:04] construction, link engineering, AEIA,

[4:42:07] uh Hunt Electric. Um, and these teams

[4:42:12] have to do their own due diligence about

[4:42:15] who will they work with. There's no

[4:42:17] shortage of people who claim to be able

[4:42:18] to go out and build a data center right

[4:42:20] now. Um it's a pretty hot uh industry

[4:42:24] and I can assure you that the parties

[4:42:26] who have contracted with us um

[4:42:29] ultimately chose to work with us for a

[4:42:32] reason and um so they have confidence in

[4:42:35] us, we have confidence in them. So our youth as a an organization

[4:42:43] um is not indicative of our experience

[4:42:47] over the decades.

[4:42:50] I lied. I've got one more

[4:42:53] >> liar. It was mentioned or brought up

[4:42:56] tonight. Would you be comfortable or

[4:42:58] willing to include in a contractual

[4:43:01] agreement moving or locating Bloom

[4:43:04] headquarters to Spanish for

[4:43:06] >> uh valition headquarters?

[4:43:07] >> Sorry, Valition. Sorry

[4:43:10] question at least.

[4:43:12] >> Valition's headquarters to Spanish.

[4:43:15] >> That is Yeah, we will agree to that.

[4:43:17] is our intention. We want to be

[4:43:19] here

[4:43:21] contractually.

[4:43:25] » When would you like me to? You want to

[4:43:26] give me a document? If you tell us that

[4:43:28] we're going to be able to move forward,

[4:43:29] I'll put it in writing right now. I'll

[4:43:31] write on the back of this paper that we

[4:43:33] would agree to to put our headquarters

[4:43:35] here. There's no

[4:43:37] >> that the thing that, you know, it's

[4:43:38] hard. I understand. I appreciate

[4:43:40] people's concerns. Um there are no

[4:43:43] tricks in what we're proposing to you

[4:43:45] any.

[4:43:46] >> Thank you, Jeff. That's now I'm done.

[4:43:48] >> So, this isn't a question that I'm going

[4:43:50] to ask, but it's it's a statement that

[4:43:52] when if you're all here and most of you

[4:43:55] are here at the first of this meeting

[4:43:56] and we went to the meetings of the

[4:43:58] council members went to one of the uh

[4:44:00] one of the sections that I go to and

[4:44:03] Stacy goes to for me a lot is UMPA.

[4:44:06] We're a public power city, so you pay

[4:44:09] your power with your city bill. um that

[4:44:12] we're part of an organization called

[4:44:14] UMPA that uh is us and Salem and Provo

[4:44:18] and Manti and Levan and Nephi. All

[4:44:21] together we have contracts to purchase

[4:44:24] power. We are owners of pieces of power

[4:44:28] plants that make up your energy mix of

[4:44:31] when you turn your lights on in Spanish

[4:44:32] Fork. You are using some solar, you are

[4:44:36] using some wind, you are using some

[4:44:38] coal, you are using some natural gas,

[4:44:40] you are using some hydroelectric. And

[4:44:42] now it's pretty on the top of

[4:44:45] everybody's mind about how long you're

[4:44:47] going to be able to use hydroelectric

[4:44:49] power with the levels of of Lake Me and

[4:44:53] when that's going to stop. It's

[4:44:55] unnerving to a public power consortium

[4:44:58] too of that's a that's a big part of

[4:45:00] your power mix that we get that power

[4:45:02] from. I will tell you the fuel cell

[4:45:04] technology uh if if if you've paid

[4:45:07] attention to our public meetings in the

[4:45:09] past,

[4:45:10] the fuel cell technology in 2028 will be

[4:45:13] powering our homes here in Spanish Fork.

[4:45:16] That that plant is already approved and

[4:45:19] being built uh in Nei uh with not Bloom

[4:45:23] technology but similar

[4:45:24] >> main spring And just to just to

[4:45:28] clarify, so it's not a fuel cell, but it

[4:45:30] is a it's a horizontal uh generator, but

[4:45:32] there's many of the same um aspects and

[4:45:36] elements. It fits into the same

[4:45:38] category. For example, our proposed text

[4:45:41] amendment meets the requirements. If we

[4:45:43] ever used mainspring, it would meet the

[4:45:45] requirement. Just to be clear on record,

[4:45:47] it's not a fuel cell.

[4:45:48] >> Okay.

[4:45:49] >> But natural gas, yes. Uh

[4:45:52] >> low emissions, low sound, all of those

[4:45:54] things. So I guess in the in the nature

[4:45:56] of and there were some good questions in

[4:45:58] your open houses Jeff about hey why do

[4:46:00] we this is brand new technology and why

[4:46:02] would we do this just as your mayor I

[4:46:05] kind of want to let you know you will be

[4:46:07] participating in purchasing power from

[4:46:10] uh things like this uh it's it's already

[4:46:12] in the works because we want to make

[4:46:15] sure

[4:46:15] >> your base load power is reliable and

[4:46:18] this is part of the technology that's

[4:46:20] making that possible for for all of us.

[4:46:22] So when you say you don't mean Jeff, you

[4:46:24] mean you collectively the citizens of

[4:46:26] Spanish will be using this?

[4:46:27] >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Sorry. Sorry. I just want

[4:46:29] to make sure what I'm getting at is I

[4:46:31] don't think this is uh this is just uh

[4:46:33] some technology for uh on-site power

[4:46:36] generation.

[4:46:37] >> It is something being used and I know

[4:46:39] it's already being used in a lot of

[4:46:40] states and and places in Utah too for

[4:46:43] public power.

[4:46:44] >> Oh yeah. Some of the largest utilities

[4:46:46] in the country are are purchasing huge

[4:46:49] chunks of fuel cell inventory to back up

[4:46:52] the grid to create, you know,

[4:46:54] complimentary power that can be stored.

[4:46:56] Yeah, they're they're

[4:46:58] this is mainstream now.

[4:47:02] >> Thank you. Sorry, didn't want to forget

[4:47:03] that part of it. I had it written down.

[4:47:05] >> Couple of things for me. Um

[4:47:10] quite a bit of concern about trust,

[4:47:12] data, those type of things.

[4:47:14] Um

[4:47:16] I I think and to to Kevin's point um

[4:47:20] about the viability of your company, I

[4:47:22] think it's you've got the you got great

[4:47:24] people. I think you've demonstrated that

[4:47:26] very well. Um you've done a ton of

[4:47:28] research. No one's going to invest, you

[4:47:30] know, $4 billion into something that

[4:47:32] isn't going to pan out. So I think

[4:47:34] there's some there's some financial

[4:47:36] things backing up the claims. Um but I

[4:47:39] think from our perspective uh we need to

[4:47:42] make sure that if it doesn't work what

[4:47:46] happens and leave that up to you to make

[4:47:48] it work. You know I don't think

[4:47:50] government should be in your business

[4:47:51] about you should use this technology

[4:47:52] that technology.

[4:47:54] >> It should be here's our ramifications.

[4:47:55] Here's the the standards you need to

[4:47:57] meet.

[4:47:58] >> Whether that's 0 tons per megawatt or

[4:48:01] 0.5 whatever we need to determine that

[4:48:03] you need to meet it and we need to hold

[4:48:04] you accountable to that. If something

[4:48:06] goes wrong, we need to hold you

[4:48:07] accountable that if it if your business

[4:48:09] goes out of business, we need a way to repurpose that building for something

[4:48:14] in the future. So, I think our job is to

[4:48:16] hold you accountable to the things that

[4:48:17] we agree to. If if it gets to that point

[4:48:20] and that is the protection that the

[4:48:22] citizen needs if you don't succeed, then

[4:48:25] what? If you don't succeed, that means

[4:48:27] you're not here and those things get

[4:48:29] removed. So I think we got to put those

[4:48:31] protections in place and rely on um the

[4:48:35] business that you are to be successful.

[4:48:37] I don't think we need to dictate your

[4:48:39] success. Um from a you have not provided

[4:48:43] enough data standpoint. Um

[4:48:47] I think that that could be true from a

[4:48:48] third party perspective, but I think

[4:48:50] you've provided a ton of data. So I

[4:48:51] don't think that's a fair statement to

[4:48:53] have been made that you don't have not

[4:48:55] provided enough. It may not be

[4:48:56] accessible enough. We need to make sure

[4:48:58] that those that are concerned about it

[4:48:59] can get their hands on it and evaluate

[4:49:01] it more. The proof will be though um if

[4:49:04] this is approved in the evaluation on a

[4:49:08] monthly, quarterly, yearly basis as we

[4:49:10] move forward. And I think those are the

[4:49:12] protections we needed in place. And I

[4:49:13] think to a lot of people's points, we

[4:49:15] need to make sure that those are

[4:49:17] enforceable and we if if ownership

[4:49:21] changed or whatever might happen,

[4:49:22] they're still enforceable and we can as

[4:49:25] a city, as a community, um if you're not

[4:49:27] meeting your obligations, we can ask you

[4:49:28] to leave. So, I think that we have some

[4:49:30] due diligence to do on that side of

[4:49:32] things just to make sure that whatever

[4:49:34] rules we put in place are enforceable

[4:49:35] and you can be held accountable, which I

[4:49:37] don't think you have a problem with

[4:49:38] whatsoever because I I I believe that

[4:49:40] you have full intention of fulfilling

[4:49:42] all the obligations you've talked about

[4:49:44] today. Um, so it is refreshing to have

[4:49:47] an in front of us is like, "Yeah, put

[4:49:48] that in writing. I'll I'll sign it. I'll

[4:49:50] do that right now." Um, because you you

[4:49:52] planning to back up your claim and and I

[4:49:54] think if you back up your claim, I think

[4:49:55] we're going to be okay as long as we set

[4:49:56] the ground rules in the appropriate way.

[4:49:58] Um,

[4:49:59] >> and Shane, can I just mention one thing?

[4:50:00] I think want to give you an example of

[4:50:04] >> um, you know, ideas that have come out

[4:50:06] of this dialogue that we think are are

[4:50:08] really good. Um, so when we talk about,

[4:50:11] >> you know, enforcing our uh, covenants,

[4:50:15] you know, from our standpoint, we're

[4:50:17] kind of just shrugging. It's like, well,

[4:50:18] these aren't going to be hard because we

[4:50:20] are not connecting to the grid. That's

[4:50:22] easy.

[4:50:23] >> Uh, we are not using extra water at all.

[4:50:27] That's easy.

[4:50:29] um we know that um our uh decel range is

[4:50:36] what we say that it is. And this brings

[4:50:38] me to a point about you know good ideas.

[4:50:42] Um we we have always uh proposed in the

[4:50:46] amendment and everything that we show

[4:50:48] that we are testing sound you know at

[4:50:51] the perimeter all around Mapleton

[4:50:53] everywhere up on the ridge a mile out

[4:50:56] half mile out. Um, and so it was

[4:50:59] recommended that we uh find create a

[4:51:02] series of sensors that that we can place

[4:51:06] um that they're out there all the time

[4:51:08] 247 and uh so that's a really great

[4:51:12] idea. You know, we'll we'll do that. But

[4:51:14] that's also easy because we already know that, you know, people

[4:51:18] are concerned with decibb. The reality

[4:51:20] is if everybody here, you know, download

[4:51:24] the highest rated decibel app, they're

[4:51:27] extremely accurate and just go out at

[4:51:29] night and turn it on and look at what

[4:51:31] the current ambient noise is or get

[4:51:35] anywhere close to this property and just

[4:51:38] turn it on and you're going to see 55 to 80 dB at any

[4:51:43] given given time. So, we're also

[4:51:46] comfortable that we're going to fall

[4:51:47] within sound and we're also comfortable

[4:51:49] that we're going to fall within heat.

[4:51:51] Uh, you know, when we talk about what

[4:51:53] the rest of the city, just industry

[4:51:55] does, just a civilized civilized city,

[4:51:59] um, you know, 40 acre parking lots, any

[4:52:02] number of standard development that goes

[4:52:05] on, it produces some heat. And um

[4:52:11] typically that heat is not measurable

[4:52:15] um at any at any distance or any for any

[4:52:17] prolonged period of time as an actual

[4:52:21] change to the climate in our city and we will not produce that either. I I

[4:52:26] think the challenge is going to be

[4:52:28] proving that that one

[4:52:31] true and then in the field that it well

[4:52:34] one before you build that it's true and

[4:52:35] then secondly proving it that you are no

[4:52:38] you're not really add into the

[4:52:39] background measurement and someone here

[4:52:41] today said um some baseline measurements

[4:52:43] is good and you just talked about how

[4:52:45] you might do that and I think it's

[4:52:46] extremely important for if you are in

[4:52:49] place a year from now how are we

[4:52:50] measuring and how are we holding you

[4:52:51] accountable um and I think I I I believe

[4:52:55] what you just said and I think we just

[4:52:57] need to make sure that if this does move

[4:52:58] forward we're in a position that if in

[4:53:00] fact it's if you're not in violation for

[4:53:02] noise there's ramifications and it's not

[4:53:05] just fines it's I mean you said it a

[4:53:08] minute ago to Kevin if you're down for

[4:53:09] eight hours it's $50 million you're not

[4:53:11] going to want to violate those if we if

[4:53:13] one of the covenants is you're down

[4:53:15] until we get a fixed so I think there's

[4:53:17] some there's some good things in place

[4:53:19] that incentivize you to be successful um

[4:53:22] and back up everything you've said it

[4:53:25] would be nice to have some more upfront.

[4:53:29] Um, it's too late to come up with the

[4:53:31] right words now. It starts with the

[4:53:33] collaboration. Corroboration.

[4:53:35] >> Yeah.

[4:53:35] >> Is that a word? That's the right word,

[4:53:36] huh?

[4:53:37] >> Yeah. Got it.

[4:53:37] >> Dang, I must have went to Spanish High

[4:53:39] School. Um,

[4:53:42] that back up some of the claims.

[4:53:44] However, I think we may have to think

[4:53:46] about some more of a performance

[4:53:49] specification type of a thing moving

[4:53:50] forward and and less about because it's

[4:53:53] is it you this hasn't been done.

[4:53:56] >> Yeah.

[4:53:56] >> Pieces that have been done collectively

[4:53:58] hasn't been done, but I think all the

[4:54:00] pieces are there to give me some some

[4:54:01] sense that it can be accomplished if we

[4:54:03] put the right guard rails in place. So,

[4:54:05] it feels like it's right that right

[4:54:07] there.

[4:54:07] >> Yeah, we are. I think we're right there

[4:54:08] and we're happy to do that.

[4:54:09] >> Appreciate it. on the on the penalties

[4:54:11] and the 50 million. Let me just

[4:54:14] >> let's not let that be something that we

[4:54:16] run with on our penalties because those penalties are aligned with

[4:54:22] the revenue lost by the customer in our

[4:54:24] building. So that customer I just want

[4:54:27] to know that that's commensurate with

[4:54:29] the the business model.

[4:54:30] >> Right. My point was the business model

[4:54:33] is incentivizing you to not be down. Oh

[4:54:35] yeah. We don't need to say to you give

[4:54:37] us $50 million. we could say to you

[4:54:40] you're down for eight hours that is

[4:54:41] incentivizing you to be successful.

[4:54:44] >> So in that vein I think it's an

[4:54:45] important part to touch that I think uh

[4:54:48] I think I I will attempt to speak for

[4:54:51] the whole council here. What I want the

[4:54:54] residents to know on this front is yes,

[4:54:58] when you are talking about a business

[4:55:00] versus a business that's in there now

[4:55:02] and a potential business that could be

[4:55:04] there in the future, I want you to know

[4:55:06] that there's not an amount of money that

[4:55:09] could come to Spanish Forks

[4:55:13] wise or community involvement wise that

[4:55:16] if we can't get there as far as we think

[4:55:20] the effects

[4:55:22] uh

[4:55:23] >> would be detrimental to the public

[4:55:25] health that we're trading that for

[4:55:27] dollars. That's not been anything that

[4:55:30] has come from this company and that's

[4:55:32] not anything that that that we're

[4:55:35] looking at at a lens through um we are

[4:55:38] simply trying to we we're a comp we're a

[4:55:40] community that's led out. We've had

[4:55:42] purple air monitors at the mouth of the

[4:55:44] canyon right when purple was new and we

[4:55:46] went and got the got the monitors and

[4:55:49] got uh got the the grants for it and put

[4:55:51] them all over our communities, put them

[4:55:53] on elementary schools so we could see in

[4:55:55] the inversion times of of being in front

[4:55:58] of of helping kids be safe. And so you

[4:56:02] live in a community that public health

[4:56:04] we we bonded for $85 million to build a

[4:56:08] public health facility for mental,

[4:56:10] physical, and social wellness. Um we

[4:56:13] lead out in those things in Spanish Fork

[4:56:16] and uh and and and there's not an amount

[4:56:18] of money that's that that that that

[4:56:20] would compromise that for us. Uh it's simply is it safe and is it a fit

[4:56:26] uh for uh for our community. So, um I

[4:56:29] think it's important to remember that facility that's there and what it's

[4:56:32] doing now is is an important context uh

[4:56:35] contextual

[4:56:37] uh point of of this proposal.

[4:56:40] >> Good point, Mike. Can can I follow up on

[4:56:41] that a little bit? I think there was a

[4:56:42] couple of questions, a couple of

[4:56:43] comments of the lesser of two evil

[4:56:45] conversation. Um that's not what this is

[4:56:48] about. And I think I think the the other

[4:56:51] alternative is a piece of context

[4:56:55] to just to to sort of weigh what we're

[4:56:58] talking about in context. Not if you do

[4:57:01] this then this or that. It is simply

[4:57:04] there is a business operating today that

[4:57:06] brings trucks in and out. Plain and

[4:57:08] simple. That's what happens today. Um

[4:57:10] that's some context about what this site

[4:57:13] is. It's not a it's not a green site. It

[4:57:15] is something is something's happening

[4:57:17] there today. They use water, they emit

[4:57:21] emissions, they emit sound, they emit

[4:57:24] light, they emit heat. All of those

[4:57:25] things happen. So the idea is not to say

[4:57:28] it's this or that. It is the context of

[4:57:33] what you're proposing with that in

[4:57:35] place. And so I think it's it's not the

[4:57:36] lesser of two evils. There's something

[4:57:38] happening there today. We're not voting

[4:57:40] on stopping something, right? That's not

[4:57:42] it. It is it is a it's just a way to

[4:57:45] give us context of what you're proposing

[4:57:47] versus something else. And so, um, I I

[4:57:50] it's I understand where it can be

[4:57:52] construed as a lesser less of two evils,

[4:57:55] but that's not

[4:57:56] >> and I guess I guess the context about

[4:57:58] it, too, because we I I I tell the

[4:58:02] council this all all the time this that

[4:58:03] I assume we're all here together and

[4:58:06] we've been here together and stuff, but I grew up at the mouth of this

[4:58:09] canyon uh for for most of my 46 years uh

[4:58:14] and worked at the gas station uh that

[4:58:17] that's still there and and spent a lot

[4:58:19] of my childhood up and down the exact

[4:58:22] location that we're talking about. So, I

[4:58:24] do know it intimately. I remember when

[4:58:26] it was built and I remember when the

[4:58:27] windmills were built and sometimes the

[4:58:30] stuff the windmill discussion

[4:58:34] was that all videoed or was that

[4:58:35] >> pref

[4:58:37] I want to say it was this is going to

[4:58:40] sound kind of crazy but I think it was

[4:58:41] January of 2006. So, we were

[4:58:44] broadcasting.

[4:58:44] >> Is that right? Okay. So, you can go back and find that, but the hypothetical data of placing

[4:58:52] those windmills where they were at was a

[4:58:56] lot of and your dad could speak to it,

[4:58:58] who was the city manager, was a a lot of

[4:59:00] concerns about public health, about the

[4:59:04] noise, about the environment, about the

[4:59:07] wildlife. Um, that now I think it's so

[4:59:10] cool that we're a landmark that has

[4:59:12] those windmills. I think there's a lot

[4:59:14] of people that know us by it and we've

[4:59:16] incorporated it into a lot of our stuff.

[4:59:18] And so we I just want to remind

[4:59:21] everybody we've stepped out there and good good planning, good city staff,

[4:59:26] good elected officials helped that to

[4:59:28] become a reality and we don't that power

[4:59:30] goes on the grid and gets bought some.

[4:59:32] It's a private company, but they lease

[4:59:34] that ground and put those windmills up

[4:59:36] and I don't think it's done anything

[4:59:37] detrimental to us except except be

[4:59:40] something cool to look at when you go up

[4:59:41] and down the canyon. I will say if you

[4:59:43] stand next to it, I don't know what that

[4:59:45] decibel reading is, but they're loud.

[4:59:47] They're very loud and they're operating

[4:59:48] all the time.

[4:59:49] >> 68.

[4:59:50] >> Is that what it is? Okay. So,

[4:59:53] >> take much to get above 60. I really

[4:59:55] doesn't. I think you're right. I think

[4:59:57] go out. I would encourage everyone to go

[5:00:00] out with the most sophisticated meter

[5:00:01] you can get and and measure sometimes.

[5:00:03] And you have to be there a minute,

[5:00:04] right? Because it's an average over

[5:00:05] whatever period you're out there. But

[5:00:09] >> background noise is much higher than you

[5:00:10] think it is. Oh yeah.

[5:00:12] >> So I guess I have a question for the

[5:00:14] council and then I have one for you and

[5:00:16] Jeff. So there was a lot of questions

[5:00:18] thrown out. I know that Jeff has taken a

[5:00:20] lot of notes. We've taken a lot of

[5:00:21] notes. What is the best process for us

[5:00:23] to go through this? Because there's a

[5:00:25] lot of just different things like some

[5:00:28] of them are hypotheticals, some of them

[5:00:29] it sounds like Jeff you already have the

[5:00:31] answers to. Is it, hey, we I know um

[5:00:34] Jeff had suggested that we table this

[5:00:36] that we come back and readress it after

[5:00:38] maybe there's some time to go through

[5:00:39] these questions and figure it out. Is

[5:00:41] that the best option? Is it better for

[5:00:43] us to um Stacey already said that she

[5:00:46] turned into a pumpkin 30 minutes ago,

[5:00:48] but is it best to start going through

[5:00:49] them one by one and start going through

[5:00:50] that? I don't know that that's the best

[5:00:52] option.

[5:00:53] >> I've got

[5:00:53] >> I guess I'm looking what what is what do

[5:00:55] we want to do as a council? And then I

[5:00:57] do have one question for Jeff, too.

[5:00:58] >> I've got questions.

[5:00:59] >> I've got some questions, too. I've got

[5:01:00] questions that I want to ask tonight.

[5:01:02] >> Okay, perfect.

[5:01:03] >> Um, not all of them because yes, there

[5:01:06] are a lot of questions that were brought

[5:01:07] up, but I do have specific ones that I

[5:01:09] want to address tonight.

[5:01:11] >> Okay, we might lose Stacy. She might

[5:01:12] walk off.

[5:01:13] >> I'm good. I'm good.

[5:01:15] >> So,

[5:01:16] >> wait, wait, wait. We didn't answer your

[5:01:17] question, Jess.

[5:01:17] >> You didn't answer my question.

[5:01:19] >> I think it's important.

[5:01:20] >> Actually,

[5:01:21] >> I didn't What? What did he say?

[5:01:23] >> Say anything before that.

[5:01:26] >> Okay. Um,

[5:01:28] what is the process moving forward? How

[5:01:31] do we get

[5:01:32] >> there's some there's some things that I

[5:01:34] would like changed in the in title 15?

[5:01:36] >> Yeah.

[5:01:37] >> Right. There are some there are some

[5:01:39] stuff that that Jeff's agreed to in the

[5:01:42] development agreement that I would

[5:01:43] rather see in writing up front than in just in there. How do we get them?

[5:01:49] What is the process we need? Do we say,

[5:01:51] "Hey staff, here are the 15 things that

[5:01:54] I want to see." You do the same. and we

[5:01:55] all do the same and they start compiling

[5:01:57] that into some new version of this.

[5:02:00] Do we sit here and you spout out your 15

[5:02:03] and I spout out my 25 and whatever my

[5:02:05] two whatever and we get to somewhere

[5:02:07] like that is a good question. I think we

[5:02:09] need these everyone in here needs to

[5:02:11] know

[5:02:11] >> how this is going to play out

[5:02:14] >> as most transparently as we can as we

[5:02:16] move forward.

[5:02:16] >> Well, I'm going to tell you my feelings.

[5:02:18] are ask your questions that

[5:02:19] you need to ask tonight that you think

[5:02:21] are the most important ones. But I think

[5:02:23] the that the onus is on an applicant

[5:02:25] that's asking that wants to probably

[5:02:27] answer those questions and probably

[5:02:29] answers them better than us stepping

[5:02:32] over somebody to to ask them. A lot of

[5:02:34] them asked to them. Uh the ones that

[5:02:36] were asked to public officials and and

[5:02:38] to this the staff. Yeah. Let's start

[5:02:40] compiling those. Let's let's start let's

[5:02:42] start sharing those and let's let's do

[5:02:44] our due diligence over that. I I I love

[5:02:47] that the proposal was was, "Hey, let's

[5:02:49] take these questions and and and not

[5:02:51] make a rush decision, but but let's talk

[5:02:54] about it and see what we come up with."

[5:02:55] So, um

[5:02:57] >> I agree.

[5:02:57] >> Me and the in the in the event of time

[5:02:59] of of people's time and and school just

[5:03:02] started and we got a lot of people with

[5:03:04] kids and everybody to to get to to the

[5:03:07] next second day of school is to ask a

[5:03:10] few of your most important questions.

[5:03:12] All these questions have been taken into

[5:03:14] account and we can we can compile those

[5:03:17] and and and try to get some um some

[5:03:21] movement on that in the next in the next

[5:03:23] few days. And we don't meet like this

[5:03:26] without a with you know we we do public

[5:03:28] meetings and and and and so we wouldn't

[5:03:31] do another public meeting for two weeks.

[5:03:33] Um but that doesn't mean that we can't

[5:03:36] all look at a documented questions that

[5:03:38] are asked and answered. Is am I

[5:03:40] >> You're doing great. I just want to I

[5:03:42] wonder this may be completely out of

[5:03:44] order and if it is

[5:03:46] send me home.

[5:03:47] >> All right.

[5:03:48] >> Um

[5:03:50] >> I Mr. Chavez gave us a something he

[5:03:54] suggested you know not acting tonight

[5:03:56] and I I imagine a lot of these people

[5:03:57] are probably wondering are they going to

[5:03:58] vote vote to pass it tonight? Are they

[5:04:00] not? Um do you have any feelings or

[5:04:03] directions you want to give on that? And

[5:04:05] if you don't want to and don't and

[5:04:07] you're not ready to say one way or the

[5:04:08] other in terms of hey let's ask

[5:04:10] questions and not pass anything denied

[5:04:12] or let's ask questions and maybe pass

[5:04:14] something tonight if you've got any

[5:04:15] thoughts on that. I someone they might

[5:04:17] want to know that and and for their sake

[5:04:19] >> that's a good point. There probably is a

[5:04:21] possibility that you could say hey

[5:04:24] somebody make a motion to to table this.

[5:04:26] Is that the right

[5:04:27] >> and I wouldn't say table anything yet

[5:04:28] but I just if your intent is we're not

[5:04:30] going to we're not going to pass this

[5:04:32] tonight but we're only going to ask

[5:04:33] questions. I think you could give

[5:04:34] somebody.

[5:04:34] >> I don't think you're going to get three

[5:04:35] votes to pass.

[5:04:36] >> There is no way I'm voting on this

[5:04:37] tonight or I would be comfortable voting

[5:04:39] on this.

[5:04:39] >> Well, why didn't he say that 25 minutes

[5:04:41] ago? Y'all could have went to sleep.

[5:04:42] >> You couldn't tell.

[5:04:43] >> Dang.

[5:04:45] This first time he spoke.

[5:04:48] >> All right. All right. So, if you're

[5:04:50] comfortable with that, that's probably

[5:04:51] what's going to happen tonight is is

[5:04:53] there's not a vote on this, but there's

[5:04:54] going to be more questions. So, if you'd

[5:04:55] like to hear more questions, Jesse's got

[5:04:58] a couple of questions. And and one thing

[5:04:59] I would say about the process is that

[5:05:01] we'll do what we've been doing, which is

[5:05:03] we're capturing uh we we probably have

[5:05:06] an idea of the some of the things that

[5:05:09] we would that you would want to see in

[5:05:11] the text amendment. So, we will right

[5:05:12] away start working on suggesting those.

[5:05:15] We'll be working with Vaughan and get

[5:05:17] those and I think as he collects

[5:05:20] feedback from the council on so I think

[5:05:23] there's immediately going to be a back

[5:05:25] and forth on capturing the the intent

[5:05:29] here and so we will be doing that

[5:05:32] immediately just in in real time and we

[5:05:35] see it going back and forth until we've

[5:05:37] captured the additional guidance that we're contemplating about the the

[5:05:43] text amendment

[5:05:44] >> and and in terms of the development

[5:05:45] agreement. We have been taking notes in the public hearing. Sorry, in the

[5:05:48] open houses and in these meetings of the

[5:05:51] development agreement language. This

[5:05:53] should be there. We promise this. We say

[5:05:54] that and we're we'll do some cross

[5:05:57] check. And I think somebody in some of

[5:05:58] their comments mentioned they promised

[5:06:00] this. It's not in the agreement. There

[5:06:02] was some email mentioned that today you

[5:06:04] had sent some email to some people I

[5:06:05] guess and I don't I don't know what that

[5:06:07] email was but okay.

[5:06:08] >> But you know if there was some something

[5:06:10] like that like we we have that and and

[5:06:13] there's a lot of information flying

[5:06:14] around. So, we'll do a little bit of

[5:06:15] cross-checking as well to make sure that

[5:06:17] things are um if if we if we have said

[5:06:20] or if they have said this should be in

[5:06:22] there or we agree that it should be in

[5:06:24] there, we'll make sure that we we cross

[5:06:25] check those on that development group.

[5:06:27] >> Yeah.

[5:06:27] >> Perfect. I on that there is a point

[5:06:32] where title 15 becomes ours and I

[5:06:34] appreciate Jeff and Vaughn working on

[5:06:36] language changes, but at some point we

[5:06:38] got to own it. It's not the applicants

[5:06:40] title 15. It's our changes to title 15

[5:06:43] and we need to be comfortable with it.

[5:06:44] And I I appreciate the work you've done

[5:06:46] to this point because we didn't know

[5:06:48] where to start and now we have a pretty

[5:06:50] decent idea to start. We need to be

[5:06:52] owning that ourselves.

[5:06:54] >> Um this is a big deal

[5:06:55] >> and I think my balance to it has always

[5:06:57] been like well the the part that we own

[5:07:00] it if we start writing it for people

[5:07:02] it's like well you're 100% for this

[5:07:04] you're writing it for

[5:07:05] >> that is a problem. I get how about you

[5:07:07] propose what you think would work. I

[5:07:10] agree with you 100%.

[5:07:11] >> I would not want to try to take

[5:07:12] ownership at at least till now. But it

[5:07:16] is our if we're going to approve it, it

[5:07:18] needs to be our title 15.

[5:07:18] >> But I think to that same point as we're

[5:07:20] going through the title 15, that doesn't

[5:07:21] just because you're helping with the

[5:07:23] title title 15, that's what I was going

[5:07:25] to say. It doesn't mean that it's going

[5:07:26] to pass

[5:07:27] >> 100%.

[5:07:28] >> That means that we're saying these are

[5:07:29] the things that we need to see in there.

[5:07:31] I could still help write title 15 and

[5:07:33] still say no.

[5:07:34] >> Absolutely. It's a great point, Jesse,

[5:07:35] because I I think when we start talking

[5:07:37] about, oh, let's make this change and

[5:07:39] this change, the assumption is we have

[5:07:40] agreed to something, and that is not the

[5:07:42] case.

[5:07:43] >> Absolutely not.

[5:07:45] >> So, ideally though, my thoughts are

[5:07:47] we're going to work to that end,

[5:07:50] >> you fine-tune it to a point where you

[5:07:52] are absolutely comfortable that if

[5:07:54] you're going to put it in title 15 that

[5:07:58] something could apply and get through.

[5:08:01] Otherwise you do a moratorum or you just

[5:08:03] say we don't want them at all

[5:08:04] >> or we don't do anything because it's not

[5:08:06] in our title 15 today.

[5:08:07] >> Exactly.

[5:08:08] >> So wouldn't need moratorium. Right now

[5:08:10] data centers are not allowed in Spanish

[5:08:12] for so you just stop the processing.

[5:08:14] >> Self gener selfg generation is not

[5:08:16] allowed.

[5:08:16] >> Yeah. Neither of those things are

[5:08:17] allowed currently. So we would just stop

[5:08:19] the process and be done.

[5:08:20] >> Yeah. So, so the point of what we're

[5:08:23] going through is are we getting to a

[5:08:25] point where we would be comfortable and

[5:08:27] the community would be comfortable with

[5:08:29] having whatever it is that's allowed in

[5:08:32] title 15 to come to Spanish board.

[5:08:34] >> I don't know. I think all of us watched

[5:08:37] planning commission, right? Like there

[5:08:38] were things that were added in planning

[5:08:40] commission and then still voted no.

[5:08:42] >> And there are things that they added

[5:08:43] planning commission that I might not

[5:08:45] like. What I'm saying by that is that

[5:08:47] they went through the process of adding

[5:08:48] things to it but then still voted like

[5:08:50] they added to it in a separate motion

[5:08:52] and then they still voted no. Right?

[5:08:53] >> That's what I'm saying to the process is

[5:08:55] we're not saying hey

[5:08:56] >> three voted no

[5:08:57] >> three voted yes it was a so technically

[5:09:00] it was a denial because they didn't have

[5:09:01] a quorum to approve it. Right?

[5:09:03] >> So if it gets to that point it's not

[5:09:07] saying hey I'm comfortable with this.

[5:09:08] It's saying hey these are the things I

[5:09:10] think need to be in there. I still you

[5:09:12] still me whoever might still not be

[5:09:14] comfortable with that going forward.

[5:09:16] Does that make sense what I'm saying?

[5:09:18] >> Not really, but it's okay.

[5:09:19] >> Yeah. I think the I think the part that

[5:09:20] you're that you're missing there is the

[5:09:22] development agreement part of this in in

[5:09:25] the the risk that I don't want to take

[5:09:28] is changing something in title 15 and

[5:09:31] being renamed data center city instead

[5:09:34] of Spanish fork city. I think that's

[5:09:36] where development agreements, just like

[5:09:38] we've done in in in the past with with

[5:09:42] things to hold people to standards and

[5:09:44] businesses to standards, is do you spell

[5:09:46] that up out enough that just like you've

[5:09:49] heard from people that say, "I was

[5:09:53] adamantly against this and I'm not going

[5:09:54] to pretend that that's that's a ton of

[5:09:56] people that are that way, but

[5:09:57] >> right,

[5:09:58] >> boy, if you'll put that into agreement,

[5:10:00] what's the downside?" You know? So, so

[5:10:02] it's not just the title 15 change, it's

[5:10:04] the development of agreement that holds

[5:10:06] that all

[5:10:07] >> I guess

[5:10:07] >> in check.

[5:10:08] >> I think Jesse is saying for instance,

[5:10:10] one of the questions we heard tonight,

[5:10:12] why two? Why not one?

[5:10:14] >> I can weigh in and say I would prefer

[5:10:16] one. I would prefer two. I would prefer

[5:10:18] no limit.

[5:10:20] You guys say I agree with that. Whatever

[5:10:21] the decision the decision is, and I can

[5:10:23] still vote no for something else in the

[5:10:25] agreement. So that

[5:10:26] >> right that's the point is we can work on

[5:10:28] what the language could potentially be

[5:10:30] and still say no at the end.

[5:10:31] >> Correct.

[5:10:31] >> That's what you're saying.

[5:10:32] >> Yeah. Correct.

[5:10:33] >> But it it it doesn't by working on it

[5:10:36] doesn't imply that I have proof.

[5:10:38] >> Correct.

[5:10:39] >> It means that I'm working towards

[5:10:40] something that I want I want to see it

[5:10:42] better. It may not get there and I may

[5:10:45] not be able to approve it or vote for

[5:10:46] it.

[5:10:47] >> Right.

[5:10:49] >> Okay. Now, am I good to ask my questions

[5:10:50] now?

[5:10:51] >> Yeah.

[5:10:51] >> Ask your questions.

[5:10:52] >> Okay. I'm just making sure. Um, there

[5:10:54] was a lot of talk tonight about data and

[5:10:56] I know Shane just brought that up. There

[5:10:57] was a lot of talk about third-party

[5:10:59] studies.

[5:11:00] >> Jeff, do you already have those or is

[5:11:02] that something that would need to be

[5:11:03] done later? Like I just know that there

[5:11:05] was a lot of like there was um I could

[5:11:07] find one quick one. Um Mr.

[5:11:11] I can't find it now. I thought I had it.

[5:11:13] Um Mr. Helm, that's right. He talked

[5:11:15] about a dec like more than just um a

[5:11:18] sound study. He talked about like a

[5:11:19] acoustic study and he said some things

[5:11:22] that I've never heard. DMA, DBC,

[5:11:25] >> um,

[5:11:25] >> was it tone?

[5:11:26] >> Tone, tone, frequency,

[5:11:28] >> infrared sound.

[5:11:29] >> There there was a whole bunch of

[5:11:30] different things. We use a third party

[5:11:32] acoustics engineering there. They broker

[5:11:35] through uh, link engineering, right?

[5:11:38] >> So, we we can increase the detail in

[5:11:40] that study without

[5:11:42] >> without a problem. So, we can take what

[5:11:44] we've already done

[5:11:44] >> and I guess my question

[5:11:45] >> we can go further with it. My question

[5:11:46] is there was that about that there was I

[5:11:50] think the heat study and I want to say

[5:11:52] the air quality study I think those were

[5:11:54] three that I had written down throughout

[5:11:56] that process are those things that you

[5:11:57] already have

[5:11:58] >> air quality is uh yeah that's completely

[5:12:00] third party I mean that's we have to we

[5:12:02] use stand

[5:12:03] >> it's a third party

[5:12:05] >> and they take it to the state

[5:12:07] >> the state reviews it independently

[5:12:10] that's third party so you know yeah all

[5:12:13] of those they're they're third they're

[5:12:16] third party um sound. Um you know what

[5:12:20] we what we find pretty rapidly with any

[5:12:23] third-party conversations is that it's

[5:12:25] been shown over and over again that when

[5:12:27] you already have 50 60 dB

[5:12:31] in ambient sound where you are and then

[5:12:34] you have equipment that has proven to be

[5:12:36] you stand next to it the sound is the

[5:12:38] sound and you have another 60 dB. I

[5:12:41] mean, it's it's really not a a difficult

[5:12:44] equation. And while we haven't employed

[5:12:47] a separate party to do that, that that

[5:12:50] actually wouldn't be hard for us to do.

[5:12:52] And there are also um many studies that

[5:12:56] we can draw from that have been done,

[5:12:59] third party studies in different areas,

[5:13:01] data centers, and so forth. So

[5:13:04] >> I think we won't have a a challenge in

[5:13:07] providing more third party data on

[5:13:11] sound, heat, um, etc.

[5:13:14] >> And then I guess the other one was

[5:13:16] environmental studies. So just as you're

[5:13:18] putting them out through your your

[5:13:20] website or however you're putting that

[5:13:21] out, I think those are answers that

[5:13:22] people that were here tonight and in

[5:13:24] emails were asking.

[5:13:25] >> Yeah. And just I think it's also fair to

[5:13:27] say that um

[5:13:31] I don't think that the burden should be

[5:13:33] on us to answer to every person's

[5:13:37] request about every single topic that

[5:13:40] there are you know environmental studies

[5:13:42] that are tied to the existing building

[5:13:45] for example there are previous

[5:13:47] environmental studies about the existing

[5:13:51] um state of the building and so I think

[5:13:54] we need to be able to draw from some

[5:13:56] existing studies that were previous to

[5:14:00] us and so forth, you know. So, um I I

[5:14:05] think we will we are amendable to

[5:14:09] providing as much information as we can.

[5:14:11] It doesn't mean that we're going to go

[5:14:12] ahead and sponsor a study for every request for a study, if that makes

[5:14:18] sense. I don't I don't know that that's

[5:14:20] what um many industrial operations are

[5:14:24] asked to do. You know, I don't think

[5:14:25] Quickqu Quack was asked to do a water

[5:14:27] study and they're using more than we do.

[5:14:28] So, there's, you know, I think that

[5:14:31] there needs to be a reasonable

[5:14:32] expectation about um what hoops we're

[5:14:36] asked to jump through when we're willing

[5:14:37] to jump through so many, but that

[5:14:39] doesn't mean that we're going to do

[5:14:40] something, you know, on a Firefly, for

[5:14:43] example.

[5:14:44] >> Got it. Okay. Um then the other question

[5:14:47] I have right now is there were some

[5:14:49] questions about shifting numbers. One of

[5:14:52] the numbers that I had written down

[5:14:54] before I came tonight is when you

[5:14:56] presented to us two weeks ago the number

[5:14:58] that you presented was 250 megawws and

[5:15:01] then in planning commission the next

[5:15:03] night you talked they talked about

[5:15:05] putting a limit on the high end right of

[5:15:07] five and you had said we would be

[5:15:09] comfortable with 500 which is really

[5:15:11] high compared to 250. And then the error

[5:15:14] I I'm gonna say it wrong. The error

[5:15:16] impact submission that you have in what

[5:15:18] is that called the that you have into

[5:15:20] the state. You just said it just

[5:15:21] >> Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The Yeah. through

[5:15:23] Stantech.

[5:15:24] >> It has a It has 393

[5:15:27] >> four.

[5:15:27] Okay.

[5:15:28] >> Yeah.

[5:15:28] >> Okay. 400. Can you tell us why why are

[5:15:31] these all these numbers?

[5:15:32] >> Yeah. I think this just gets this just

[5:15:34] helps you know sometimes when we're

[5:15:36] there's levels to you know the detail in

[5:15:39] an engineering design for example. So

[5:15:42] when we begin a conversation for example

[5:15:44] with a client they say to us we need 100

[5:15:47] megawws of of compute we need 100

[5:15:51] megawatts of critical power and so we

[5:15:54] have a conversation about 100 megawws

[5:15:56] and typically the conversation in the

[5:15:58] public

[5:15:59] you're talking about that compute 100

[5:16:02] megawatt so that's standard that you

[5:16:04] would reference the amount of power that

[5:16:07] the compute requires

[5:16:10] behind that sits the full engineering,

[5:16:13] the name plate. That means how much

[5:16:16] power will be required to do everything

[5:16:18] that needs to be done on that property

[5:16:20] to power the cooling

[5:16:23] um to have enough power if you needed to uh tap into your um your backup

[5:16:31] power.

[5:16:32] um the fuel cell or other technology may

[5:16:38] operate at 60 or 70% efficiency. So you

[5:16:41] will put more you know fuel cell on on

[5:16:45] the property. So that gives you a full

[5:16:48] boore if if you needed to power every

[5:16:50] single thing at once, a name plate, that

[5:16:54] ends up being typically

[5:16:57] um you know 50%

[5:17:01] sometimes higher more than your compute.

[5:17:05] So in our name plate in our engineering

[5:17:08] we believe that we may need up to 394

[5:17:12] megawatts of power on site to ensure

[5:17:15] that we always have 250 megawatts of

[5:17:20] critical compute power available without

[5:17:22] any drop off. So that's so that's what

[5:17:25] happens when you know you're you're

[5:17:27] talking about the difference between

[5:17:29] power for the compute and power for the

[5:17:32] whole facility. And so that's just the

[5:17:34] that's the natural language of language

[5:17:36] of the industry. So I think in our

[5:17:38] initial conversations it it's natural

[5:17:40] for us to say this is a 250 megawatt

[5:17:43] facility. When you get into the details

[5:17:46] of engineering it's a 395 megawatt name

[5:17:49] plate. So um so in that conversation

[5:17:52] when we started talking about limits

[5:17:54] that's when I clarified okay if we're

[5:17:56] going to put a limit we need to be sure

[5:17:58] we're covering the name plate. And when

[5:18:00] we talk about 500, I think that's just

[5:18:03] my uh creating a buffer if in some case

[5:18:07] in for some reason, you know, but we

[5:18:09] don't we already know that this property

[5:18:12] it maxes out. We cannot we cannot

[5:18:16] support more than 250 megawatts of

[5:18:18] critical power on that property. And

[5:18:20] there's no more room to create a power

[5:18:24] generating system on that property. And

[5:18:27] in fact, there's a chance that we may

[5:18:30] not even be able to produce 250

[5:18:32] depending on just final final

[5:18:33] engineering. It could end up at 200,

[5:18:36] 180, 225, 240. Um, and so we think that

[5:18:42] a name plate of 395

[5:18:45] really does represent the the maximum

[5:18:48] that we would need on site.

[5:18:50] >> Thank you for explaining that.

[5:18:51] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[5:18:54] >> Okay. I had five questions and four have

[5:18:56] been answered.

[5:18:56] >> No.

[5:18:57] >> Oh, are you ready to go?

[5:18:58] >> Whatever. I can go after you though.

[5:19:00] That's just fine. I'm happy to wait. You

[5:19:01] want me? I just got four. I'll go I'll

[5:19:03] go quick. Maybe it'll be one of your

[5:19:04] >> questions.

[5:19:06] >> All right, Jeff. Thank you. I the at the

[5:19:08] beginning of the evening, I appreciated

[5:19:09] when you said we're going to kind of

[5:19:11] slow things down a little bit. I feel

[5:19:12] like especially everybody in this room,

[5:19:13] even who's still here, would agree that

[5:19:15] that's something that um they

[5:19:17] appreciate. They've been feeling a

[5:19:18] little bit rushed in the process. And

[5:19:19] so, so thank you. And you know, as a

[5:19:23] city council member, I my job is to

[5:19:25] listen to the residents. And so I love

[5:19:27] this evening listening to everybody

[5:19:29] share their the pros and cons and how

[5:19:31] they feel. I mean, that's my job. And

[5:19:33] so, uh, I want to be their voice. That's my responsibility. So, so on in

[5:19:38] that spirit, I I had 14 takeaways, uh,

[5:19:43] from the comments this evening from

[5:19:45] everybody. So, thank you. Um, some of

[5:19:48] the questions have been answered, you

[5:19:50] know, in the last couple minutes. Uh,

[5:19:52] 14, but I'm just going to ask about four

[5:19:55] of them right now and then I could even

[5:19:57] send you the rest because I know you're

[5:19:58] going to put them.

[5:19:59] >> These are the four hardest of the 14.

[5:20:00] I'm assuming

[5:20:01] >> ones that are really going to upset you.

[5:20:03] No,

[5:20:04] >> no, but I just feel like these are these

[5:20:05] are a good four. They may even be some

[5:20:07] of yours, Stacy. So, we can

[5:20:08] >> Good. Now, I won't

[5:20:09] >> two birds stone. So, so uh and feel free

[5:20:12] to be brief because again I'm sure

[5:20:14] you'll want to expound on some of these

[5:20:16] uh later slide or on your website or

[5:20:18] something. So, the first one I was

[5:20:20] curious about that was was asked earlier

[5:20:23] was about the two data centers and I

[5:20:25] didn't really understand I maybe I've

[5:20:27] missed I was at Saturday's session but

[5:20:30] quickly what what is that?

[5:20:32] >> What do you mean like

[5:20:34] >> planning commission?

[5:20:35] >> Okay. Was that I missed

[5:20:36] >> planning commission?

[5:20:37] >> Wait the two what? Oh, I thought it was

[5:20:39] to allow potentially two data centers.

[5:20:41] >> Oh, allowing the two data centers is

[5:20:43] just this is just something that came

[5:20:45] out of natural conversation with the

[5:20:47] commission where um the city is

[5:20:51] contemplating a limit um and not, you

[5:20:56] know, effectively opening the floodgates

[5:20:58] for every developer in the world to say,

[5:21:00] "Hey, we can run down there to Spanish

[5:21:02] Fork and duplicate this." And all of a

[5:21:04] sudden, you've got all this stuff going

[5:21:05] on. and and we don't have any opposition

[5:21:07] to a to a limit.

[5:21:09] >> Okay. Yeah.

[5:21:10] >> And that that was a planning commission

[5:21:12] suggestion right now.

[5:21:13] >> Yeah. It was a one of the things that

[5:21:14] they added to the

[5:21:16] >> Excellent.

[5:21:17] >> Another question that I was curious

[5:21:18] about your answer from valition is

[5:21:21] >> a couple folks are really curious. This

[5:21:23] is the emails as well receiving but how

[5:21:25] can we know we directly benefit from you

[5:21:28] guys and maybe that's hard to articulate

[5:21:30] but is there a way that we can start

[5:21:32] broadcasting that this is how you can

[5:21:34] someone asked earlier like how is there

[5:21:36] a way to actually benefit from this

[5:21:37] energy that's being created and I know

[5:21:39] you have these massive customers that'll

[5:21:40] be tapping into this but

[5:21:41] >> well how can you benefit from our power

[5:21:44] >> yeah well I mean

[5:21:45] >> you're so

[5:21:46] >> besides the besides the tax and you know

[5:21:48] the financial piece of questions in a

[5:21:51] second

[5:21:51] >> so I'm going to go into a really

[5:21:55] scary territory that gets a lot of

[5:21:56] people really uptight. But you asked it.

[5:21:59] I move we adjourn.

[5:22:03] >> Listen, Landon, if it were up to us,

[5:22:08] so I don't know how many homes are

[5:22:09] coming into Edge. Uh

[5:22:11] >> 600 units.

[5:22:12] >> No, in that devel No, I think there's

[5:22:14] 600 there in that little development

[5:22:15] right by us.

[5:22:16] >> It's close to,

[5:22:17] >> isn't it? 5 to six.

[5:22:18] >> Six.

[5:22:19] >> How many?

[5:22:20] >> It's close to 600. Okay,

[5:22:23] >> we were

[5:22:23] >> if if it were up to us, um we could

[5:22:27] provide we could power every one of

[5:22:29] those homes and we could give them heat

[5:22:33] at no cost. And guess what? We would be

[5:22:36] happy to do it. But you start putting a

[5:22:39] proposal out there like that to the

[5:22:42] utilities and to people are going to get

[5:22:44] crazy crazy. I don't know that we that's

[5:22:47] a fight we're wanting to go sign up for.

[5:22:49] But just to give you an example, what

[5:22:51] I'm saying is our ability to share our

[5:22:55] power um is

[5:22:58] our hands are tied. We can't we can't do

[5:23:00] that. But we would do it in in two

[5:23:02] seconds. A part of our long-term model

[5:23:05] just share with you. Uh maybe this shuts

[5:23:08] us down, you know, somebody hears about

[5:23:09] it. But our long-term model, our

[5:23:12] original model

[5:23:15] always contemplated, we have so much

[5:23:17] power.

[5:23:19] So how do we allow whoever's in

[5:23:21] proximity to our power to access that

[5:23:24] power at a radical discount? And um it's

[5:23:28] still part of our model long term. Uh we

[5:23:32] just don't know how that would be

[5:23:33] implemented. We're talking about over 10

[5:23:34] and 15 years. So you get approval to let

[5:23:38] us to to borrow our power and

[5:23:42] take it. It's yours.

[5:23:44] >> To maybe address the other side of that,

[5:23:46] um there's a limit to the amount of

[5:23:48] power that the grid can handle. It's it

[5:23:50] has its capacities and this blows that

[5:23:54] up.

[5:23:55] Um we have uh we have the approval to

[5:23:59] grow our uh power consumption another uh

[5:24:03] 50 megawws in Spanish Fork in the system

[5:24:06] that we have. Uh there is another

[5:24:08] company that um has asked about an

[5:24:11] additional 50 so we'll call it 100.

[5:24:14] Beyond that somebody has to pay $400

[5:24:16] million to build some additional

[5:24:19] capacities in the Rocky Mountain power

[5:24:20] transmission system.

[5:24:22] um that was 400 million

[5:24:25] and so

[5:24:27] uh we don't have that. We can't buy the

[5:24:29] building and do that. Um

[5:24:32] so if they were to plug in and this

[5:24:38] these are conversations that we've had

[5:24:39] with Jeff too. If they were to plug into

[5:24:41] the grid to give us the power

[5:24:44] >> Yeah.

[5:24:44] >> those changes have to happen.

[5:24:46] >> Yeah. We can't

[5:24:47] >> So So you can't take it and you can't

[5:24:49] give it. They both work the same way,

[5:24:51] right? power goes in both directions.

[5:24:53] So, it it's just it's at the moment,

[5:24:55] right? It's a non-starter to

[5:24:56] >> Yeah.

[5:24:57] >> If we had any requests to connect in any

[5:24:59] way or to net meter or share our power,

[5:25:02] then we're then we're strictly undermpa

[5:25:07] guidelines and wouldn't work.

[5:25:10] >> Thank you. Just two more questions. Um,

[5:25:13] someone asked earlier about is it worth

[5:25:15] it to consider a a decommission bond? I

[5:25:18] thought that was interesting and I'm

[5:25:19] just curious your thoughts. Well, we we are the ones who recommend we have

[5:25:23] recommended decommission

[5:25:25] uh decommissioning plan that that is our

[5:25:27] suggest suggestion in the original

[5:25:31] uh amendment. Now uh we also need to be

[5:25:34] smart about how we do it. You know, do

[5:25:36] we want to have

[5:25:39] call it $40 million just tied up in

[5:25:42] perpetuity? No, we don't. But I know

[5:25:45] that our team is looking at ways to

[5:25:48] accomplish this. We just had a meeting

[5:25:50] about it just two days ago. So we will

[5:25:54] solve for a decommissioning

[5:25:58] uh structure that would ensure that um

[5:26:02] if if we just completely failed that

[5:26:04] there would be capital available to be

[5:26:06] able to decommission the the property.

[5:26:10] >> Okay.

[5:26:10] >> Landon, can I piggyback on that?

[5:26:12] >> Go ahead. So Jeff, you kind of have

[5:26:15] alluded to what it might cost for you

[5:26:17] guys to come and and be there. What does

[5:26:20] a decommissioning look like if we have

[5:26:22] to haul if you had to move stuff out and

[5:26:25] do the reverse? Any idea what the cost

[5:26:27] of that would look like?

[5:26:28] >> Yeah, there's been a few numbers that

[5:26:30] have been bounced around. Um, but we

[5:26:33] think that it it would be north of $30

[5:26:37] million.

[5:26:38] >> Okay. Okay. Good to know. Thank you. Um

[5:26:42] final question for tonight. So, um, see

[5:26:46] if I can articulate this one when it

[5:26:47] comes to, and you had some great slides

[5:26:48] earlier showing, you know, the financial

[5:26:51] benefit to Spanish city, nebo school

[5:26:53] district,

[5:26:54] >> uh, you know, the tax revenue, that sort

[5:26:56] of stuff. And then there were a couple

[5:26:57] questions and I've received some emails

[5:26:59] as well about what is that reality?

[5:27:01] Could that change? How was that? And you

[5:27:03] mentioned it just a minute ago, like it

[5:27:04] could be a lot more, you know, based on

[5:27:06] once we get certain clients in there.

[5:27:09] So, I don't know exactly what the

[5:27:10] question is, but if you could just

[5:27:12] address maybe the reality of that.

[5:27:15] >> Yeah, I I think the reality of it is

[5:27:17] that um let's look at if it's smaller.

[5:27:22] So, how could it be smaller? Um let's

[5:27:25] say we proceed with this um

[5:27:30] and something happens with a demand for

[5:27:32] data centers. And so instead of

[5:27:35] contracting with a large client to take

[5:27:38] all 250 megawws for a 12-year

[5:27:41] commitment,

[5:27:43] um maybe they say, "We're just going to

[5:27:46] take 50 megawws for now." And and for

[5:27:51] whatever reason, we don't get more

[5:27:54] clients, so we could just be smaller. Um

[5:27:58] I think that those who are concerned

[5:28:00] about a data center probably then

[5:28:03] welcome that. So I think they would win

[5:28:04] if we ended up being smaller. It might

[5:28:06] make them feel better. So you would have

[5:28:08] a um you know uh an equal you know kind

[5:28:14] of prora decrease on the amount of

[5:28:17] income that's coming into the city but

[5:28:19] it would still be would still be pretty

[5:28:21] substantial coming into the city. So

[5:28:23] that's one scenario. Um I think um

[5:28:28] another scenario

[5:28:30] uh is that this is

[5:28:34] larger likely larger because we are not

[5:28:38] calculating the computer the GPUs we

[5:28:42] build everything what we say up to the

[5:28:43] rack. So, we have all the infrastructure

[5:28:45] in there and then a client, let's say

[5:28:48] it's IBM, uh they then plug into that

[5:28:52] rack all of their GPUs and the

[5:28:55] cumulative

[5:28:57] uh value of those GPUs is actually

[5:29:00] substantially higher than our

[5:29:02] infrastructure. So if our infrastructure

[5:29:05] is valued at 3 to 4 billion, the GPUs

[5:29:08] are going to be valued at another

[5:29:12] 3 to four billion plus. I'm still being

[5:29:15] conservative. So there is a uh the the

[5:29:21] reality is this will be a higher figure

[5:29:24] probably more than double than the

[5:29:27] numbers that we've been discussing.

[5:29:29] >> Okay. Thank you. And piggyback on that,

[5:29:33] the math that I'm running is when when

[5:29:36] they say maybe the net to to our city

[5:29:39] could be $4 million and you think, well,

[5:29:43] okay, if that's what we're thinking it's

[5:29:45] going to be and and no, we're smart

[5:29:47] enough financially in the city that I I

[5:29:50] think it was some good points that hey,

[5:29:51] don't don't certainly spend that before,

[5:29:54] you know, that's I think that's got some

[5:29:56] cities certainly in trouble that counted

[5:29:58] on something and and we're really Martin

[5:30:00] and Spanish Fork that we're not counting

[5:30:03] on things and till they're in the bank

[5:30:06] account and when we're spending things,

[5:30:08] but from the math of of of $4 million

[5:30:12] and then a commitment of $500,000 a year

[5:30:15] to support different things like I mean

[5:30:18] that's that might be a a pretty good

[5:30:21] faith thing that well here we haven't

[5:30:23] paid any tax because this stuff isn't in

[5:30:25] there but here's $500,000 in this fund

[5:30:27] to do this this and this.

[5:30:30] that starts to be a piece of $4 million,

[5:30:32] you know, in a fund. Um, and again, not

[5:30:35] that we'd not that we'd run out and and

[5:30:37] buy a shiny new vehicle with that for

[5:30:40] the city or something, but but I think

[5:30:42] that's shown some good faith there. Um,

[5:30:46] the empirical the I've heard the word

[5:30:49] empirical evidence and because I'm a

[5:30:51] Spanish for Kairad, I had to Google that

[5:30:53] um what that exactly meant. And so the

[5:30:57] definition of based on direct obver

[5:30:59] observation, measurement or real world

[5:31:02] experience, I think that's important. Um

[5:31:07] we experienced some of that real world

[5:31:09] uh importance uh and observation the

[5:31:11] other day. I would encourage um I don't

[5:31:15] think everybody's I I I don't feel like

[5:31:17] I've been asked to just believe

[5:31:18] hypothetical

[5:31:20] uh things either. Um, obviously this

[5:31:23] isn't built, but there are things that

[5:31:25] are built in in this technology running.

[5:31:27] And and I can tell you from those

[5:31:29] pictures shown that that that is

[5:31:32] something that's important for I think

[5:31:35] all of us if we haven't seen it to see

[5:31:36] it within this time frame. Um, and uh

[5:31:39] and see if that could be arranged

[5:31:41] because hearing it, seeing it, touching

[5:31:43] it and and and talking to the people

[5:31:47] that live next to it is is pretty is

[5:31:50] pretty important. We think so too. And I

[5:31:52] would look there there is there's public

[5:31:56] access.

[5:31:57] Anybody can, you know, take a drive up

[5:32:00] to

[5:32:02] uh the Nova data center and and you can

[5:32:06] get right in front of that building

[5:32:08] right where the homes are, get out of

[5:32:11] your car, see for yourself, do your own

[5:32:14] measurement, listen. Um that that's

[5:32:17] somebody the other a woman the other day

[5:32:20] was you know she had said well can I can

[5:32:23] I go see this for myself? The answer

[5:32:24] actually is yes. You're not going to get

[5:32:27] in the boundary. You're not going to get

[5:32:28] toward the computer. You're not going to

[5:32:29] get to where it's actually loud in

[5:32:31] there. But if our argument is uh our

[5:32:35] concern is how loud is it at the

[5:32:37] perimeter and how loud is it a quarter

[5:32:40] mile away or by the homes?

[5:32:42] anybody anybody in Utah can drive right

[5:32:46] up there and and see for yourself. And I

[5:32:48] do really

[5:32:51] I I expect that every member of this

[5:32:54] council to do something like that. And

[5:32:56] for those who have not gone to NOVA to

[5:32:59] get a more detailed tour, and I don't

[5:33:01] think the two of you have been yet, I

[5:33:03] just we'll coordinate that. I don't

[5:33:05] think Shane's been. So, um, we'll

[5:33:09] coordinate that so you get, uh, onto the

[5:33:11] property with us.

[5:33:13] >> Mayor, can I can I speak to that?

[5:33:15] >> Sure.

[5:33:16] >> So, Stacy and I yesterday had the

[5:33:19] opportunity to go up to Nova and

[5:33:22] >> Oh, and the mayor.

[5:33:22] >> And the mayor. Yes, the mayor was there.

[5:33:24] >> I was in shorts, though.

[5:33:25] >> He was in shorts, so I didn't see him.

[5:33:27] >> Seth, don't feel bad. They forgot you

[5:33:28] were there, too. But Seth was also

[5:33:30] there.

[5:33:31] >> Seth, Dave, Von, were all there.

[5:33:33] >> My directions were so bad yesterday. I

[5:33:35] don't know where I was. Yeah, Von was

[5:33:37] there, too. Yes.

[5:33:38] >> So, I had a person, a resident today

[5:33:41] reach out to me and messaged me and

[5:33:43] said, "Do you consider yourself a

[5:33:44] steward?" A steward of Not Stewart. I'm

[5:33:47] not a steward. I'm an oiler. A steward

[5:33:50] of Spanish Fork. And I said, "Yes, I

[5:33:52] do." And when it comes to projects like

[5:33:55] this, my responsibility is to do my

[5:33:57] homework. So, I want to report back on a

[5:33:59] little bit of homework that I did when

[5:34:01] in regards to the field trip that we

[5:34:04] took yesterday. So, one of the concerns

[5:34:07] that we've had obviously is is heat.

[5:34:09] Heat's been a concern of mine. Uh, this

[5:34:13] was not scientific, but I did notice on

[5:34:16] my car as I left Spanish Fork. There's

[5:34:20] the temperature meter that tells you how

[5:34:22] hot it is outside, right? So, I watched

[5:34:25] it as I left Spanish Fork. It was 93

[5:34:28] degrees when I left. When I got about 10

[5:34:31] miles away from the Nova data center, it

[5:34:35] was down to 92 degrees. I got to the

[5:34:38] data center. I parked my car. We were

[5:34:40] there what, an hour?

[5:34:42] We were there an hour. When I got back

[5:34:44] in my car, it was still 92 degrees. Um,

[5:34:48] that does not mean that there wasn't

[5:34:50] heat. When we got out and we walked over

[5:34:51] to the Bloom fuel cells, they were hot.

[5:34:55] They were very, very hot. Uh, you could

[5:34:57] feel the wind blowing. you could feel

[5:34:59] that heat. Uh you step away from them

[5:35:01] and go a decent distance away, the heat

[5:35:05] wasn't there. Um I didn't notice the

[5:35:07] heat on my vehicle. So that was my first

[5:35:10] unscientific experiment that I did. Take

[5:35:13] it for what it's worth. Yeah. Second uh

[5:35:17] thing of interest,

[5:35:19] Utah state law as of 2026 as of as as of

[5:35:24] this year requires that all large data

[5:35:26] centers report their annual water use.

[5:35:29] That's public information. The NOVA data

[5:35:32] center, the data center in Las Vegas,

[5:35:35] there's a data center in Grand Junction,

[5:35:36] Colorado. Um, you can go on to their

[5:35:40] websites and they have to disclose and

[5:35:42] show their actual water bills. The one

[5:35:45] in Las Vegas, I think they've got six

[5:35:47] different meters. Landscaping,

[5:35:50] construction,

[5:35:52] um, commercial use, um, the use inside

[5:35:55] the building, they're all separately

[5:35:57] metered and you can see everything. Uh,

[5:36:00] the Nova data center in West Jordan

[5:36:03] shows that as well. And after seeing

[5:36:06] this and talking to the people at at

[5:36:09] Nova, water is not a concern for me

[5:36:13] based on then the 2025 the entire year

[5:36:16] report that they showed of all their

[5:36:18] water consumption. Water use with the

[5:36:21] closed loop system is not a concern for

[5:36:23] me. So that was that was one thing that

[5:36:27] I noticed. Um

[5:36:30] after oh and the other thing that they

[5:36:32] pointed out is at the Nova data center

[5:36:34] there's no turf. You won't find grass as

[5:36:36] part of their landscaping. They hired a

[5:36:39] landscaper that did a study and has put

[5:36:43] in all natural droughtresistant

[5:36:46] vegetation. after 3 years of watering

[5:36:49] their landscaping. Those those plants

[5:36:52] will be um

[5:36:56] not established. Thank you. They'll be

[5:36:58] established. They'll no longer need to

[5:37:00] water them. And so again, water water

[5:37:03] wasn't a concern for me after after

[5:37:05] seeing and doing some research there.

[5:37:08] After we were done with the tour, I did

[5:37:11] what you guys did, it sounds like, and

[5:37:12] what one of our residents did because I

[5:37:15] knocked some houses that said, "Hey, we

[5:37:17] had another guy from Spanish Fork that

[5:37:19] was here." Over the weekend, I went and

[5:37:22] knocked doors and Jordan, I don't know

[5:37:25] if you can bring up Google Maps. I want

[5:37:27] to show just everybody the exact

[5:37:29] proximity of the residential

[5:37:31] neighborhood to the Nova data center.

[5:37:34] So, this is an old map. If you were to

[5:37:36] go up there now, there's the the

[5:37:38] building just south of the red dot is

[5:37:40] the Nova data center. There's now two

[5:37:42] additional buildings, one on each side

[5:37:43] of that one. So, there's three

[5:37:46] buildings. Um the residential

[5:37:48] neighborhood is directly north and

[5:37:51] directly to the west of that residential

[5:37:54] neighborhood that you can't see in the

[5:37:56] map is a another residential development

[5:37:59] that's being built right now of

[5:38:01] highdensity three fourstory condos. So,

[5:38:05] I went and knocked doors for an hour and

[5:38:07] just want to share again, take it for

[5:38:09] what it's worth. This is what I've

[5:38:11] learned talking firsthand to individuals

[5:38:14] that live and have lived by this for

[5:38:16] multiple years. The the ground or the

[5:38:19] ribbon cutting for the Nova Data Center

[5:38:21] took place in 2021. So, it's not

[5:38:23] something that opened yesterday. It's

[5:38:25] been open for five five plus years.

[5:38:28] So, the first house I talked to or

[5:38:32] knocked knocked on, um, obviously not

[5:38:36] everybody answered their doors, but I'm

[5:38:37] going to speak to those that I spoke

[5:38:39] with. Um, the first house I knocked on,

[5:38:43] I asked very first question, what's what

[5:38:45] are the concerns that you've had,

[5:38:47] especially surround sound? You've got a

[5:38:50] data center in your backyard.

[5:38:53] What what are the sounds that you hear?

[5:38:55] Um, the answer was nothing. We don't

[5:38:57] hear anything. I said, "What about at

[5:38:59] night when you've got your windows

[5:39:00] open?" Again, nothing. We don't hear

[5:39:03] anything. In fact, actually, the

[5:39:05] business to the east of us, which I

[5:39:08] won't name, but it's another industrial

[5:39:10] business. That's where the sound comes

[5:39:11] from, not from the data center.

[5:39:13] According to these people, the other

[5:39:15] question I asked was, "How long have you

[5:39:17] lived here?" And these people had been

[5:39:18] there for 15 plus years. They long-term

[5:39:21] residents. I said, "What have you

[5:39:23] noticed about the value of your home and

[5:39:25] the property taxes that you pay?" Um,

[5:39:28] and they said, "Our property value has

[5:39:29] only gone up every single year that

[5:39:31] we've lived here, including the five

[5:39:33] years that the data center was there."

[5:39:34] So, that was another response. I got

[5:39:37] that response from multiple people. The

[5:39:39] next house that I knocked was somebody

[5:39:41] that's lived in that home for 4 days.

[5:39:43] They just barely purchased that home.

[5:39:45] They did not get a discount on their

[5:39:46] purchase price because it's next to a

[5:39:48] data center. They paid full market

[5:39:50] value.

[5:39:52] Um, as I went further south, I knocked

[5:39:54] on the homes that are directly you go

[5:39:57] out their backyard and you look at the

[5:40:00] street and you look at the data center

[5:40:02] which was right across. Um, one

[5:40:05] gentleman, we spoke for probably 10

[5:40:07] minutes. His concern, he didn't like

[5:40:10] that the data center was there and I

[5:40:12] said, "Why not?" He says, "Because I

[5:40:14] preferred the field that was there

[5:40:15] before and the deer that ran through

[5:40:17] it." Um, I says, "Well, the data center

[5:40:20] is there now. What are your thoughts?"

[5:40:23] He said, "I would rather the data center

[5:40:24] than the three-story condos that are

[5:40:26] being built down the street." Um, I

[5:40:29] said, "Okay, that's good info info uh

[5:40:31] input. What about if it was the Amazon

[5:40:35] distribution center that's around the

[5:40:36] corner? If you had the choice between

[5:40:38] the data center that's there or the

[5:40:40] Amazon distribution center, which would

[5:40:42] you prefer?" He says, "The data center."

[5:40:45] Um, I hate the beeps that I hear from

[5:40:46] the Amazon distribution center. So, I I

[5:40:50] asked him as well, this is right in your

[5:40:52] backyard. Do you ever hear anything? He

[5:40:54] says, I never hear anything. Even at

[5:40:56] night when the windows are open, I don't

[5:40:57] hear it. Next door, uh, the guy let me

[5:41:00] in. He was actually nice enough to take

[5:41:02] me through his house, show me the

[5:41:04] addition that he put in the rear. He

[5:41:06] said he built it himself.

[5:41:08] >> Did you have a lesson? That's

[5:41:10] >> We we went out back. Um, he he walked me

[5:41:14] to his backyard where I could look

[5:41:16] directly into the data center from his

[5:41:19] backyard.

[5:41:21] First thing I noticed was the noise. It

[5:41:24] was extremely loud, but then when the

[5:41:26] neighbor next door on the other side of

[5:41:27] the fence turned off his lawn mower, it

[5:41:30] got quiet. Um, next thing I noticed was

[5:41:33] the awful smell, but then I realized he

[5:41:36] just lit up a Cuban and that's what I

[5:41:38] was smelling. Um, that was the noxious

[5:41:40] odor. I asked him, I said, "How long

[5:41:43] have you been here?" He says, "I've been

[5:41:44] here for for years." I says, "Have you

[5:41:46] ever noticed any noises,

[5:41:49] any sounds, any hums, any high pitch,

[5:41:52] anything from the data center?" He says,

[5:41:53] "The only time I ever heard a noise

[5:41:56] coming from the data center was while it

[5:41:58] was under construction. After

[5:42:00] construction was finished, I've not

[5:42:02] heard anything from it." Same

[5:42:04] complaints. He he doesn't like the

[5:42:06] residential that's being built. Uh, but

[5:42:08] as far as concerns about the data

[5:42:10] center, he had none. I knocked doors for

[5:42:13] an hour. There was not one resident that

[5:42:17] I spoke with that had a concern about

[5:42:20] living next to the data center. That was

[5:42:22] my firsthand experience. So, doesn't

[5:42:25] mean I have don't have any more

[5:42:27] questions. I've got a million questions,

[5:42:30] but I want the residents to know that I

[5:42:33] take this serious and I'm doing my

[5:42:35] homework because like the mayor said,

[5:42:37] none of us want to put something in

[5:42:40] Spanish Fork that's going to be a

[5:42:41] detriment to the people that live here.

[5:42:44] >> So, thank you, mayor. That was probably

[5:42:46] longer than it needed to be.

[5:42:47] >> That was good.

[5:42:48] >> Thank you for doing that.

[5:42:49] >> That was good. I will tell you as the as the resident uh Stacy's got to

[5:42:54] say something too, but the the the the

[5:42:56] resident that grew up here uh and grew

[5:42:59] up here when there was a powder Trojan

[5:43:02] powder plant across the highway from

[5:43:04] this uh that tested explosives. That's

[5:43:07] what used to be at the mouth of Spanish

[5:43:08] Fort Canyon. Um

[5:43:10] >> that was loud.

[5:43:11] >> It was loud.

[5:43:12] >> That was a little loud.

[5:43:13] >> It was loud. Um it used to be loud up

[5:43:15] there. where there's cracks in in

[5:43:17] people's uh floors because of some of

[5:43:20] those explosions getting a little bit of

[5:43:21] out of hand. That was probably John

[5:43:23] Mendenhal putting a little bit too much

[5:43:24] powder in the keg at Trojan Powder. But

[5:43:27] uh um the wild the the the environmental

[5:43:30] aspects of up there again that's where I

[5:43:32] grew up as a kid. Um

[5:43:35] you would think it would decimate the

[5:43:38] wildlife when you built the distribution

[5:43:40] center. Um the deer and elk and

[5:43:43] everything else are pretty hardy and

[5:43:45] then pretty smart. They do come down to

[5:43:46] that river to drink and then they know

[5:43:48] that they're pretty protected by some of

[5:43:50] these facilities. And so that's the

[5:43:52] place they're not getting shot versus up

[5:43:55] on the mountain where you can hunt. You

[5:43:57] can't hunt inside these private

[5:43:59] facilities that are fenced off. And so

[5:44:02] if you want to look at some decentsized

[5:44:04] deer and elk, golf on the golf course,

[5:44:06] look across the way. I don't think

[5:44:08] that's going to change with this center

[5:44:10] either. You're going to be able to see

[5:44:11] some wildlife

[5:44:13] uh that uh that are usually pretty

[5:44:15] protected because you can't you can't go

[5:44:18] hunt them there. You have to go up on

[5:44:19] the on the mountain to catch them. So,

[5:44:21] sorry that was my wildlife speech.

[5:44:24] >> I feel like I'm the last speaker before

[5:44:26] lunch or dinner and they're like just

[5:44:27] hurry up and let's get out of here.

[5:44:28] >> I have more.

[5:44:29] >> You do not.

[5:44:30] >> Okay, never mind. I don't.

[5:44:31] >> Okay. My question is back to a number,

[5:44:35] Jeff, that I think in your meeting, I

[5:44:38] mean, in your presentation before the

[5:44:40] public hearing, you said that the heat

[5:44:43] got up to 90, excuse me, nine degrees

[5:44:46] and I thought I had heard five before

[5:44:49] and then by the time it's a quarter of a

[5:44:51] mile, there's nothing. Can you just

[5:44:53] confirm numbers with the heat? Yeah, our current uh study indicates that at

[5:45:00] max

[5:45:02] on property

[5:45:04] uh heat, so this would be a day where

[5:45:07] maybe there's less wind

[5:45:10] um that we may experience 9 degrees of

[5:45:14] onpropy increase. And then um our our

[5:45:20] studies indicate that the the decay of

[5:45:25] that heat, you know, with within

[5:45:29] um before a half mile,

[5:45:32] uh you will be less than one degree max

[5:45:37] of

[5:45:39] um you know incremental additional heat

[5:45:42] because of our property. that that is um

[5:45:47] yeah that that's the latest number that

[5:45:50] we work with.

[5:45:51] >> Okay.

[5:45:52] >> From our our research and and third

[5:45:55] party studies.

[5:45:56] >> Okay. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

[5:45:59] Um just yeah all my other questions were

[5:46:02] answered by everyone else up here. When

[5:46:03] I was up there yesterday we were having

[5:46:05] conversations just walking around and I

[5:46:08] was amazed that I I I I was so engaged

[5:46:11] in conversation. And I didn't realize

[5:46:13] the bloom cell was just really right

[5:46:15] there until someone I think it was Seth,

[5:46:18] of course. Can you hear that? And I'm

[5:46:20] like, "What?" And he's like, "Those are

[5:46:21] the cells." I I didn't even know we were

[5:46:23] standing right by them.

[5:46:24] >> Yes.

[5:46:24] >> And then the company to the east,

[5:46:27] whatever they were doing, they were on a

[5:46:29] forklift and someone dropped someone and

[5:46:31] it dinged and I think we all looked

[5:46:33] over. Like it was shocking. A diesel

[5:46:35] truck drove through Nova's parking lot.

[5:46:38] We had to stop talking. Like it was

[5:46:41] really interesting how acute we were to

[5:46:44] like all the exterior noises around us.

[5:46:46] Um a big diesel was out on the main road

[5:46:48] driving that was so loud. But where we

[5:46:51] were standing,

[5:46:53] the noise does not concern me. But I

[5:46:56] think it's really important to still do

[5:46:58] th those independent studies and all

[5:47:01] those other things that one of the

[5:47:03] residents were mentioning to make sure

[5:47:05] that we don't have those high pitched or

[5:47:08] low pitched or tonal sounds or whatever

[5:47:10] they're saying that we just need to be

[5:47:11] really aware that residents aren't

[5:47:13] affected by those. Yeah, there there are

[5:47:15] um

[5:47:17] these sort of um

[5:47:21] disproportionate

[5:47:22] uh comparables that are that are real.

[5:47:27] Uh, for example,

[5:47:29] if a data center is built near a rural

[5:47:35] community with 5,000 people and no real

[5:47:38] industry

[5:47:40] before that data center shows up, that

[5:47:42] is a beautiful place where you probably

[5:47:45] will step outside at night and it will

[5:47:47] be almost silent where you will have 20

[5:47:51] 30 dB. That's why we love these these

[5:47:54] places. But when you build a data center

[5:47:57] there where there is no additional or

[5:48:01] existing industrial

[5:48:03] uh ambient noise and there are no other

[5:48:07] structures to offset the noise from that

[5:48:11] facility and you combine it with a

[5:48:15] developer who's using

[5:48:18] uh antiquated equipment with no

[5:48:23] governance, no

[5:48:25] oversight. So, they're running diesel

[5:48:27] generators and they're a bunch of fans

[5:48:30] and

[5:48:32] yeah, that that is the scenario where

[5:48:35] these folks are really suffering, but

[5:48:39] it's not in any way uh an appropriate or

[5:48:44] comparable

[5:48:45] uh against what these modern data

[5:48:49] centers uh can do. and uh the amount of

[5:48:52] oversight and being dropped into maybe

[5:48:56] an existing industrial area where uh

[5:48:59] you're every day you're already sitting

[5:49:01] at 50 50 dB. So that's why you can get

[5:49:05] this um disproportionate reaction to

[5:49:09] data centers um because there are

[5:49:13] scenarios where they're just really bad you know and the analogy I

[5:49:17] you know just like when we our old

[5:49:18] vehicles my mom's old Volvo you know

[5:49:21] driving around who knows what emissions

[5:49:23] that thing was putting out you know

[5:49:25] compared to her now driving a hybrid a

[5:49:28] hybrid vehicle you know and so these it

[5:49:31] is true that these technologies have progressed. So that's why uh

[5:49:38] genuinely we we

[5:49:40] I am um absolutely confident that and

[5:49:45] this doesn't you know this is not I'm

[5:49:48] not the the point of decision here but I

[5:49:50] just I know unequivocally

[5:49:53] that our experiences are going to be the

[5:49:55] same as what we're finding by just

[5:49:56] knocking on doors and Nova is not as

[5:49:59] dynamic a design as ours. they have uh a

[5:50:04] variety of of power gen systems on there

[5:50:07] out there that are not as dynamic as

[5:50:09] ours. So, I'm confident that you know my

[5:50:12] if my daughter is still here, she is

[5:50:14] still here. I haven't said it once. This

[5:50:16] is Allison. Um and we can see this

[5:50:21] property from from her house in

[5:50:22] Mapleton. Uh our our two granddaughters

[5:50:26] are there, her daughters are there. Um,

[5:50:29] and just this weekend we had, you know,

[5:50:32] we had a a birthday party and we could

[5:50:34] see the windmills were in eyesot of of

[5:50:36] this. Uh, we're testing decibb. Um, I am

[5:50:41] confident that she and her neighbors and

[5:50:44] the new edge homes are going to have an

[5:50:48] experience that is quite uneventful as

[5:50:51] it relates to our being in their

[5:50:52] backyard.

[5:50:56] » Thank you.

[5:50:59] May I maybe adding to Kevin's experience

[5:51:03] as he was talking to those neighbors. It

[5:51:04] was really eye opening for me to see

[5:51:05] those houses. I in some of the public

[5:51:08] open houses public in some of the open

[5:51:11] houses that this group had last week

[5:51:14] residents expressed concerns about

[5:51:17] property values. Tonight I took some

[5:51:19] notes and a handful of people expressed

[5:51:20] concerns about property values. So,

[5:51:22] knowing that there were houses right

[5:51:23] next door to this, I went I went and did

[5:51:25] some online research and I think Zillow

[5:51:28] is

[5:51:30] as reliable as Zillow is. It's, you

[5:51:32] know, a standard that it's applicable

[5:51:34] anywhere. It's it's as good as it is

[5:51:36] here or there. So, I went and looked at a number of homes in that area to see

[5:51:41] their property values. The homes in that

[5:51:43] area started to be constructed in 2015.

[5:51:45] The data center went in in 2020. I think

[5:51:48] it was fully I think it was the first

[5:51:50] building was operational probably in 21

[5:51:52] and then as Kevin said they've added two more since and I went and pulled

[5:51:57] some data from Spanish Fork homes um in

[5:52:02] town with relative proximity to the

[5:52:04] site. So Jordan, if you'd pull that up.

[5:52:06] These are just two graphs. Um there it's

[5:52:09] kind of interesting. Sorry the numbers

[5:52:11] are a little bit actually the numbers

[5:52:13] are really not that relative. What's I think really interesting is to

[5:52:17] see the graphs themselves. So the one

[5:52:18] that you can see

[5:52:20] um there that shows the the value of one

[5:52:23] of the homes in West Jordan. So zip code

[5:52:25] 84081

[5:52:27] I think. Um and you can see that in 20 I

[5:52:30] think the first hash mark is 2018. Is

[5:52:32] that right Jordan?

[5:52:35] >> Um don't Oh, you don't have it in the

[5:52:37] screen in front of you. Okay. So I So

[5:52:40] you can see that the house here

[5:52:41] experienced the same market increase

[5:52:43] that we all did in 202021 with a peak in the um sometime in 2022. And then you

[5:52:52] see kind of this jagged I'm not sure if

[5:52:54] I want to go up or down for the next

[5:52:56] four years that we've been experiencing

[5:52:57] I think all across our houses. If you

[5:53:00] scroll down just a little bit so you can

[5:53:01] see the graph of a house in Spanish

[5:53:03] Fork, you can see it has a very similar

[5:53:06] trajectory, right? It has this rapid

[5:53:07] growth in 20 21 with a peak. We have

[5:53:11] kind of a weird peak at least on this

[5:53:12] property in 20 sometime in 21 and then a

[5:53:15] valley and then it goes it has that peak

[5:53:17] in 22 and then a drop and then it has

[5:53:19] that kind of jagged up uptick. Um,

[5:53:24] if you look at both of those graphs

[5:53:25] together, it's fascinating that these

[5:53:27] two properties, and I didn't handpick, I

[5:53:29] just had to take a picture of some that

[5:53:30] I was looking at, but you can do your

[5:53:33] own. This is all just public information

[5:53:36] on Zillow, right? Look at your house,

[5:53:38] look at its graph, and compare it to

[5:53:40] some of the neighborhoods by this by

[5:53:42] this project. It was really fascinating

[5:53:43] for me to see that that the peak, if

[5:53:46] you'll scroll just a little bit back to

[5:53:48] the West Jordan home, that the peaks

[5:53:49] came as the data center was was opening

[5:53:52] and and the valleys, you know, you might

[5:53:55] say, "Oh, that's that had an impact on

[5:53:56] the house." Well, you scroll down nonP

[5:53:58] non-data center, Spanish fork, it was

[5:54:00] the exact same valley, just what the

[5:54:03] markets were experiencing. Again, this

[5:54:05] is not data for all circumstances.

[5:54:08] to use the new word of the day for the

[5:54:10] mayor um for at least today in six

[5:54:13] minutes we can choose a new word but

[5:54:15] empirical so it's not necessarily

[5:54:17] empirical right but it was fascinating

[5:54:19] for me and and we'll probably continue

[5:54:20] to do some of this research

[5:54:22] >> it's again publicly available but it's

[5:54:24] interesting because I think if you have

[5:54:25] a concern about the home values like

[5:54:27] looking at this from a place that's real

[5:54:29] and is experiencing something today and frankly if you go back to that map

[5:54:35] >> like it's it's surrounded on three sides

[5:54:37] by growing industrial like it was not

[5:54:40] it's if you go back and you can't on

[5:54:42] this map, but if you go back on Google Maps, sorry, Google Earth, you

[5:54:47] can you can do some historical images.

[5:54:49] And this was a neighborhood out in a

[5:54:50] field like the guy like that guy was

[5:54:52] saying,

[5:54:53] >> that that same guy was not happy because

[5:54:55] his realtor that sold him the home

[5:54:58] promised him and told him that the

[5:54:59] property across the street would be

[5:55:01] residential.

[5:55:02] >> Don't believe realtors. No, that's not

[5:55:04] true. But like, yeah, they they must

[5:55:06] have had a shift in in where they were

[5:55:08] headed, right? But it's got a lot of

[5:55:09] industrial around it and those those

[5:55:12] homes have held their value. So,

[5:55:15] >> empirical evidence is that when I was

[5:55:17] elected mayor, we had our best home

[5:55:19] value increase.

[5:55:20] >> That's a fact. Okay,

[5:55:22] >> fair enough.

[5:55:23] >> Mayor, I know it's getting late, but I

[5:55:25] would love to report on another homework

[5:55:28] assignment that I did in regards to

[5:55:30] this. So, I emailed the mayor and city

[5:55:33] council of West Jordan. And to go back

[5:55:36] to the point of not every two data

[5:55:39] centers are the same. Um, Eagle

[5:55:41] Mountain, they're struggling with some

[5:55:43] of the things that they chose to do with

[5:55:44] their data center and they're facing

[5:55:46] some serious property tax increases in

[5:55:49] their city. Some of that's related to

[5:55:52] subsidies and whatever that they chose

[5:55:54] to do with the data centers that came to

[5:55:56] Eagle Mountain. West Jordan did not

[5:55:59] choose to go that route and give they've

[5:56:02] got two large data centers, not just the

[5:56:04] NOVA, but they've got a second one as

[5:56:06] well. They did not give them discounts

[5:56:09] and subsidies. Um, each of the council

[5:56:12] members and mayor that responded back to

[5:56:14] me all said that they are are glad that

[5:56:18] they've got the data centers in their

[5:56:20] cities. Um, one of the individuals whose

[5:56:24] precinct or area the data center resides

[5:56:27] in his area said that he's never

[5:56:30] received an email complaint from any

[5:56:32] residents concerning the data centers

[5:56:35] specifically. Um, another um, council

[5:56:39] member shared with me that

[5:56:43] let's see, we're living in today in our

[5:56:45] city, we have two large centers, Aligned

[5:56:47] Energy and Nova. They're also the top

[5:56:50] two property tax entities and she shared

[5:56:53] with me the top 10 taxing entities in

[5:56:57] West Jordan. Aligned has a 2025 taxable

[5:57:01] value of 416 million.

[5:57:05] NOVA has a taxable value of 401 million.

[5:57:09] The third one is half of those and the

[5:57:12] fourth one is half of that. And so they are definitely substantial taxing

[5:57:19] entities in a city they reside. Just

[5:57:22] wanted to share that.

[5:57:25] >> Mr. Mayor.

[5:57:26] >> Yes.

[5:57:27] >> Uh just to acknowledge some things that

[5:57:29] have been said about taxable value and

[5:57:32] depreciation. I feel like I just want to

[5:57:34] say that's real. Uh we understand that

[5:57:38] there's a schedule for that. uh that

[5:57:41] varies from one type of personal

[5:57:44] property to another. And yeah, that

[5:57:47] being said, I appreciate the numbers

[5:57:48] that Jeff has shared. I understand the

[5:57:50] rationale and the logic and I think that

[5:57:52] holds true at least for year one. But we

[5:57:54] understand that the taxable value for

[5:57:58] what we're talking about here likely

[5:58:00] would not be consistent year overyear.

[5:58:04] That like Jeff described um a really

[5:58:07] expensive part of having a center. the CPUs, GPUs, whatever it is, the

[5:58:14] computation equipment in the building

[5:58:17] that depreciates rather quickly over a

[5:58:19] five or six year period of time. We also

[5:58:22] understand that typically that

[5:58:23] equipment's replaced um pretty rapidly

[5:58:26] on a fairly regular schedule. Um

[5:58:29] therefore, when that's replaced, that

[5:58:32] value then goes back to full freight and

[5:58:35] so forth. So, um, should this move

[5:58:38] forward,

[5:58:39] >> I think that's something that we'd we'd

[5:58:40] need to come up with a process to

[5:58:42] monitor and yeah, take into account as

[5:58:44] we try to predict what that revenue

[5:58:46] would look like.

[5:58:46] >> This council member Dave, to your point,

[5:58:48] she shared with me a recent article from

[5:58:50] KSL talking about that exact thing with

[5:58:54] data centers, the depreciation and and

[5:58:57] the changes, the fluctuations that take

[5:58:59] place with the with the property tax

[5:59:01] rates. Um, she said this would be an

[5:59:04] interesting read. you should read this,

[5:59:06] consider it. Just for point of fact, she

[5:59:08] says, "I have not seen any big swings in

[5:59:12] West Jordan." So, that was her firsthand

[5:59:15] experience.

[5:59:17] >> Uh, to that end, I I don't think I don't

[5:59:19] think it should be minimized either. And I appreciate Jeff, you you putting

[5:59:23] it in in a contract mode of of moving

[5:59:26] your your folks here and and and your base here. Um,

[5:59:32] again, I've been served long enough on

[5:59:34] this council to know that we have

[5:59:36] participated in private businesses to

[5:59:39] keep them in town with with tax

[5:59:43] increment financing

[5:59:46] that has kept or created jobs in our

[5:59:49] city. And those have been in the 200

[5:59:51] range of things and and the residents,

[5:59:56] we're better for it as a city. I don't

[5:59:57] look at any of those as a mistake. those

[5:59:59] were gauged, calculated, mathed to to

[6:00:04] where it was better for the city to do

[6:00:06] that. Um, so so I talked to a gentleman

[6:00:10] today that reminded me that, you know, I

[6:00:13] wouldn't certainly compare your your business to like Geneva, but he

[6:00:18] said, you know, Geneva back in the day

[6:00:19] that employed thousands of people,

[6:00:22] hundreds of those people lived in our

[6:00:24] town. And what do you think they did

[6:00:26] every Tuesday when they were paid except

[6:00:28] go to your grocery store and except buy

[6:00:31] your, you know, buy your gas and

[6:00:34] everything else. And so I don't think it

[6:00:36] should be completely minimized either

[6:00:37] that it's not just a taxing

[6:00:40] >> uh strategy here, but I I I wouldn't

[6:00:44] divulge the type of badges that were

[6:00:47] shown at NOVA the other day, but they're

[6:00:50] with companies that don't pay small

[6:00:52] wages for anything. Y

[6:00:54] >> and um and and you're talking about the

[6:00:57] largest companies in the world. And so

[6:01:00] that that dollar figure

[6:01:02] coming to our city potentially is is

[6:01:04] something that's different from the tax

[6:01:06] as well that I don't think that he

[6:01:08] thinks is just an important important

[6:01:11] thing to know.

[6:01:13] >> I keep going.

[6:01:14] >> You can keep going. Uh or Councilwoman

[6:01:17] Beck will tell you to stop.

[6:01:19] >> 12:01.

[6:01:19] >> I know it's late. I'm I'm This is really

[6:01:22] my final question and it's to Von the

[6:01:26] city attorney. So Von, this this is kind

[6:01:30] of a big one for me. And what is what

[6:01:34] are the what kind of teeth do we have in

[6:01:37] Spanish Fork legally to make sure that

[6:01:41] we're protected? If this wasn't Jeff

[6:01:42] standing here, this was Elon Musk and he

[6:01:46] had a data center that he wanted to

[6:01:48] bring to Spanish Fork and he has

[6:01:51] obviously unlimited funds to to fight

[6:01:55] whatever battle he needs to in court

[6:01:57] legally.

[6:01:59] We've talked about conditional use

[6:02:01] permit or uses with conditions and the

[6:02:05] some have requested that it go back to

[6:02:07] one or one or the other. Conditional use

[6:02:09] permit is what they're asking for. What

[6:02:11] kind of safety measures and security and

[6:02:15] teeth do we have as a city to make sure

[6:02:18] that if something were to happen and

[6:02:20] this were to go to court legally that we would be okay?

[6:02:27] » That's a difficult question to answer,

[6:02:29] but um the development agreement that

[6:02:32] we've been talking about has all those

[6:02:34] remedies in them. if they breached any

[6:02:36] of those those promises about water use

[6:02:40] or or noise etc. There's remedies in

[6:02:43] there. There's the liquidated damages.

[6:02:46] There's beyond that and more importantly

[6:02:48] I mentioned before is there's the

[6:02:51] equitable remedies of specific

[6:02:53] performance which means the court can

[6:02:55] order

[6:02:57] you know the breaching party to change

[6:03:00] you know to do something different. the

[6:03:02] court can order an injunction is it

[6:03:04] could prevent them from doing something

[6:03:05] that is violating the agreement. So

[6:03:08] those are remedies there uh already

[6:03:10] there in that agreement. Um the city

[6:03:13] already has a business license ordinance

[6:03:16] that says for repeated violations of the

[6:03:19] zoning that applies to that ordin to

[6:03:22] that business that the license can be

[6:03:24] revoked after a hearing. And so there

[6:03:28] are remedies that would and what he said

[6:03:31] about downtime that would have a serious

[6:03:33] impact um if he gets his business

[6:03:36] license revoked. So there are there are

[6:03:40] remedies both monetary damages plus the

[6:03:42] equitable remedies plus the business

[6:03:45] license revocation. There are are things

[6:03:48] that are in place

[6:03:49] >> and the likelihood if the if and I'm not

[6:03:52] saying this would happen. I'm just

[6:03:53] saying worst case scenario. If it were

[6:03:56] to go to court

[6:03:58] and an injunction, that's a bigger word

[6:04:00] than I know at midnight. But that were

[6:04:03] to be that were to take place, a judge

[6:04:06] could basically say, "You guys need to

[6:04:07] stop business until you take care of

[6:04:09] these issues."

[6:04:10] >> I don't know what they might order. He

[6:04:11] might order stop doing the thing that's

[6:04:13] violating the contract, like stop using

[6:04:16] so much water if that's the issue or um

[6:04:20] generating so much noise. And if they

[6:04:22] don't stop, what would next steps be?

[6:04:24] >> Then they've faced contempt of court

[6:04:27] for violating the judge's order.

[6:04:30] >> Is there a world in which they wouldn't

[6:04:31] side with us?

[6:04:33] >> Yeah, I'm sure there is. I'm not, you

[6:04:35] know, I can't predict a future,

[6:04:37] especially on a hypothetical like that,

[6:04:39] but I mean, that's the way things work

[6:04:41] in litigation. You're pursuing them for

[6:04:44] breach of contract and you have the

[6:04:45] remedies that the contract specifies,

[6:04:48] >> but we as a city would have control over

[6:04:50] the business license.

[6:04:51] If we

[6:04:52] >> right that would be an administrative

[6:04:54] process. You know, you have to give them

[6:04:55] the due process of notice and a hearing

[6:04:58] and and then we have to prove that

[6:05:01] they're you know the repeated violations

[6:05:03] of the zoning the title 15 amendments

[6:05:05] we're talking about.

[6:05:06] >> Is it a monetary fine for a business to

[6:05:09] function or run without a business

[6:05:11] license?

[6:05:11] >> There is. That's a that's a state code

[6:05:13] violation. It's criminal violation. Um

[6:05:16] so they can be prosecuted for that and

[6:05:18] there is a fine but it's insignificant.

[6:05:22] Okay.

[6:05:23] Thank you.

[6:05:26] >> Good questions.

[6:05:28] >> Kevin, can I just ask one just came to

[6:05:31] mind the legal topic? So, someone

[6:05:33] earlier this evening asked about a I

[6:05:35] believe it was a lawsuit that Valition's

[6:05:36] currently involved in. Is that

[6:05:39] >> Oh, is it Bloom? Okay.

[6:05:41] >> I hadn't heard about that.

[6:05:44] There's uh when a company's public,

[6:05:48] you have shareholders,

[6:05:51] uh investors, it's not uncommon that um

[6:05:55] you know, there are entities that would

[6:05:56] benefit to see a stock decrease. So, you

[6:06:00] know, allegations don't always u mean

[6:06:03] that they're true. You know that. And so

[6:06:06] yeah, you can you can dig up litigation

[6:06:09] in various stages on pretty much any any

[6:06:12] public company.

[6:06:14] >> Landon, just to add to that, I did look

[6:06:16] into some of this.

[6:06:17] >> Yeah.

[6:06:17] >> A lot of the allegations that are being

[6:06:20] thrown out against Bloom are individuals

[6:06:23] that short stocks to try and

[6:06:26] >> Wow.

[6:06:27] >> to try and stock

[6:06:29] >> make money.

[6:06:30] >> Yeah. you try and put bad news out about about a business knowing that

[6:06:35] you shorted it with the intent of trying

[6:06:37] to make money off the stock market. So

[6:06:39] that's what I've researched with some of

[6:06:41] these should be

[6:06:42] >> I'm not saying whether it's true or not.

[6:06:43] I've not looked at the case. I don't

[6:06:45] know all the details just from the

[6:06:47] articles that I've read. Those are some

[6:06:49] things that have been pointed out

[6:06:50] >> that's what they're litigating. To be

[6:06:52] super clear, we're not even thinking

[6:06:54] about approving a technology that Jeff

[6:06:56] has to use, whether it's Bloom or Bloom

[6:06:59] 6 or whatever. We're going to give him

[6:07:02] some performance criteria he has to

[6:07:03] meet. We're going to hold him

[6:07:04] accountable that criteria and you're

[6:07:05] going to choose the technology you need

[6:07:07] to use.

[6:07:08] >> We should not be weighing in on the

[6:07:09] technology you should or should not use.

[6:07:11] >> Right.

[6:07:12] >> Yeah.

[6:07:13] >> But it's late.

[6:07:15] >> But you did get me nervous about some

[6:07:16] lawsuit against us that I didn't know

[6:07:18] about. I could have sworn somebody said

[6:07:20] it was against valition. I'm sorry to

[6:07:22] get you on the conversation.

[6:07:23] >> Yeah.

[6:07:24] >> I'm glad to hear that's not the case.

[6:07:25] >> Yes. Right.

[6:07:27] >> Thank you, Jeff. Appreciate you taking

[6:07:29] our questions here into the wee hours of

[6:07:31] the morning and and uh and and um the

[6:07:35] last three days or three days last week

[6:07:38] of taking questions and

[6:07:39] >> and we'll continue uh asking those

[6:07:41] questions and u appreciate your

[6:07:44] presentation tonight.

[6:07:45] >> So, it's late at night. You know how you

[6:07:46] get punchy, you know, late at night.

[6:07:48] Yeah.

[6:07:49] Um, if you want to know the PG-13

[6:07:54] number one online comment that was

[6:07:57] lobbed at us, I could share it, but it's

[6:07:59] it is PG-13.

[6:08:00] >> It's fascinating.

[6:08:01] >> We're all for it.

[6:08:03] >> I think there is no rating requirements

[6:08:06] after midnight.

[6:08:07] >> I'm seeing some seeing some shaking of

[6:08:09] heads over here like don't do it. Don't

[6:08:11] do it. You can tell us offline.

[6:08:16] >> Oh, you missed a good one. Okay, we'll

[6:08:17] do it later.

[6:08:19] >> We should remind you there are two other

[6:08:21] agenda items still. So, when these guys

[6:08:23] all get up and walk out, we still have

[6:08:24] at least two more items to deal with

[6:08:26] tonight.

[6:08:26] >> Good point.

[6:08:27] >> If there's someone here that wants to

[6:08:28] talk about parking and has sat through

[6:08:30] all of this,

[6:08:31] >> the parking,

[6:08:32] >> it's more the detached ADU and parking,

[6:08:35] but still. Yeah.

[6:08:37] >> We even have candy bars in our drawers.

[6:08:39] Does anyone need chocolate before you go

[6:08:41] home?

[6:08:42] >> It's 12:010.

[6:08:44] Everyone just go home.

[6:08:45] >> Chocolate.

[6:08:46] Okay. Um, we still have a couple of

[6:08:49] items as Seth pointed out on the agenda.

[6:08:52] >> So, we

[6:08:54] >> do we want to talk about

[6:08:56] >> No, we don't. But do we want to talk

[6:08:57] about how we get to some resolution on

[6:09:00] some title 15 stuff? Do you guys want to

[6:09:02] say,

[6:09:03] >> hey, did you

[6:09:05] >> six hours ago?

[6:09:06] >> I know you said we should talk about it,

[6:09:07] but did we talk about

[6:09:09] >> No, we haven't decided on what.

[6:09:10] >> So, do you want to do you want to give

[6:09:12] us a couple of you to come and sit down

[6:09:14] with staff? Do you want staff to just

[6:09:17] guess what's in your head? Uh, I'd

[6:09:19] rather

[6:09:19] >> I thought we said we're going to compile

[6:09:20] our notes and send it to somebody.

[6:09:22] >> You're going to compile your notes and

[6:09:23] send it to us by when

[6:09:25] >> that we did not talk about that.

[6:09:27] >> Our notes.

[6:09:28] >> Well, your thoughts. So, I think from

[6:09:31] the public's perspective and mine, if

[6:09:33] you're talking about concerns that you

[6:09:35] have with title 15,

[6:09:37] >> I think it would be helpful to know what

[6:09:39] those are.

[6:09:39] >> Yeah. So, one one of mine is is having a

[6:09:42] limit of two. I would rather just start

[6:09:44] with one and if we decide down the road

[6:09:46] it worked well then we can change it but

[6:09:49] I don't think we need to put two in the

[6:09:51] condition at this point.

[6:09:52] >> I will write down all my concerns with

[6:09:53] title 15 by which day would you want

[6:09:56] them by?

[6:09:56] >> Which day can you have them to

[6:09:58] >> all your concerns at title 15

[6:09:59] >> in all of my title concerns.

[6:10:01] >> That's a lot.

[6:10:02] >> That's a big document.

[6:10:03] >> I'd say 48 hours.

[6:10:05] >> Okay. Dave, will you

[6:10:07] >> So is that by Friday because it's

[6:10:09] Wednesday now.

[6:10:10] >> Okay.

[6:10:12] Send them to Dave and Von and me

[6:10:14] >> by the end of this week

[6:10:15] >> by Wow,

[6:10:17] >> it's it's Wednesday.

[6:10:19] >> Exactly.

[6:10:20] >> Monday A.M. is as good as Friday PM.

[6:10:23] >> That is true.

[6:10:24] >> Yeah. He's probably not looking at it

[6:10:26] Friday at 5. So by Monday.

[6:10:28] >> So Dave, Seth, and Von just send those

[6:10:30] to us. We can compile those and we'll

[6:10:32] give you we'll just put them together

[6:10:34] and you can start to see each other's

[6:10:36] comments. Okay.

[6:10:37] >> Deal. If we don't hear from you by

[6:10:40] Monday morning at 8 a.m. Tik Tok, the

[6:10:43] game's locked. Is that

[6:10:44] >> We're gonna have a conversation at

[6:10:45] That's right. another one up here.

[6:10:47] >> Okay. Thank you. We'll work with that.

[6:10:49] >> Do you uh

[6:10:52] Is it a requirement to to to table an

[6:10:55] issue like this? The public hearings

[6:10:57] done.

[6:10:59] >> Um

[6:11:00] >> Dave, you wanted you want a motion to

[6:11:01] table?

[6:11:01] >> I'm just used to that. Okay. So,

[6:11:03] >> all right. Motion to table till

[6:11:05] September one.

[6:11:06] >> Yeah. If you guys that is the next

[6:11:08] council meeting is September one.

[6:11:10] >> So if there's somebody that want would

[6:11:12] like to make a motion to that end that's

[6:11:15] the next time that we would talk in the

[6:11:18] public about this together.

[6:11:21] >> I'll move that we table agenda items

[6:11:25] item 7.3 ordinance to amend title 15

[6:11:30] >> motion.

[6:11:31] >> And do I need to state until when?

[6:11:32] >> Yeah state that day usually likes that.

[6:11:35] >> You don't have to. But just table and we

[6:11:37] put on the agenda.

[6:11:38] >> Okay.

[6:11:38] >> Motion made by Councilman Oiler.

[6:11:42] >> Second.

[6:11:42] by Councilman Tuk. Uh roll call

[6:11:45] vote here. Councilman Marshall?

[6:11:47] >> Yes.

[6:11:47] >> Councilwoman Beck. Councilman Oiler?

[6:11:49] Yes.

[6:11:49] >> Councilman Carden?

[6:11:51] >> Yes.

[6:11:51] >> And Councilman Tuk?

[6:11:52] >> Yes.

[6:11:53] >> Okay. Item 7.3 is tabled. Thank you.

[6:11:58] >> Dave, you're taking us back to 7.1.

[6:12:00] >> Detached accessory dwelling units.

[6:12:04] >> That's it.

[6:12:06] state law changed with the last

[6:12:08] legislative session. So, we need to make

[6:12:11] one slight change to title 15 relative

[6:12:14] to uh the parking that's required for

[6:12:17] small detached accessory dwelling units

[6:12:20] or properties with small detached

[6:12:23] accessory dwelling units. The proposed

[6:12:25] change would would do that and bring us

[6:12:27] into conformity with state code. Uh both

[6:12:31] the development review committee and

[6:12:32] planning commission have recommended

[6:12:33] this that this be approved. Cities have

[6:12:35] until the 1 of October of this year to

[6:12:38] bring their zoning codes into compliance

[6:12:40] with this. So if you act on it tonight,

[6:12:42] we'll be well ahead of that deadline.

[6:12:45] >> Questions for Dave before public hearing

[6:12:47] for something that we have to clean up

[6:12:49] for state code?

[6:12:52] Okay. If there's not, I'd entertain a

[6:12:53] motion to go into public hearing for

[6:12:54] 7.1.

[6:12:56] >> So moved.

[6:12:57] >> Motion made by Councilman Carden.

[6:12:59] Second.

[6:13:00] >> Second by Councilman Tuk. All in favor

[6:13:02] say yes.

[6:13:02] >> Yes.

[6:13:03] >> We're in public hearing for 7.1 title 15

[6:13:05] modifying the parking requirements for

[6:13:08] ADUs smaller than 650 ft. Anybody from

[6:13:11] the public that would like to speak to

[6:13:13] this item? Seeing none, I'd entertain a

[6:13:15] motion to go out of public hearing.

[6:13:17] >> So moved.

[6:13:18] >> Motion made by Councilman Marshall.

[6:13:20] >> Second by Councilwoman Beck. All in

[6:13:22] favor say yes.

[6:13:23] >> Yes.

[6:13:24] >> Discussion back up here. Anybody want to

[6:13:26] take a stab at

[6:13:29] questions, comments, or a

[6:13:32] uh proposal for 7.1

[6:13:36] to approve the ordinance to amend title

[6:13:37] 15 to change requirements of detach

[6:13:39] accessory dwelling units.

[6:13:40] >> Motion made by Councilman Carden.

[6:13:42] >> Second.

[6:13:43] by Councilman Marshall. Roll call

[6:13:45] vote. Councilwoman Beck. Yes. Councilman

[6:13:47] Oiler. Yes. Councilman Carden. Yes.

[6:13:49] Councilman Tuk. Yes. And Councilman

[6:13:51] Marshall.

[6:13:51] >> Yes.

[6:13:52] >> 7.1 is approved.

[6:13:54] takes us to new business of our agenda.

[6:13:57] Uh interlocal cooperation agreement for

[6:13:59] building inspection and plan review

[6:14:01] services. This has to do well. Where's

[6:14:04] the Mapleton City? Do we have any

[6:14:05] Mapleton folks that hung about? This is

[6:14:08] left

[6:14:10] >> at the request of Mapleton City.

[6:14:13] >> Exactly. Yes. Uh Mapleton City

[6:14:15] approached our building official a few

[6:14:16] months ago. uh and he John Little has

[6:14:20] worked with um our colleagues in

[6:14:22] Mapleton.

[6:14:24] Van I believe your office has looked

[6:14:26] this agreement over um and in short it

[6:14:29] sets forth provisions that would allow

[6:14:31] our inspectors to do inspections in

[6:14:33] Mapleton and conceivably vice versa. Um

[6:14:36] provided that uh communities are

[6:14:39] compensated

[6:14:40] uh in accordance with the agreement. Uh

[6:14:43] we are required by state law to have

[6:14:47] multiple different options for

[6:14:52] uh certified inspectors to perform

[6:14:54] building inspections in Spanish Fork. We

[6:14:58] haven't used those options very often in

[6:15:01] recent years. Typically cities will have

[6:15:03] contracts with uh private contractors

[6:15:06] and that sort of a thing as we do but

[6:15:08] also occasionally they will have

[6:15:11] interlocal agreements like this to have

[6:15:14] u that type of resource available should

[6:15:17] it be needed for any reason. I think the

[6:15:19] motivation there is to simply make sure

[6:15:21] that um there's not an impediment to

[6:15:24] inspections being performed

[6:15:27] um with immediiacy as they're needed as

[6:15:31] things are being built.

[6:15:34] >> They've cities helping cities.

[6:15:37] >> I love the city's help and see you. I

[6:15:39] think that's awesome. There are two

[6:15:40] private contractors that also perform

[6:15:42] the service for Spanish city. How does

[6:15:45] the distribution of the service work?

[6:15:48] Who who decides who gets called? Is it a

[6:15:52] list? Is it rotating? Um,

[6:15:55] do we not use it enough to know?

[6:15:59] >> We haven't used so, excuse me, Sunrise

[6:16:02] Engineering and Shums Kota,

[6:16:06] we have not used them that I'm aware of

[6:16:08] ever. So, we have contracts in place

[6:16:11] with them because the state requires us

[6:16:14] to have an arrangement with three. Uh

[6:16:17] it's coincidental Germaine to the

[6:16:19] discussion though that uh the third

[6:16:22] party that we contracted with that we

[6:16:25] did use very regularly, you guys know

[6:16:28] Chris Winson, I think probably a lot of

[6:16:31] you.

[6:16:31] >> Um he was our go-to and we would use him

[6:16:36] for probably a few hundred hours a year

[6:16:38] and had pretty consistently over the

[6:16:40] course of the past I would say 12 or 13

[6:16:44] years. he is now the building official

[6:16:47] in Mapleton. So, he is no longer

[6:16:50] available for us as that resource that

[6:16:52] we'd used him so much for. Um, so that

[6:16:55] partly is why now we have this

[6:16:57] agreement.

[6:16:58] >> Yeah.

[6:17:00] uh you might want to think about a

[6:17:02] process to put in writing that says

[6:17:05] we're going to rotate through here or

[6:17:07] Mapleton's our first call and then we'll

[6:17:09] rotate the two private just to make sure

[6:17:11] that no one's going to say, "Hey, so and

[6:17:13] so only picks X."

[6:17:16] >> That's a great thought. Um our building

[6:17:18] inspections, frankly, they're starting

[6:17:20] to pick back up after having had kind of

[6:17:22] a loft for the last 18 months or so. Um,

[6:17:26] I think that that's that's a timely

[6:17:28] suggestion. Okay.

[6:17:32] » You want to make that suggestion in a

[6:17:34] motion or are you that worried about it?

[6:17:36] >> If if staff says they're going to write

[6:17:38] a policy or process in place, I'm fine

[6:17:40] with it.

[6:17:42] >> Okay.

[6:17:42] >> We don't it's going to end up being

[6:17:44] somebody, right, that isn't trying to do

[6:17:47] anything that's going to get accused of

[6:17:48] it. So, I think to protect our

[6:17:50] employees, put something in place they

[6:17:51] can follow.

[6:17:52] >> They don't all charge the same. I will

[6:17:54] say that. So, by way of our go-tos, that

[6:17:58] has a lot to do with that decision. So,

[6:18:01] >> I would bet that the contract mechanism

[6:18:03] didn't say we're going to pick the

[6:18:05] cheapest one.

[6:18:07] >> So, just write something down. This is

[6:18:09] the process we're going to do.

[6:18:10] >> And and maybe for not necessarily what

[6:18:13] you're saying, but for the public that

[6:18:15] eventually watches this part of the

[6:18:17] meeting.

[6:18:19] Um,

[6:18:21] we have to have these because if we

[6:18:23] don't get to a an inspection within 72

[6:18:26] hours, then then we can pull the rip

[6:18:28] cord or the the builder can.

[6:18:30] >> Uh, our policy is to do to do

[6:18:32] inspections. Uh, we get it within 24

[6:18:35] hours except for on a weekend and maybe

[6:18:38] that is then, you know, if you call on Friday, you may not have the

[6:18:42] inspection till the next business day,

[6:18:44] which is Monday. Uh I think you've most

[6:18:46] often used that individual you mentioned

[6:18:48] when we have two of our inspectors that

[6:18:51] go on vacation at a time and so then you

[6:18:53] have that hold. So I think that's the

[6:18:54] window of time where we would use

[6:18:56] >> frankly I would say taking what Shane is

[6:18:58] saying I would say to you let's

[6:19:00] >> let's use this one and see how they do

[6:19:04] and let's use that one and see how they

[6:19:06] do like we need to

[6:19:07] >> if there's a there's some performance

[6:19:08] criteria in the contracts. Absolutely.

[6:19:10] That's

[6:19:10] >> we want to know how they see our code

[6:19:11] and how they call the code.

[6:19:12] >> Sure.

[6:19:12] >> Yeah. I think the having them on call

[6:19:15] like that is really important.

[6:19:17] Otherwise, we'd be hiring a third person

[6:19:18] or whatever to have on staff and we'd be

[6:19:21] over staffed. So, this is a perfect way

[6:19:22] of handling the the issue

[6:19:24] >> to just make it fair and and transparent

[6:19:27] so that we all know how they're getting

[6:19:28] selected.

[6:19:30] >> We'll do.

[6:19:31] >> Good stuff. Thank you, David.

[6:19:33] >> Great for that.

[6:19:34] >> Thank you.

[6:19:35] >> Uh I would uh entertain a motion for

[6:19:38] item

[6:19:40] Jeez, sorry, guys.

[6:19:42] 8

[6:19:42] >> 8.1

[6:19:43] >> is it just 8

[6:19:44] >> 81 8.1

[6:19:46] >> new business 8.1 I would to entertain a

[6:19:48] motion

[6:19:49] >> I move to approve the interlocal

[6:19:50] cooperation agreement for building

[6:19:52] inspection and plan reuse services

[6:19:54] >> motion made by Councilman Marshall

[6:19:56] >> second by Councilman Carden a roll call

[6:19:59] vote here Councilman Tuk yes

[6:20:01] >> Councilman Carden Oiler yes

[6:20:03] >> Councilwoman Beck

[6:20:04] >> yes

[6:20:04] >> Councilman Marshall

[6:20:05] >> yes

[6:20:06] >> that's approved

[6:20:08] are we adjourning to close session we

[6:20:09] are not adjourning to close session we

[6:20:11] are adjourning ing council meeting. I

[6:20:13] would entertain a motion to adjurnn.

[6:20:15] >> So moved.

[6:20:16] >> Motion made by Councilman Carden.

[6:20:17] >> Second by Councilman Tuk. All in favor

[6:20:19] say yes. Yes. We're adjourned. Thank you

[6:20:22] all for joining

Spanish Fork City Council - August 18, 2026

Transcript