[0:00] Okay, we're getting the thumbs up. Uh,

[0:02] thank you everybody for joining us in

[0:04] uh, city council meeting in Spanish

[0:06] Fork. Uh, thank you everybody for

[0:08] joining us in person and everybody

[0:10] joining online wherever you may be in

[0:12] the world. Uh, we've uh, we've been 20

[0:15] years or so in uh, in meetings carried

[0:18] live on on YouTube and recorded. So, we

[0:21] appreciate everybody watching wherever

[0:23] they watch from if it's if it's not

[0:25] here. But, we appreciate you all being

[0:26] here, too. Thank you. Um, we'll get

[0:28] started like we always do in Spanish

[0:30] Fork with a prayer and the pledge of

[0:32] allegiance. Uh, tonight we have

[0:34] Councilman Carden giving us the prayer

[0:37] and motivational message and then

[0:38] Councilwoman Beck will lead us in the

[0:40] pledge. No motiv motivate Oh, I can't

[0:43] speak. Motivational message, but just a

[0:45] prayer. So,

[0:47] our father in heaven, we are grateful to

[0:49] be gathered together together uh today

[0:51] in these chambers. We're thankful,

[0:53] Father, for the city of Spanish Fork

[0:55] that we get to live in in the the United

[0:57] States. We are so thankful, Father, for

[1:00] those who serve so diligently, our city,

[1:02] um our police, our fire, our EMS, who

[1:05] give of themselves, um take away from

[1:07] their time with their family to serve

[1:09] our great community. We're thankful,

[1:11] Father, for those in our community that

[1:13] serve and those that are here tonight to

[1:15] be a part of this great process. We ask

[1:18] the father to please bless us with clear

[1:19] minds and clear thoughts that we may be

[1:22] able to discuss the needs of the city

[1:23] and to do the business of the city. We

[1:25] ask father to please bless us with um

[1:27] guidance as we do so. And please

[1:30] heavenly father bless those um in our

[1:32] city that do give of themselves. And we

[1:35] say this in the name of Jesus Christ.

[1:36] Amen.

[1:36] >> Amen.

[1:37] >> Please stand and repeat the pledge after

[1:39] me.

[1:42] I aliance to the flag of the United

[1:46] States of America and to the republic

[1:49] for which it stands. One nation under

[1:52] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:55] justice for all.

[1:57] >> Thank you.

[1:59] Councilman Carden. Thank you,

[2:01] Councilwoman Beck. Okay, item three on

[2:03] the agenda. We have uh a couple of oath

[2:06] of offices to take place. Chief Johnson

[2:10] will get us started with those.

[2:15] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the

[2:17] city council, members of our community.

[2:20] Tonight, I am introducing three

[2:22] individuals who have answered a noble

[2:24] call to service. To wear this badge

[2:26] requires far more than physical strength

[2:28] or tactical skill. It demands unwavering

[2:31] integrity, deep empathy, and the

[2:33] resilience to bring calm to chaos. The

[2:36] badge we bestow tonight is a symbol of

[2:38] immense public trust. The people of our

[2:40] city hand these officers the

[2:42] responsibility to safeguard safeguard

[2:44] their rights, their safety and their

[2:46] dignity. That trust is not given

[2:48] lightly, nor is it permanent. It must be

[2:51] earned with every call, every

[2:53] conversation, and every decision made on

[2:56] duty. I have full confidence that these

[2:58] three officers possess the character,

[3:00] courage, and dedication necessary to

[3:03] carry this weight and serve our city

[3:05] with honor. It is my privilege to

[3:07] present them to you tonight for their

[3:09] oath of office. Would officer Hager

[3:12] please come forward, Officer Cox and

[3:15] Officer Thacker.

[3:24] So to my right is officer Hyram Cox. Uh

[3:28] he just graduated from the police

[3:29] academy on August 14th. Uh prior to his

[3:33] employment with the city, he was in the

[3:35] private sector in the financial

[3:37] industry.

[3:38] To my left is officer Jacob Hager. He

[3:41] has eight years experience with the

[3:43] American Fork Police Department. And

[3:46] then we have off officer Nicholas

[3:48] Thacker and he graduated from the police

[3:50] academy on the 14th as well. He's a

[3:53] member of the Utah National Guard and he

[3:56] was employed with the Utah Transit

[3:58] Authority as a body shop technician. But

[4:01] all three officers are on in the field

[4:03] training process. It's been fun to watch

[4:06] in the last couple weeks. I've had the

[4:08] opportunity to respond on a few calls

[4:10] with them and just see the enthusiasm

[4:13] and the dedication that they have to our

[4:16] community and the desire to serve. But I

[4:19] just want to highlight to uh their

[4:20] family members here this evening and if

[4:23] they choose to introduce them they may

[4:24] do that. But uh they have a great

[4:27] support system here tonight with

[4:29] spouses, fiances, uh parents and

[4:33] children as well. But I just want to

[4:36] tell their families uh we do appreciate

[4:38] that and welcome to the Spanish Fork

[4:41] Police Department family and we're

[4:42] excited to have them. So with that being

[4:44] said, Mr. Mayor, I will let you

[4:46] administer the oath of office.

[4:48] >> Perfect. Anybody have any questions for

[4:50] these officers before I administer the

[4:53] oath?

[4:53] >> I'm just glad this many people turned

[4:55] out to watch them get sworn this

[4:56] morning.

[4:56] >> Yes, that's good. That's a lot of people

[4:57] that don't want to get pulled over and

[5:00] get tickets. I guess they come to it.

[5:02] >> Okay. Welcome to Spanish Fort.

[5:04] >> Yeah, be prepared. We might uh have you

[5:07] after we do this uh introduce maybe your families that are here. We know

[5:10] this uh it's like chief has always said,

[5:12] this is not an individual thing, but

[5:14] it's usually a family and extended

[5:16] family that supports you in this role.

[5:19] And so, uh we sure appreciate that as

[5:22] the mayor and council, but the whole

[5:23] community recognizes that, too. So,

[5:25] thank you guys. Be ready for those

[5:27] questions after we do the oath.

[5:42] Okay. So,

[5:50] » okay. So, when I say I, I'm going to

[5:53] start here and you don't say state your

[5:55] name. You you say your your real name

[5:58] and then you say your name. you say your

[6:00] name and then we'll go through the rest

[6:01] all together. Okay,

[6:03] >> sound good?

[6:04] >> All right, raise your right arm to the

[6:06] square. I

[6:12] >> do solemnly swear

[6:14] >> that I will to the best of my ability

[6:18] >> and with the highest level of integrity

[6:23] >> serve the people of Spanish Fork City

[6:27] >> and preserve protect and defend

[6:32] >> the Constitution of the United States

[6:36] >> and the Constitution of the state of

[6:37] Utah

[6:38] >> and the Constitution of the State of

[6:40] Utah.

[6:40] >> Congratulations.

[6:55] » Point them out.

[6:56] >> Sure.

[6:57] >> All right. Well, thank you guys for the

[6:58] opportunity. I'm Hyram Cox. My family is

[7:01] right over here. That's my wife, Leah.

[7:04] And we have our two kids here, Emma and

[7:06] William, who are 18 months and three

[7:09] months old.

[7:10] >> That's awesome.

[7:18] » Also, thanks for the opportunity. Um,

[7:21] this is my family over here. My wife

[7:22] McKenzie and

[7:24] just five of these kids [laughter] here

[7:27] are mine.

[7:29] And I have Ledger and James and William

[7:31] and Satie. And then Violet's the baby.

[7:36] >> Oh, and my parents right there. I I

[7:38] wouldn't I wouldn't I wouldn't be here

[7:40] if it wasn't for them. So, [laughter]

[7:44] and I've got a sister and I've got

[7:45] friends in the back and so lots of

[7:48] people.

[7:48] >> Welcome.

[7:49] >> Thank you.

[7:54] » Yeah. Just like them, I'd like to take

[7:56] the opportunity to say thank you. Thank

[7:57] you for allowing me to serve the city of

[7:59] Spanish Fork. This is where I grew up.

[8:00] So, I really appreciate it. In the far

[8:02] back over there, we have those are my

[8:05] parents, mom and dad, my fiance's

[8:07] between them, and then my in-laws just

[8:09] to the

[8:17] [clears throat]

[8:29] » Thank you.

[8:30] guys. Appreciate it. Thank

[8:32] you.

[8:35] » Anyone Pete, you're going to do pictures

[8:38] out there for them or in here with their

[8:41] families?

[8:42] >> Out there. Okay, perfect. [snorts]

[8:45] >> Okay, very good. Thank you. Welcome

[8:48] officers and and welcome to your to your

[8:51] families. Again, it's uh it's not lost

[8:53] on us. It's not lost on this community

[8:55] that it's a it's an effort. So, thank

[8:57] you. Thank you all you guys and and the

[8:59] support you give your you give your

[9:01] officers. Um takes us to another

[9:04] recognition uh that we're excited about

[9:06] tonight. Um

[9:08] Chief or is is Chief doing this one? Is

[9:11] >> Chief H?

[9:12] >> Chief Hails. Yes. Our other chief Chief

[9:14] Eddie Hails is uh going to introduce

[9:17] this recognition portion of the meeting.

[9:21] Mayor, council, thanks for the

[9:22] opportunity to recognize one of our

[9:25] community members for something heroic

[9:27] that they did uh in the month of July.

[9:30] Uh I want to if they can just come

[9:32] forward, I want to bring Kenny Parcell

[9:34] forward. This recognition is for him,

[9:37] but I also want to bring the um Jana and

[9:41] the Pepper family, Jana and Joe Pepper

[9:43] and their family up here as well because

[9:45] this was impactful to their family.

[9:48] I'll I'll just share with you the story

[9:50] if you guys just want to stand up here

[9:51] to the left. Um

[9:54] on the morning of July 13th, uh around

[9:57] 7:15 7:30 in the morning, uh Kenny was

[10:01] uh out and about and uh driving and saw

[10:04] a big black column of smoke coming from

[10:07] down in the riverbottoms neighborhood uh

[10:09] of Spanish Fork and uh he thought it was

[10:12] a wildland fire. And so as uh he was

[10:16] looking at it, he decided to drive down

[10:17] that way to make sure that uh people

[10:20] were out of the area. And when he

[10:21] arrived, he found that it was the pepper

[10:23] home that was on fire. And uh the whole

[10:26] entire back of the house is on fire. I

[10:28] wish I had a picture to show it, but it

[10:30] was uh an outside cooking area that had

[10:32] extended up into the house. Uh by the

[10:35] time that Kenny had arrived, uh Joe and

[10:38] Jana were not home. Uh these two young

[10:41] ladies were were at home and they had

[10:44] working smoke detectors, but as most

[10:47] teenagers sometimes don't necessarily

[10:49] hear everything, they might not have

[10:51] heard the smoke detector in the manner

[10:53] that they should have been alerted to.

[10:56] And thankful for this gentleman here to

[10:58] the right of me, Kenny, on uh

[11:00] recognizing the fact that no one was

[11:02] outside. And uh so he went to make sure

[11:04] everybody was out. Uh Kenny opened the

[11:07] door, saw a dog running around uh in the

[11:10] living room and uh decided to yell out

[11:13] and make his way to the floor up upper

[11:15] floor. And that's when he found which

[11:17] one of you? You and your uh your he he

[11:20] let what was your name?

[11:22] >> Chloe.

[11:22] No, your house is on fire. You

[11:24] need to get out. And that you got a

[11:26] picture of this there's smoke filling

[11:28] the home. Uh so Khloe uh started moving

[11:32] out and Kenny asked, "Is there anyone

[11:34] else in here?" And that's when you said,

[11:35] "My sister's in that room right there."

[11:38] So Kenny went in and proceeded to help

[11:40] get your sister out and your name

[11:42] >> Aubrey.

[11:43] And as they were getting outside

[11:46] of the house, uh Kenny said, "Is there

[11:47] anyone else in there?" And they said,

[11:48] "Our dog." And so he uh took a deep

[11:52] breath of air and uh went back inside

[11:54] and and was able to pull this big dog

[11:56] kennel out and bring out to safety prior

[11:59] to fire, EMS, and police arriving.

[12:02] Uh what a heroic thing that Kenny did.

[12:05] Um he didn't have to do that. Uh in

[12:07] fact, as a fire department, we don't

[12:09] encourage folks to go into into burning

[12:12] buildings. Uh in fact, we are very

[12:15] strictly uh against that in in many

[12:18] ways. And so we do not encourage you to

[12:21] ever go into a burning home. But Kenny

[12:22] took it upon himself knowing that what

[12:24] there was a potential life to be saved

[12:26] and uh went inside and and put his uh

[12:30] own life aside for the lives of these

[12:32] two young ladies and their family dog.

[12:34] Uh

[12:36] his willingness to act quickly shows

[12:38] that we have good people in our

[12:40] community and uh if it weren't for

[12:43] Kenny, we would probably be having a

[12:44] different story in Spanish Fork. um

[12:47] probably that evening of July 13th when

[12:51] uh a catastrophic story could have come

[12:52] out that a family lost two children in a

[12:55] fire. Um but because of Kenny's quick

[12:57] action and his willingness to step into

[13:01] a harm's way, putting his own life aside

[13:03] to save these two young ladies and their

[13:05] family dog truly shows his heroic um

[13:09] demeanor and who he is as a person. So,

[13:12] on behalf of the fire and EMS

[13:13] department, I just wanted to uh reward

[13:18] uh Mr. Parcell with a life-saving award

[13:20] from our department and thanks for his

[13:22] heroic effort in saving uh these two

[13:24] young ladies life in a in a tragic uh

[13:27] fire that we had on that day of July

[13:29] 13th.

[13:47] the time over. I I know uh Joe has a few

[13:50] things to say and I'd like to Kenny to

[13:52] share a few thoughts as well and then we

[13:54] can get a picture but uh to share their

[13:56] experience and their maybe their thinks

[13:57] as well. Joe

[14:08] I'm glad I'm glad that I get to go

[14:09] before Kenny.

[14:11] Um, may our city council, I appreciate

[14:13] the opportunity to be here today. Um, my

[14:17] wife let me know that the fire chief

[14:18] reached out to let us know that we'd be

[14:20] recognizing Kenny today and that I had

[14:23] been invited to say a few things.

[14:25] Uh I know the invitation to say

[14:27] something was actually directed at her

[14:28] since she took the phone call and she

[14:30] passed the responsibility to me. I am

[14:33] grateful that I am facing this way as I

[14:37] go through my comments. A lot of this is

[14:39] has been said but if I try and adjust on

[14:41] the fly uh it won't come out right. So,

[14:44] [clears throat]

[14:48] prior to the morning

[14:51] of July 13th, Kenny and I did not know

[14:54] each other. We have many mutual friends,

[14:57] but our path had never crossed. As he

[14:59] drove down Main Street on his way home,

[15:01] he took the time to act on a feeling. As

[15:03] he detoured, he had no idea the impact

[15:05] that he was about to have on our family.

[15:08] He followed smoke to what he thought

[15:09] would was a brush fire, thinking that he

[15:11] could help do something until the fire

[15:13] department showed up. When he got to the

[15:14] source of the fire, source of the smoke,

[15:17] he found more than he expected or

[15:19] bargained for. In [clears throat] a

[15:20] selfless act, he literally ran into a

[15:22] burning building without any knowledge

[15:24] of who lived there and what he might

[15:26] find. What he had found

[15:29] was a home where the parents weren't

[15:30] home and had two sleeping teenagers. He

[15:34] met Aubrey in the basement and helped

[15:35] her get out and then helped Khloe who

[15:37] was upstairs. Once they were both safe,

[15:39] he gathered the courage to go back in

[15:42] one more time for the family dog. Kenny

[15:44] put his own safety at risk to help an

[15:46] unknown family in their time of need. If

[15:48] Kenny could not would have not have

[15:50] reacted when and how he did, the story

[15:52] could have had a much different and very

[15:54] sad ending. In the days following the

[15:57] fire, my wife and I spent several

[15:58] sleepless nights as the thoughts of what

[16:00] if bounced around our head.

[16:03] Whenever someone asks about the fire, I

[16:05] tell them the story. 95% of the time,

[16:08] they say they know Kenny and talk about

[16:10] what a stand-up guy he is. I'm forever

[16:12] grateful for Kenny and for him being a

[16:14] stand-up guy. Kenny and I continue to

[16:17] stay in contact since that day, and I'm

[16:19] happy to now say that I know Kenny.

[16:22] I would also like to thank the men and

[16:23] women of the 13 responding units that

[16:25] were dispatched to the call. Although it

[16:27] will be another 11 months before we were

[16:29] able to return to our home, their quick

[16:31] response limited a majority of the

[16:32] damage to smoke and water rather than a

[16:34] complete loss of the structure. Within

[16:36] the chaos of that morning, one member of

[16:38] the fire department was alerted enough

[16:39] to remove our wedding picture from the

[16:41] wall of our bedroom and place it safely

[16:43] on the front porch. We are blessed to be

[16:45] able to say that through all this, we

[16:47] didn't lose anything that was

[16:48] unreplaceable, especially our daughters.

[16:50] Again, would like to thank first

[16:52] responders and especially Kenny for all

[16:54] that they did that morning. Thank you.

[17:04] I'll be brief. The funny thing was the

[17:06] oldest when I met her at the door, she

[17:08] said, "Uh, do I grab my clothes?" And,

[17:11] uh, thank goodness the video wasn't on

[17:13] because I think I said a bad word. No,

[17:15] you're not going to take the [laughter]

[17:16] clothes. But the fun thing is the black

[17:18] lab that was following me around and

[17:20] when we got them out, I asked them if

[17:22] there was anybody else in the home or

[17:23] any pets and they said, "Yes, we have

[17:25] one more dog." So, it was two dogs and

[17:27] they said, "It's in a crate." And I

[17:29] said, "Where?" And they said, "In the

[17:31] living room." And so, I did take a big

[17:33] gasp of air and went back in to grab the

[17:35] dog crate. But the funnest thing for as

[17:38] you look back is just to see when the

[17:41] fire department came and uh the peppers

[17:44] showed up and embraced their children.

[17:47] It was pretty special. Um, we have a

[17:49] mutual friend, Matt Christensen, that

[17:51] was talking to him and the funny fun

[17:54] thing was is when he said, "And this

[17:56] bald angel showed up and then he just

[17:58] disappeared." So, I'll be just known as

[17:59] the bald angel. [laughter] Thank you.

[18:02] >> Thank you.

[18:25] » [clears throat]

[18:31] » Thank you. If you want to go outside,

[18:32] I'll take a picture. Thank you.

[18:42] [clears throat]

[18:43] >> Kind of your neighborhood there,

[18:45] Councilman Oiler.

[18:46] >> Yeah, it is. I was at the Fit City Fit

[18:49] City Center and just as I got home, I

[18:52] saw the [snorts] the notice on my phone

[18:55] that there was a fire in my

[18:56] neighborhood. So, I went to find out

[18:58] where it was and found all our first

[19:01] responders there taking care of

[19:03] business. It like like Kenny said, it

[19:05] was amazing thing to see all of the

[19:07] neighborhood that came out to support

[19:09] this family.

[19:12] >> Yeah, I remember I immediately started

[19:13] getting texts from your neighborhood and

[19:15] said, "Hey, there's a there's a hero in

[19:17] this neighborhood." And before details

[19:19] were known, but um what a hero. So,

[19:23] >> good work. and uh and that's what uh

[19:26] that's what our city's about. So,

[19:29] okay. Um

[19:32] good recognitions to always start out a

[19:34] council meeting. Um I'm I'm going to uh

[19:37] we've got some folks from the Harvest

[19:39] Moon Harrah and the wings and wills that

[19:42] might be a little bit quicker than the

[19:44] public comment section that we have

[19:46] tonight. And so, if they're ready, I see

[19:48] Emily there. Emily, could you do the

[19:51] Harvest Moon Harrah 101 and then we'll

[19:53] go to the Wings and Wheels 101 and and

[19:56] then we'll go to public comments after

[19:57] that.

[19:58] >> Thank you for having me here today. I'm

[20:00] Emily Haramman, Spanish Fork City

[20:03] Special Event Supervisor. I am here on

[20:05] behalf of the Art Council to let you

[20:07] know that next Friday is the Harvest

[20:10] Moon Harrah at the city park. Um, it

[20:13] will be on September 11th from 5 to 8:00

[20:16] PM. Um, some of you may remember Harvest

[20:19] Moonh Harra used to be held on

[20:21] Saturdays, but Saturdays are so busy

[20:23] this time of the year. So, last year we

[20:25] moved to Friday night and our attendance

[20:28] doubled. Uh, so we hope you can see us

[20:30] Friday night. Uh, we will be having all

[20:33] sorts of games for the kids, uh, which

[20:35] are free. Uh, we'll have several vendor

[20:37] booths there. We'll have our food trucks

[20:40] which are part of our normal Friday

[20:41] night food truck. Uh we'll have the

[20:43] Spanish Fort Corral will be performing

[20:46] at 5:00 and then our headline band um

[20:50] Monkey Friday will be at 5:30 and we

[20:53] just hope you can come and celebrate

[20:55] with us as we kick off Harvest Moon.

[20:58] Harrah.

[21:00] >> Questions for Emily. This is uh always a

[21:04] gets bigger every year, just doesn't it?

[21:06] uh with this.

[21:08] >> Who's who's over that section? You.

[21:11] >> I am.

[21:11] >> Jesse.

[21:12] >> Councilman Carden. You got it taken care

[21:14] of.

[21:14] >> I don't. Emily does. But [laughter]

[21:17] >> no, the arts council does a great job.

[21:18] It's going to be great.

[21:20] >> Well, I one thing Jesse didn't mention

[21:22] is we decided to come up with a really

[21:24] cool theme this year just because it is

[21:26] the 25th anniversary of September 11th.

[21:29] And so Jesse helped us at our last

[21:31] meeting. Um the theme of the event is

[21:33] Star, Stripes, and Harvest Nights. Cool.

[21:36] >> Thank you, Jesse, for doing that.

[21:39] >> Very good. But, uh, you got a lot of

[21:41] volunteers that make this work as well.

[21:43] >> We do. Yes. The art council, uh,

[21:45] themselves are all volunteers. And then

[21:47] we have several volunteers that will be

[21:49] doing face painting, games for the kids,

[21:52] uh, which is I would say probably close

[21:54] to 100 volunteers will be out there. And

[21:56] you'll see us all in our really cool um,

[21:59] harvest moon shirts. So, you won't miss

[22:02] us.

[22:02] >> Very cool. as if uh fiesta days you

[22:06] didn't run into enough volunteers. You

[22:07] can run into more volunteers uh every

[22:09] year in September and so very good

[22:12] stuff.

[22:12] >> Yes. Uh September is actually a really

[22:14] big busy month for a special event. Um

[22:17] not only do we have our harvest moon

[22:18] Harra, but in a moment you'll hear from

[22:20] Christian Davis uh with Wings and

[22:22] Wheels. Uh that is one of our other

[22:24] events where we have spots for 300

[22:27] volunteers and it's a great opportunity

[22:30] for people in the community to come out

[22:32] and volunteer at the air show.

[22:35] >> Just getting bigger and bigger, too.

[22:36] >> Yes.

[22:36] >> Thank you, Emily. Good information.

[22:38] >> Thanks, Emily. Appreciate it.

[22:41] >> Yeah, we can clap for the harvest.

[22:45] » I don't know if Christian's getting an

[22:46] applause, but

[22:47] >> uh hopefully not. Mayor and council,

[22:49] good to be back. Another year, another

[22:51] wings and wills. Um, I'll wait while

[22:53] this gets pulled up. Um, for your

[22:56] information, Wings and Wheels is the

[22:57] largest annual air show in Utah. So,

[22:59] we've grown it over the last 10 years

[23:01] from maybe a few hundred uh people from

[23:03] our local community to come out and just

[23:05] see the airport and see some planes

[23:07] there to this awesome uh almost

[23:09] nationally recognized really fast

[23:11] growing air show. So, it's really

[23:13] awesome. Um, here's our event logo for

[23:15] the year. This will be on all of our

[23:17] event merchandise for sale at the event.

[23:19] We'll also have this for sale in advance

[23:21] on our air show website at some point

[23:23] later this week. So, if you love the

[23:25] logo, grab a a hoodie, shirt, or hat.

[23:28] Uh, next slide, please. Um, the event is

[23:32] September 26th, uh, from 9:00 a.m. to 4

[23:34] pm. Uh, for tickets and anything related

[23:36] to the show, schedule, event maps,

[23:39] things like that, visit

[23:40] spfork.gov/airshow.

[23:42] As a reminder to the community,

[23:44] purchasing your tickets online and in

[23:46] advance is cheaper. Um, if you purchase

[23:48] a ticket at the gate, it is $5 more

[23:50] expensive. So, we encourage you to

[23:52] purchase online in advance and get

[23:54] through the gate faster and into the

[23:56] event.

[23:56] >> There's a line if you don't if you don't

[23:58] buy. There's a line.

[24:00] >> Yeah.

[24:02] >> Credit card only as well. So, we're not

[24:03] accepting cash this year. So, please

[24:05] have your cards ready.

[24:06] >> Um, featured aircraft at the event this

[24:08] year. We will have the United States Air

[24:10] Force Wings of Blue uh jumping out of a Twin Otter aircraft. They'll have a 10

[24:15] to 12 person jump team and they'll do,

[24:18] you know, some really awesome things

[24:19] with their parachutes as they skydive.

[24:21] Um, we have an aircraft called the

[24:22] Privateier. It's the second from the

[24:24] top. Um, out of 739 built during World

[24:27] War II, it's the last one that is flying

[24:29] today. Um, so really unique aircraft to

[24:31] have at our event. Um, we'll have a B7

[24:34] flying fortress. Um, out of over 12,000

[24:37] built, there's three left flying today.

[24:39] So really iconic aircraft, part of

[24:41] aviation history and really American

[24:43] history that'll be right here in Spanish

[24:44] Fork. And then lastly, we'll have what's

[24:46] called a PBJ Mitchell, the Navy variant

[24:49] of a B24 Mitchell. Um there were 706

[24:52] built of this variant, and there's one

[24:54] flying today that will be at the event.

[24:56] So really a unique event with

[24:58] one-of-a-kind remaining airworthy

[25:00] aircraft that come here to Spanish Fork.

[25:03] Excellent. Um in conclusion, mark your

[25:06] calendar. Again, this is September 26th

[25:08] at the Spanish Fork Airport. Uh Emily

[25:10] mentioned volunteering. Um we have a lot

[25:13] of volunteer slots available. Volunteers

[25:15] work a 4-hour shift at the event. They

[25:17] get a meal and a free t-shirt. So, we

[25:18] encourage you to volunteer if you want

[25:20] to get into the event for free and and

[25:22] help our air showing community. And then

[25:24] promote um you know, share the event

[25:26] with friends, family, and the community.

[25:28] Um Emily's gonna help out hand some uh

[25:30] swag bags to council members and then

[25:32] I'll let you pick either a camo hat or

[25:35] [clears throat] aricolored hat. If you

[25:38] accept a hat, you have to wear it every

[25:39] single day before the event though.

[25:42] >> Christian. Oh

[25:43] >> yeah, questions.

[25:44] >> I have a question. Um if people want to

[25:46] volunteer, will you tell them where they

[25:48] need to [clears throat] go?

[25:49] >> Yes.

[25:50] >> Show and then click on the volunteer

[25:52] link.

[25:52] >> Okay. And I know the day is really full.

[25:54] It's like what what time does it start?

[25:56] Yeah, gates open at 9:00 a.m. and the

[25:58] event ends at 4 and it is packed. You

[26:00] know, we've got food vendors, car show,

[26:03] exotic car show, um aerobatic aircraft

[26:06] flying, historic aircraft flying, you

[26:08] know, a lot of stuff going on all day

[26:09] long.

[26:09] >> The lineup or the calendar is online,

[26:11] too, so you can kind of hone in of what

[26:13] your interests are.

[26:14] >> Correct.

[26:14] >> Okay. It's always a great event. Thank

[26:15] you.

[26:16] >> Thank you.

[26:16] >> Christian question. Best practices for

[26:19] those coming uh with parking. I know

[26:21] that that's evolved over the years and

[26:22] any couple thoughts you could share with

[26:24] us.

[26:24] >> Yeah. Yep. We're increasing parking this

[26:26] year. Um there is a parking fee to park

[26:29] close to the event that uh helps you

[26:31] know increase uh parking availability

[26:34] and staff that goes towards parking.

[26:36] There are free lots available and then

[26:38] we will have we worked with a a local

[26:40] landowner to provide additional parking

[26:41] as well. Uh so hop on a on the website

[26:44] at Spanishwork.gov and make sure you

[26:46] familiar familiarize yourself with the

[26:48] parking maps and directions prior to the

[26:50] event.

[26:50] >> Thank you, Emily.

[26:53] >> I've noticed um If you volunteer, you get to be a little closer to some

[26:58] cool cars and maybe some cool planes. Is

[27:00] that right? That's not a guarantee. You

[27:02] might

[27:02] >> Yeah, depending on the volunteer area

[27:04] that you sign up for, you know, there

[27:06] you might be working closely with cars

[27:07] or aircraft.

[27:08] >> Yeah. Cool stuff.

[27:11] I saw Councilman Oiler there last year

[27:14] who was on the all day

[27:16] volunteer effect. Whichever one doesn't

[27:19] matter to me.

[27:20] >> Thank you.

[27:21] >> Yeah. If you volunteer, they're going to

[27:23] put you to work.

[27:23] >> Yeah. And when I when I came upon him,

[27:25] he was sunburned and dehydrated. And so

[27:29] make sure

[27:30] >> we'll double down this year. Make sure

[27:31] >> you guys get enough water this year. He

[27:32] was Yeah.

[27:33] >> No, we've got plenty of water. Emily

[27:35] does a great job organizing the

[27:36] volunteers and making sure that uh

[27:38] they've got what they need. Stay safe.

[27:40] >> Well, we have the military piece again

[27:41] like last year and the car is the same.

[27:43] I mean, I think a lot of people don't

[27:44] realize there's that component as well

[27:45] with the aviation stuff. The auto, you

[27:48] know, the racing and stuff is

[27:49] incredible.

[27:50] >> Yeah. Yeah. We will have a lot of

[27:51] automotive components to the event as

[27:54] usual.

[27:57] » You can be there.

[27:58] >> Nope. No racing for me. We're not doing

[28:00] it this year.

[28:00] >> There's no racing.

[28:01] >> We will have two races available.

[28:03] >> And Shane's not invited.

[28:05] >> Yeah, he's off the list.

[28:06] >> Not fast enough.

[28:06] >> Yeah. Bad behavior last year. [laughter]

[28:11] » Hey,

[28:12] >> perfect. Thank you, Christian.

[28:13] Appreciate it. We'll see everybody in

[28:15] September. Uh the September 20, what do

[28:19] we say? 26th 26th down at the airport.

[28:22] Uh if if you forget that day, it's

[28:24] pretty easy to start hearing it and uh

[28:28] seeing it uh from anywhere in town. So

[28:31] uh you're not too late if you start

[28:33] seeing it and hearing it. Get on down

[28:34] there. You you won't regret it. It's a great day with uh with all your

[28:39] community friends. Okay. Uh now we'll go

[28:43] to before we go to consent items, uh

[28:45] we'll go to the public comment section.

[28:47] um the public comment section uh

[28:49] tonight. Uh David W, do you have the

[28:52] maybe the Yeah, you got the timer there.

[28:55] Uh so we'll try to keep these to three

[28:58] minutes. This is this section of a

[29:00] meeting that where you can address the

[29:02] mayor and council. You can ask

[29:03] questions. Uh typically it's not a

[29:06] section of the agenda to to talk uh

[29:09] about something on the agenda. Uh but we

[29:12] realize this is an agenda item that's

[29:13] got some of you to come out here and and

[29:15] we want to hear from you. If you have

[29:17] something new to ask, something new to

[29:19] tell us, uh, feel free to do so, uh,

[29:22] please keep it to to three minutes and,

[29:24] uh, and we'll take notes and and and try

[29:27] to take notes, uh, with our staff as as

[29:29] well as us writing things down. But

[29:31] please, during public comments, just

[29:33] like public hearing, um, we can all clap

[29:36] together for for heroes like we like we

[29:39] have. Um but uh but during public

[29:42] comments and public hearings uh we we

[29:45] don't want want you to clap. We don't

[29:47] want you to to boo. We want everybody if

[29:50] they have something to say to feel like

[29:52] this is a place to say it. And so let's

[29:54] just make sure we're respectful of that.

[29:56] Uh and uh and then we'll we'll try to

[29:58] keep you to that three minutes and let

[30:00] you know. There's a beep when it gets

[30:01] done, but uh we'll we'll keep you to

[30:04] that when it comes up. Um okay, this is

[30:06] the public comment section of the

[30:08] agenda. So, feel free to come up and

[30:10] state your name so Tara can get it on

[30:13] the record and uh and if you have

[30:15] something to let the mayor and council

[30:17] know of.

[30:24] » Good evening.

[30:25] >> Um my name is Karen Crossley. I live in

[30:28] Spanish Fork and I'm not here to tell

[30:31] you whether this project should be built

[30:33] or not. I'm here about one thing that is

[30:35] in the text in front of you. The council

[30:37] has revised this ordinance in the last

[30:39] two weeks. Water is now capped. The

[30:42] development agreement is required. The

[30:44] site limit has dropped to one. So text

[30:47] can clearly be changed when this council

[30:49] wants it to change. One thing did not

[30:51] change despite multiple asks. Right now

[30:54] a project like this has to come to a

[30:56] public hearing. That is in the code

[30:59] today. The version in front of you

[31:01] tonight takes that public hearing out

[31:03] and it hands the review to a staff

[31:05] committee that does not hold hearings.

[31:07] Whatever you decide tonight, residents

[31:09] are going to have questions about this

[31:11] project for years. Where those questions

[31:13] go is up to you. Keep the hearing bring

[31:17] and residents bring their questions here

[31:19] on the record where staff can answer and

[31:21] where each of you can explain your

[31:23] reasoning. That is what accountability

[31:25] and transparency looks like. And a

[31:27] public hearing is where that happens.

[31:29] Take away the hearing and the same

[31:31] questions will go to Facebook, will go

[31:34] to reporters, and to quiet conversations

[31:36] in neighborhoods where your answers will

[31:38] never reach. This council will still be

[31:41] asked those questions, but residents

[31:43] will not get an answer. What people will

[31:46] remember about tonight is not the noise

[31:47] limit. It's not the water cap. It's not

[31:50] the development agreement or the other

[31:51] things that changed. Those things matter

[31:53] and I'm not discounting them. But what

[31:56] they will remember is that a public

[31:57] hearing was in the code and the council

[31:59] removed it. A hearing puts the questions

[32:02] and the answers in one place on the

[32:05] record where anyone can find them years

[32:07] from now. That is what you lose and you

[32:09] will lose the trust of the people who

[32:11] wanted to be heard on this. You [snorts]

[32:13] do not need a conditional use permit to

[32:15] fix this. A notice public hearing can be

[32:17] written into the text on its own right

[32:20] now. It's one provision and it doesn't

[32:22] slow down a project that meets any

[32:24] standards. Please put public hearings

[32:26] back into this text before you vote.

[32:28] Thank you.

[32:29] >> Thank you, Karen.

[32:30] >> Before Before we get to the next one, uh

[32:32] Karen did bring something up that I I

[32:34] failed to mention um in the uh

[32:38] not a question, but in But you're fine.

[32:40] stingstead up there [laughter]

[32:42] in in what she alluded to um that I

[32:45] should have alluded to is there is an

[32:47] agenda item that that she's speaking

[32:50] about. There is a packet there that you

[32:52] can click on and and there is a updated

[32:56] uh title 15 amendment in there. So if

[32:58] you have questions some of those

[33:00] questions might be answered within there

[33:02] of of what's changed. If it's not yeah

[33:05] feel free to come up just like Karen did

[33:07] there. But I should have alluded to that

[33:09] there. That's not the same thing that

[33:10] was written two weeks ago. So

[33:12] >> I I will note that this has not changed

[33:14] since 5:20 p.m. So

[33:16] >> yeah, thank you. Appreciate it, Karen.

[33:18] >> Okay, next.

[33:21] » Alan Wesman, Spanish Fork. Um I took a

[33:25] quick look through the uh latest Title

[33:28] 15 amendment um and have a quick

[33:31] question.

[33:32] uh in section two it refers to an

[33:34] expansion process and says as described

[33:38] or in in subsection 3 in subsection 3

[33:42] didn't seem to address that. Um so that

[33:46] seems to be a gap in the existing text

[33:48] of the amendment. Um and I would just

[33:50] call your attention to that because I

[33:51] didn't see any defined process for

[33:54] expansion. Um, what I do appreciate from

[33:57] reading through it, a lot of the uh

[33:59] concerns have been addressed about

[34:01] water, about noise, about um, heat, and

[34:05] especially about starting it at a lower

[34:08] scale. I really appreciate that to give

[34:11] it a chance to prove itself before

[34:13] expanding to the full capacity. I think

[34:15] that's very important. And so that

[34:16] expansion process and especially if it

[34:19] can include a public hearing as as Karen

[34:22] just said, I think that would be a very

[34:24] important thing to make sure that that's

[34:26] clear because that seems to be a gap

[34:29] unless I'm misreading something or

[34:30] missing something. Um I feel like we're

[34:33] not quite baked yet. And so I think that

[34:37] um the council would be wise not to

[34:41] proceed to vote and approve the

[34:42] amendment as currently written. Um I do

[34:46] with my remaining time uh want to just

[34:49] say that I really feel like people in

[34:52] this whole process have been acting in

[34:54] good faith the council valition and the

[34:58] members of the community at large and

[35:00] even though there's been disagreement I

[35:03] feel like it comes from a an honest and

[35:06] a sincere place people have concerns

[35:10] people have a desire to proceed on this

[35:12] project other people want to don't want

[35:15] to see the project and I think it's all

[35:17] coming from a good place and I want to

[35:19] recognize that because

[35:23] we have concerns about the health of our

[35:27] community and preser preserving and

[35:30] protecting the values and I think that

[35:33] it's important

[35:35] to recognize that

[35:37] we as citizens

[35:41] have the the capacity to let off a lot

[35:44] steam like a data center might. We have

[35:48] the capacity to generate a lot of heat

[35:51] and we also have the capacity to

[35:53] introduce a lot of toxins into our

[35:55] community with the way that we speak.

[35:58] And I hope that we are careful as

[36:00] citizens

[36:02] to avoid that and to protect our

[36:04] community, protect each other from false

[36:06] accusations,

[36:08] from unkind words, and to proceed and

[36:12] treat each other as neighbors, and to

[36:14] keep this issue from dividing our

[36:16] community. Thank you.

[36:17] >> Thanks, Alan.

[36:22] » Anyone else?

[36:26] » Yeah. And I should have mentioned too,

[36:27] if there's anybody outside or that can

[36:30] hear me and needs a seat in here.

[36:31] There's there's the empty ones up front

[36:33] that are reserved for that. Yes, sir.

[36:36] >> Name for the record, Caleb Cole.

[36:39] Regulations written in blood are

[36:42] regulations that had to wait for a great

[36:44] number of people to die before the

[36:47] government stepped in and did anything.

[36:49] Back during the Great Depression, many

[36:52] work and safety regulations were

[36:53] weakened, relaxed, and eliminated. This

[36:56] was done to help help the economy.

[36:59] Instead, what this did was allow

[37:02] corporations and employers to lie to

[37:04] their consumers, cause workers

[37:08] in their environment to be unsafe to the

[37:10] point of much death, and allowed food

[37:13] born illnesses and pathogens to infect

[37:16] many people.

[37:18] It felt like playing a game of Russian

[37:21] roulette when eating food. These

[37:24] regulations written in blood to protect

[37:26] the people became irrelevant. The

[37:29] government in times of hardship decided

[37:31] it was more important to serve capital.

[37:34] We are seeing this part of history

[37:36] repeat itself in many ways. The lettuce

[37:39] at Taco Bell has been infected with a

[37:41] parasite that has been giving people

[37:43] awful diarrhea in many states. This has

[37:46] happened because safety regulations have

[37:49] quietly weakened without announcement so

[37:51] that companies and government can

[37:53] prioritize serving capital over safety.

[37:56] And if you know anything about bricks

[37:58] and minifigs, you know that the

[38:00] government prioritized the case of he

[38:03] who owns capital over the reckless bin

[38:05] case that had a mountain of evidence to

[38:08] prove his innocence and the company's

[38:11] wrongdoing.

[38:13] The silent priority of the American

[38:16] government is not to serve the people

[38:19] but to serve capital. We keep being told

[38:22] that these data centers are going to

[38:24] produce jobs. And the data shows that

[38:27] yes, for every five jobs they produce,

[38:30] they destroy and automate away

[38:33] thousands. There are entire office

[38:36] buildings that are empty now with now

[38:39] less 10 people. automating the functions

[38:42] of entire companies. Capitalism for many

[38:45] years has built this trust with the

[38:47] people that it was forever going to

[38:50] create jobs. But now it would seem the

[38:52] focus of capitalism is to build these

[38:54] data centers and speedrun their

[38:56] elimination.

[38:58] This is happening during a cost of

[39:01] living crisis. And instead of lifting a

[39:03] finger to lighten the burden in the way

[39:05] that Zoran Manni is showing us how to

[39:08] do, you are making our lives worse by

[39:10] choosing to build these data centers

[39:12] instead. I do not have much of a doubt

[39:15] that this government body will build

[39:17] this data center no matter what we say

[39:20] or what we do and will personally pocket

[39:23] a share of the profits these machines

[39:25] make so that they can in exchange look

[39:28] the other way. When the wind of the

[39:31] interest of profit sees these

[39:33] regulations as an actual obstacle to

[39:36] making even more profit, these proposed

[39:38] regulations are only performative,

[39:41] are empty promises and will be

[39:44] protecting nobody when it matters the

[39:47] most.

[39:49] >> Thank you for your time. Can I can I ask

[39:51] one question

[39:53] >> to clarify? Did you in your statement

[39:55] say that we are collecting money

[39:58] individually up here?

[40:00] >> It doesn't have to be something that is

[40:02] done in good faith or honestly. It

[40:05] doesn't have to be done in public

[40:06] announcement.

[40:09] >> Okay. I I just want to say not one

[40:10] person up here is taking money from

[40:12] anybody

[40:13] >> or anything.

[40:13] >> And I want that on the record.

[40:15] >> Or anything else.

[40:17] >> Yeah.

[40:18] >> Thank you.

[40:18] >> Thanks, Caleb. Appreciate you.

[40:20] coming. Thank you.

[40:22] [clears throat]

[40:27] Hi, my name is Satie Baliff. So, I've

[40:30] been up here before, but I just have a

[40:31] written statement. Leaders of Spanish

[40:33] Fork, I'm here to offer another plea to

[40:35] give the public and the city more time

[40:37] to make a decision regarding the

[40:38] amendments to Title 15. I was able to

[40:42] review the amended documents, which were

[40:43] only updated today, by the way, so not a

[40:46] lot of time to look at them. Um, but it

[40:49] seems some of the address concerns were

[40:51] addressed, which I was grateful to read

[40:53] through and look, it seems like

[40:54] everyone's taking time to do that. Um,

[40:57] but what's noticeably missing from from

[41:00] this document now as it sits now, are

[41:02] some safeguards from the city's side.

[41:04] Um, we're seeing more promises from

[41:07] Valition's agreement and not codified

[41:11] into the zoning laws. And so,

[41:15] um, this shows me that we have, uh,

[41:18] every opportunity not to regulate what

[41:21] Valition is wanting to do for their

[41:22] facility, but instead shape what type of

[41:25] facilities we would want in our city,

[41:27] how we would want them to be built. Um,

[41:30] and then noticeably, uh, it seems the

[41:33] nitrogen oxide figures were removed from the verbiage, but water

[41:37] limits were added in. Um, it should be

[41:40] noted that nitrogen oxide was not the

[41:42] only hazardous air pollutant documented

[41:45] in Valition's draft permit for the uh

[41:48] air quality document that they

[41:50] submitted. Um, I provided to you all of

[41:53] you a document breaking down some of the

[41:55] hazardous air pollutants and linked to

[41:57] the full list of air pollutants. Um, but

[41:59] I feel overall that they just merit more

[42:01] consideration.

[42:03] Um, going through all this, um, it's

[42:06] just shown me that we have

[42:09] we should take more time to just think

[42:12] about it and be thoughtful in this

[42:13] approach. I'm not I'm not trying to be

[42:15] contrarian. I just think that for

[42:19] something that is uh we're in a new

[42:21] volatile unregulated space, we should

[42:24] really take our time making the right

[42:26] types of decisions. That's all. Thanks.

[42:28] >> Thank you, Satie.

[42:34] » Gerald Bills, Spanish Fork. Um, I want

[42:37] to say first of all, thank you for

[42:39] >> Sorry, we didn't get that.

[42:40] >> Oh, Gerald Bills.

[42:41] >> Gerald, yes.

[42:42] >> Sorry. Thank you.

[42:43] >> Um,

[42:44] first of all, I just want to say thank

[42:45] you for uh taking the time to consider

[42:47] public comment. Um, I think it was wise

[42:49] to to take the pause a couple weeks ago

[42:52] um and um to take some of that comment

[42:55] into consideration. Um, I'll be honest,

[42:58] I' I've probably done the least amount

[42:59] of research on this specific um data

[43:02] center um of everybody who's spoken so

[43:04] far.

[43:05] um didn't know about the public

[43:06] hearings. I definitely want to keep

[43:08] those. Um

[43:10] and just in general, I urge you not to

[43:12] take any action that would go against

[43:13] the will of the citizens. Um obviously,

[43:17] it's hard to get that just from public

[43:18] comment. Um especially because sometimes

[43:20] the people who feel the most strongly

[43:22] are not the majority. Um but it might be

[43:24] a good idea to maybe survey the

[43:25] citizens, find out what the citizens

[43:27] actually think about it. Um I'd strongly

[43:28] encourage you please not not to force

[43:30] this on us. Um, I for one would also

[43:35] like you to actually

[43:38] uh pause consideration on any data

[43:39] center construction. And this is for

[43:41] reasons that have less to do with this

[43:43] specific data center and more with my

[43:45] concerns about artificial intelligence

[43:47] in general. Um, I will say that I for

[43:50] one love the AI chat bots. I use Claude

[43:52] probably more than I should, but I also

[43:55] feel like it's a it's an amazing tool.

[43:58] Um that said, where AI is going is not

[44:01] chat bots. The future of AI looks very

[44:05] different. We're talking about Agentic

[44:07] AI. These AI companies want to create

[44:09] artificial intelligence with human level

[44:11] or or higher general intelligence that

[44:15] carry out tasks

[44:17] uh that humans currently do. Um and my

[44:21] biggest concern about this is is the

[44:23] safety risks. Um not going to have time

[44:26] to read this. I actually asked Google

[44:28] Gemini to explain the AI alignment

[44:30] problem to someone unfamiliar with it.

[44:32] Um, but let me just uh let me just at

[44:35] least start reading this. Says, "The AI

[44:36] alignment is the challenge of making

[44:38] sure an artificial intelligence system

[44:39] wants what we actually intend for it to

[44:41] do rather than just following our

[44:43] literal instructions."

[44:45] Um, and we've seen some examples in the

[44:47] news of the struggle that AI companies

[44:51] are currently having to keep AI aligned

[44:53] with what they want the AI to do. um

[44:56] with um if I'm not mistaken, AI from

[44:59] OpenAI, Meta, and Anthropic all um being

[45:03] reported as breaking into hacking

[45:05] another company. Um this was not what

[45:08] their builders intended and yet it

[45:10] happened. And this is one of the

[45:11] difficult problems with AI and right now

[45:13] AI is going so fast that um it's hard to

[45:16] control it. It's hard to keep it safe.

[45:18] So um here's the last paragraph of that.

[45:20] As AI systems become more capable and

[45:22] independent, a small misunderstanding of

[45:23] our intent be stops being a minor

[45:25] annoyance and becomes a major risk.

[45:27] Researchers and AI safety are trying to

[45:28] figure out how to build systems that

[45:29] share human wisdom and intent before

[45:31] these technologies become power powerful

[45:33] enough to cause real harm. Uh what I see

[45:35] as a problem right now is that we're in

[45:37] a race with the building of these data

[45:38] centers that is making it harder and

[45:40] harder to keep AI safe because it's

[45:42] being developed too quickly. Um so I'd

[45:44] encourage you to to vote no on this.

[45:46] Thank you.

[45:46] >> Thanks, Gerald. jail.

[45:51] » Anyone else?

[45:57] » Hi, my name is James Berkkey and uh at

[46:00] last meeting I had a concern about

[46:02] potential uh buyers down the road from

[46:06] although Valition might have you know a

[46:08] really good lineup and stuff. I was

[46:10] concerned that maybe you know five ten

[46:12] years in the future maybe they got

[46:14] bought out by Amazon or Google and they

[46:16] wouldn't be adherent to the uh the

[46:19] nicities that valition and the the

[46:20] considerations that valition would be

[46:22] doing but I noticed here on the

[46:24] accountability framework that I was just

[46:25] kind of going over is uh some other

[46:27] people were talking was the uh

[46:32] sailor ownership change section talking

[46:35] about how it will remain with the land

[46:37] itself and so that every single any

[46:39] another company who could potentially

[46:41] buy it and purchase it would have to

[46:43] remain and you know keep to all the uh

[46:45] the covenants the bylaws that we set

[46:47] here in the next couple of months. So

[46:50] thank you for thinking ahead of that.

[46:51] That's something that has concerned me

[46:53] and I'm glad that you could uh kind of

[46:54] assuage my fears.

[46:56] >> Thank you.

[46:57] >> James

[47:00] want to talk to people.

[47:02] >> My name is Terry Oiler. I'm a longtime

[47:05] resident of Spanish Fork. Um lived here

[47:07] for 50 years. First of all, I want to

[47:09] thank each of you for your service. I

[47:13] firsthand know the sacrifices that your

[47:16] family is making for you to be here

[47:19] tonight. So, thank you.

[47:21] Um,

[47:23] I have not had a chance to look at the

[47:25] latest um update on the on the

[47:28] development or regulations, whatever you

[47:31] wrote down. Um, but I have spent some

[47:34] considerable time uh looking into this

[47:37] and giving it a lot of thought and

[47:39] consideration.

[47:41] Um,

[47:43] [clears throat]

[47:43] I'm not opposed to progress. I'm opposed

[47:45] to asking the public to carry risks

[47:48] that have not been independently proven

[47:50] or contractually contained. Valition

[47:53] promises minimal water use, permanent

[47:55] grid isolation,

[47:58] low emissions, and enormous economic

[48:00] benefits. Maybe they're right. Um, but

[48:04] this is but this is a natural gas power

[48:07] generation at extraordinary scale

[48:09] proposed by a company that has never

[48:11] built this project before.

[48:14] Fuel cells may be cleaner than

[48:16] conventional combustion, but natural gas

[48:19] is not emissionfree.

[48:21] Before committing Spanish for work to

[48:23] something of this magnitude, we deserve

[48:25] independently verified numbers, not

[48:27] projections, comparisons, or adjectives.

[48:31] Every material promise should be

[48:33] enforcable. Hard water and emissions

[48:35] limits, permanent grid isolation,

[48:38] independent monitoring, meaningful

[48:40] financial penalties, decommissioning

[48:43] security, and protections that survive

[48:46] bankruptcy, foreclosure, sale, or a

[48:49] change of ownership.

[48:51] If those protections aren't in writing,

[48:53] the promises don't matter.

[48:55] Many of us were raised with a warning

[48:57] about exchanging things of lasting value

[49:00] for the praise of the world. Millions of

[49:03] projected revenues and promises of

[49:04] innovation can be seductive. But

[49:07] stewardship

[49:09] means protecting what has been entrusted

[49:11] to us, not only for ourselves, but for

[49:14] our children and our children's

[49:15] children.

[49:17] A wise steward does not gamble their

[49:19] inheritance for the profit of the

[49:20] present.

[49:22] Maybe valition ultimately deserves a

[49:24] yes, but nobody deserves a predetermined

[49:27] yes.

[49:28] Long after tonight's projection promises

[49:30] and praise are forgotten, our children

[49:33] and our children's childrens will still

[49:36] be living with the consequences.

[49:38] Do not approve the experiment first and

[49:40] negotiate the protections afterward.

[49:44] I appreciate your time. Thank you.

[49:53] » All right. See if I can go quick. Um I'm

[49:57] Teresa Pierce, but I go by Teresa Wood

[49:59] just for the future. Um so I I'm very

[50:03] grateful for everyone who's taken the

[50:04] time to talk to me. I know that this has

[50:06] been an issue that's important to me and

[50:07] the people who live very close to this

[50:09] data center and we've provided you with

[50:11] a lot of feedback. So thank you. Thank

[50:14] you. Um, a couple of quick asks. As I've

[50:17] been pondering about this, I cringe a

[50:19] little bit inside. When this is talked

[50:22] along the lines of comparison to a quick

[50:24] quack or small business that we want to

[50:27] be supportive of, I would prefer that

[50:30] this is more talked about in the light

[50:32] of open heart surgery. Um, Quickclack

[50:35] does not touch on every vital part of

[50:38] the city from finances to people's

[50:40] health, etc. And I think you are

[50:42] understanding this and I don't have to

[50:44] tell you but it would go a long way for

[50:47] the citizens if we talk about it in that

[50:50] light. Um open heart surgery is

[50:51] something that nobody wants but

[50:54] sometimes is useful. Um and only under

[50:57] the most ideal conditions and if one

[50:59] thing goes wrong the whole thing goes

[51:01] wrong. So it's not something to rush and

[51:05] at the end of the day it is an option to

[51:07] say no. it is even if there's a lot of

[51:11] tax incentives for the city, you have a

[51:14] lot of people who don't want this, maybe

[51:15] they can be convinced. Um, but just like

[51:18] an open heart surgery and a doctor

[51:20] having that conversation um please treat

[51:22] it that way because for a lot of us it

[51:25] is it is um okay and with what's left of

[51:28] my time I for someone who couldn't come

[51:30] today I've agreed to read a statement.

[51:33] This is from Dana Snow. Good evening

[51:36] mayor and council members. Valition says

[51:38] it mission is to build data centers

[51:40] communities can say yes to. Tonight I am

[51:43] asking you to recognize that Spanish

[51:44] Fork has every reason to say no to this

[51:46] proposal. Calling this project off-grid,

[51:49] communityfriendly or sustainable does

[51:51] not change what it is, a massive

[51:52] industrial operation that would generate

[51:54] hundreds of megawatts of electricity

[51:56] from natural gas at the mouth of Spanish

[51:58] Fort Canyon. Valition's proposal may use

[52:01] fuel cells instead of conventional

[52:02] combustion and closed loop cooling may

[52:04] reduce water consumption. Those features

[52:06] do not make the project impactf free.

[52:09] According to reporting on the proposal,

[52:11] the facility may need to generate

[52:12] approximately 400 megawatts to provide

[52:15] 250 megawatts of computing power. That

[52:18] is power generation on an

[52:19] [clears throat] extra extraordinary

[52:20] scale and it deserves far more scrutiny

[52:23] than reassuring labels or marketing

[52:25] claims. The company says that data

[52:27] center would not rely on local

[52:29] electrical grid for normal operations.

[52:31] But shifting the energy source from the

[52:33] power grid to an on-site natural gas

[52:35] system does not eliminate the

[52:37] environmental burden. It concentrates

[52:39] that burden here in our community.

[52:41] Closed loop cooling is better than

[52:43] wasting millions of gallons through

[52:44] evaporation. I'm going to skip down to

[52:47] the bottom. Um,

[52:50] until those protections are

[52:52] independently verified and legal

[52:53] enforceable, the responsible answer is

[52:55] not maybe, the responsible answer is no.

[52:57] Please reject this proposal. Thank you.

[52:59] >> Thank you, Teresa. If there's more to

[53:01] that, Teresa, you can forward the email

[53:03] to us if you'd like. Okay. Thank you.

[53:10] » Brian Pendleton, longtime resident of

[53:13] Spanish Fork.

[53:14] I'm here tonight to just offer gratitude

[53:18] and thanks to the mayor and city council

[53:21] and other city staff members who have

[53:23] put so much time and effort into this

[53:26] important decision. I know that it is a

[53:29] heated topic. I know that there are many

[53:31] residents who have voiced

[53:34] their negative opinion, but I also know

[53:37] and trust the people that we have

[53:40] elected. I work with you. I've lived

[53:43] here. I play with you. I know your kids.

[53:48] And when we use the word steward or we

[53:50] use the word trust,

[53:53] many [clears throat] of us can reflect

[53:54] upon how that trust is built over years

[53:58] of relationships of dealing with you.

[54:04] And I trust you. I trust you in leading

[54:08] this city. I have watched this city grow

[54:12] my entire life. And it's one of the

[54:15] bestrun cities in the entire state, if

[54:18] not the entire country.

[54:21] Everybody doesn't have to agree with the

[54:23] decisions that the mayor and the council

[54:26] make,

[54:27] but I trust you that you will put guard

[54:30] rails and implement things that will

[54:36] be for the best interest of this city

[54:40] because of my relationship with each of

[54:43] you and dealing with you. I've been I've

[54:47] served

[54:49] fiesta days. I've been a resident. I've

[54:52] played golf. I've worked handinand with

[54:55] many of you and I know how you work. So,

[54:59] I just want to thank you. I was at the 6

[55:02] and 1 half hour meeting and the open

[55:05] houses before that and I've listened to

[55:07] all of the comments,

[55:10] but I know that many of the residents

[55:12] left the meeting before an important

[55:17] word was used by one of our city

[55:19] councilmans. And I commend you,

[55:21] Councilman Oiler, that steward word that

[55:24] you used and the fact that you have done

[55:27] your due diligence. But many people

[55:29] didn't hear that or listen to that. They

[55:32] only voiced their negative comments. I

[55:35] know that you guys can be trusted. And

[55:38] if the decision is to move forward, you

[55:40] have my 150% support. Thank you.

[55:44] >> Thanks, Brian.

[55:47] >> Get more of that. Can't yell at us.

[55:54] Hi, Steve Warner.

[55:57] Um,

[56:00] I think a lot of people uh instinctively

[56:02] are very uncomfortable with this sudden

[56:04] explosion in these data centers. Uh, we already have internet, we already

[56:08] have social media, we even already have

[56:11] AI. And yet all of a sudden all of a

[56:13] sudden they're putting these things in

[56:14] every town in the country. And I don't

[56:17] think uh we really know what these are

[56:19] going to be used for. I don't frankly I

[56:20] don't think you you guys know what

[56:22] they're going to be used for. And the

[56:24] reason they're throwing these things up

[56:25] so quickly in in what seems to be a

[56:27] blind panic is because once people start

[56:30] to realize what they're going to be used

[56:32] for, they won't be able to build them

[56:33] anymore.

[56:35] Uh I

[56:38] the tech companies uh behind this data

[56:40] center push, the people behind this data

[56:42] center push are not our friends. They

[56:44] don't like us. They don't like our way

[56:46] of life. They don't like Spanish Fork.

[56:48] They don't like Mormons. They don't like

[56:50] the salt of the earth uh agricultural

[56:54] Christian community we have here.

[56:56] They're against that. I descend from

[56:59] Mormon pioneers as I'm sure many of you

[57:01] do. Our our ancestors did not bleed and

[57:04] die to come out here and build Zion so

[57:07] that we could then turn around and sell

[57:09] it off to Babylon. And that's what

[57:11] they're building here is Babylon. We're

[57:13] going to bring Babylon in. We're going

[57:14] to put them over us. We're selling our

[57:15] land off to them and we're going to be

[57:17] putting them in authority over us. Uh I sincerely believe that that

[57:24] you will all regret uh building this

[57:27] project if you do so. Uh thank you for

[57:30] your time.

[57:30] >> Thanks, Steve.

[57:33] >> Hey everybody, I'm Steve Dunford.

[57:35] >> Too many Steves.

[57:36] especially in a row.

[57:37] Sorry about that. Hey, my question is

[57:39] what do we gain?

[57:41] What do I, as a citizen

[57:43] here, gain? I know what the company

[57:46] stands to gain. I know what these big

[57:49] billionaire corporate entities stand to

[57:51] gain. I understand why they would want

[57:52] America to have over 4500,

[57:56] stop and think, 4500

[57:58] data centers have been built or are

[58:01] being built in America. Do you know how

[58:02] many the next country in the world has?

[58:05] >> 500.

[58:07] Please make that make sense to me. What

[58:09] do we gain at those magnitude at that

[58:13] level with that rampant building there

[58:16] can't be constriction there can't be

[58:19] methodical thoughtful way forward if

[58:22] you're doing it that fast there's no way

[58:24] there's no time and like was has been

[58:26] mentioned what are they doing with these

[58:29] data center do you know do you know why

[58:32] this data center should be built here

[58:33] what are they going to do with it is it

[58:35] simply computing power for AI because AI

[58:38] has been labeled by Bill Gates as the

[58:41] biggest threat to humanity. It's been

[58:43] compared to the nuclear bomb

[58:46] in its magnitude that it has the ability

[58:49] to reshape and change our very

[58:51] civilizations more than any other thing

[58:53] that has ever been invented. And we are

[58:56] sprinting towards a future that we don't

[58:59] understand.

[59:01] And the people who built that future do

[59:04] and they are sounding the alarm bells,

[59:07] telling us we need breaks because we

[59:09] don't got them. AI is breaking out of

[59:13] sandboxes that have been built to keep

[59:14] it contained and infecting other

[59:17] companies. We have no concept what it's

[59:20] capable of. AI will talk to each other

[59:22] in a language we can't understand. Not

[59:24] that we don't know the language. We

[59:25] can't understand the way that it thinks

[59:28] and it goes off and solves problems and

[59:30] comes back and gives solutions. I hike

[59:33] every day. I have hiked every day in

[59:35] these mountains since June 27th, 2017.

[59:38] Let me give you an elevated view of what

[59:40] we're doing to this valley.

[59:43] You guys were destroying it.

[59:46] I can show you pictures year after year

[59:48] of this spread of locusts taking up

[59:52] every natural resource, every corner,

[59:54] every field, everything that made this

[59:56] place beautiful, unique, powerful,

[1:00:00] connective,

[1:00:02] and we're selling that off to bring in

[1:00:04] as many more people and things that we

[1:00:08] possibly can. We do not understand what

[1:00:11] this company's going to do. They don't

[1:00:13] know what they're doing because they

[1:00:15] haven't done it yet. So they can tell

[1:00:16] you anything they want. For us [snorts]

[1:00:18] to simply believe because they shake our

[1:00:20] hands and say we'll do it.

[1:00:23] We will regret that. If this moves

[1:00:25] forward, it needs to be stringently

[1:00:28] regulated, codified with ironclad

[1:00:33] protection for the people who built this

[1:00:35] place.

[1:00:38] >> Thank you, Steve.

[1:00:39] >> Steve,

[1:00:41] >> anyone else? Yes,

[1:00:49] » Tim Sornson. I actually live in

[1:00:50] Highlands, so don't hate me.

[1:00:52] >> He's out only because we got a cop from

[1:00:55] AF that came, so that's close.

[1:00:57] >> That's actually my cousin.

[1:00:58] >> Oh, really?

[1:00:59] >> Really?

[1:00:59] >> Yeah. So, uh, it was actually a great

[1:01:02] thing that he was here. So,

[1:01:03] >> Oh, good.

[1:01:03] >> Um, I can say that I actually showed up

[1:01:05] because of him, [laughter]

[1:01:07] >> not because of the not not because of

[1:01:08] the data center. So, I'm an electrical

[1:01:11] distributor. Um, I've I've listened,

[1:01:13] I've watched, I've uh was at that six

[1:01:16] and a half hour meeting that don't know

[1:01:19] how you guys got through. Great job. Um,

[1:01:22] one of the things that I can say that uh

[1:01:26] has been brought up is is why is

[1:01:28] everybody else not doing this? Why is

[1:01:31] Elon Musk not doing this? Why is why is

[1:01:33] Microsoft not doing this? Why are the

[1:01:35] hyperscalers not doing this? Because

[1:01:37] they don't care. They don't care about

[1:01:39] what happens to the community. They're looking for money. I can tell

[1:01:44] you looking into and and dealing with

[1:01:46] the the things with Valition and with

[1:01:48] Hunt Electric and um Big Deconstruction,

[1:01:52] um they're they're doing things

[1:01:54] different. Is it new? Yes. Why is it

[1:01:58] new? It costs more money.

[1:02:01] It's not as it's not as, you know,

[1:02:04] friendly on an ROI, but it's better for

[1:02:07] the community. It's better for the

[1:02:09] environment. It's it's where data center

[1:02:11] construction is going to go. Um, one of the the things that that uh you

[1:02:18] know people were have been saying, well,

[1:02:19] what's what's in it for us? Well, $40

[1:02:23] million in tax revenue that goes to to

[1:02:25] our kids to Neville School District

[1:02:29] would would be a pretty good boon to be

[1:02:31] able to go in a place to where we have a

[1:02:34] problem funding our schools.

[1:02:36] Um

[1:02:39] the

[1:02:41] I think I think the the biggest thing

[1:02:43] that I want to make sure that that

[1:02:45] people realize the thing about data

[1:02:47] centers that's been hurting people is

[1:02:49] the fact that it it takes the resources

[1:02:51] from from the people. Um, I think that,

[1:02:54] you know, if you go and you listen to

[1:02:56] Valition, if you go and you look at

[1:02:58] their studies, if you go and you look at

[1:03:00] what the city is is doing and keeping

[1:03:03] that um to the to the site and and

[1:03:07] making sure that they can't sell it to

[1:03:09] somebody that's not going to go be like,

[1:03:12] I think that's a great thing. Um

[1:03:16] I I think lastly, you know, I I would

[1:03:19] say um I think you're going to see more

[1:03:22] data centers get built the way that

[1:03:24] Valition's building because of the no

[1:03:27] impact or low impact. Let's not say no

[1:03:30] because there is impact. The low impact

[1:03:32] to the community and the low impact to

[1:03:34] everything that there is. Um

[1:03:37] I think I think Valition's doing that in

[1:03:39] the way that Utah would be proud of. And

[1:03:42] I would tell you that as a city that I

[1:03:45] think you should be proud to have that

[1:03:46] data center in your city and you guys to

[1:03:49] be the first to go lead the way.

[1:03:51] >> Thank you.

[1:03:52] Tim.

[1:03:56] [clears throat]

[1:03:57] >> Hello, my name is Tandra Pena and I'll

[1:04:00] admit my shortcomings. I don't know

[1:04:02] maybe as much as everybody else who

[1:04:03] spoke knows about this company or how

[1:04:06] it's being built or any of that but um I

[1:04:09] will say that from my understanding and

[1:04:12] what I've heard and read a little bit um

[1:04:14] this this is a fairly new company and

[1:04:16] from my understanding they haven't built

[1:04:18] a data center like this before and I

[1:04:20] don't understand why Spanish Fork has to

[1:04:23] be where they test this. I mean I've lived here 23 years. I've seen

[1:04:28] Spanish Fort grow to where it is now.

[1:04:30] And when I was younger, I mean, I

[1:04:33] remember going and playing in the park

[1:04:35] all the time. And I mean, it's just

[1:04:36] gotten so busy, it's kind of some places

[1:04:38] aren't safe to let your kid go anymore.

[1:04:40] It's just too busy, you know? Um, and my

[1:04:43] biggest my biggest concern honestly is

[1:04:46] like resources. Where this where is this

[1:04:48] going? Where's the water coming from?

[1:04:50] Like where are we taking the water from?

[1:04:52] Um, I mean to be honest, the earth is

[1:04:55] dying as it is. We don't have enough

[1:04:57] resources for everybody. There's not

[1:04:59] enough for everyone. And I don't think

[1:05:02] we should contribute to this more. The

[1:05:03] earth is literally dying under our feet.

[1:05:05] There's one earth. There's nowhere to go

[1:05:08] after this. This is it for us. And I

[1:05:11] think that I mean jobs are great. Yeah,

[1:05:14] we need jobs. But the bigger issues is

[1:05:16] like where where are your great

[1:05:18] grandkids and everyone after their them

[1:05:20] going to live if there's nothing for

[1:05:23] them here? if we ruin this one place we

[1:05:26] have. And I I pride myself in living in

[1:05:29] Spanish Fork. Spanish Fork is a great

[1:05:31] city. There's lots of great things in

[1:05:34] Spanish Fork. I love the slower

[1:05:36] lifestyle, but I mean, it's slowly going

[1:05:38] away, but I still love it. I love going

[1:05:40] out everywhere. And I just think that I

[1:05:42] don't I don't think this is going to be

[1:05:43] a benefit. And I I I hope this doesn't

[1:05:46] happen.

[1:05:48] >> Thank you, Tion.

[1:05:49] >> Thank you.

[1:05:52] I'm Teresa White. I live in Spanish Fork

[1:05:56] in the area of the data center, proposed

[1:05:58] data center. And last meeting, one of

[1:06:01] you said that once the uh title 15

[1:06:03] amendment was changed that if another

[1:06:06] data center came and wanted to build and

[1:06:09] they met the criteria that there would

[1:06:11] be no, you couldn't say no. Correct?

[1:06:14] Isn't that what one of you said? So, as

[1:06:18] San Pete has put said, no, we're not

[1:06:20] going to do this until we figure out

[1:06:22] we're not going to have one. No one's

[1:06:24] approached them apparently, but we're

[1:06:26] not going to have one until we have

[1:06:28] determined what the rules are going to

[1:06:30] be. And all around the country there's

[1:06:33] states saying that they're putting a

[1:06:34] moratorum on building anymore because

[1:06:37] they didn't take the time to make sure

[1:06:40] it was all the the things were in place

[1:06:43] to put prohibitions and restrictions in

[1:06:46] place before they built them and now the

[1:06:48] residents are suffering. So my appeal

[1:06:51] also as somebody that will be affected

[1:06:53] by this um living close to it, I would

[1:06:57] just ask that you take some time. It's

[1:06:59] not going to kill them to wait a few

[1:07:00] more months for you to to make sure you

[1:07:03] have it all in place before you do

[1:07:05] anything. Thank you.

[1:07:07] >> Teresa,

[1:07:14] [clears throat]

[1:07:15] >> my name is My name is Stuart

[1:07:17] Worthington. I live in Spanish Fork and

[1:07:19] have for the last 12 years.

[1:07:21] I'm not necessarily for or against this

[1:07:24] project, but I would encourage um in

[1:07:28] glancing through first I I think that

[1:07:31] removing the public hearings is a

[1:07:33] mistake. Um in glancing through this

[1:07:36] document, there are several sections

[1:07:38] that make me pause and there are

[1:07:41] sections that say the city may require.

[1:07:46] For example, under the section for heat

[1:07:50] and thermal effect, the city may impose

[1:07:54] um

[1:07:56] lawful site development. I think you

[1:07:58] should require it. Where that says the

[1:08:01] city may, I think you should say the

[1:08:04] city shall inspect, the EMS, the fire

[1:08:08] department may. I think they have to. I

[1:08:11] think you've got to put more teeth into

[1:08:12] this thing or we're going to end up with

[1:08:14] something we don't want. And so that's

[1:08:17] my request. Please consider changing the

[1:08:20] language on some of those items.

[1:08:23] >> Thank you.

[1:08:24] >> Thanks, sir.

[1:08:27] >> Anyone else?

[1:08:30] >> It's a race. You're You're getting beat.

[1:08:32] You sit down. He's come.

[1:08:35] >> Okay.

[1:08:35] >> You should never give me a chance.

[1:08:37] >> Move fast. Move fast.

[1:08:40] Also, this three minute thing is wrong

[1:08:42] because that makes everybody kind of

[1:08:44] slow down my so I'm proposing we don't

[1:08:47] Kevin let's not do the three minute

[1:08:49] >> when you're the mayor of Palmyer you can

[1:08:51] as many minutes as you want down there

[1:08:54] >> okay

[1:08:54] >> also you haven't come I invited you to

[1:08:57] come and see the the uh cving and none

[1:09:00] of you have made a move out that way and so I'm not sure what's going on when

[1:09:06] I was uh uh my parents by I wasn't I'm

[1:09:10] not quite that y old but I'm not I'm not

[1:09:13] even going to pay attention to the three

[1:09:15] minute when they they u uh they were

[1:09:20] invited some of my relatives from down

[1:09:23] in southern Utah some of them were some

[1:09:25] of the Johnson's in Short Creek in that

[1:09:28] country uh but anyway

[1:09:31] uh they were invited to go watch

[1:09:34] actually be on site for a a bomb last

[1:09:39] and and they so they were invited to

[1:09:41] watch that. And right now we some of us

[1:09:46] who are have been here for a long time

[1:09:48] are invited to also apply for some

[1:09:50] downwinder funds because some of the

[1:09:54] things that happened with that Adam mom

[1:09:58] you know affected a lot of us who a lot

[1:10:01] of my relatives have died for cancer and

[1:10:03] then I've got about a week left and then

[1:10:05] I'm dead too you know but but uh anyway

[1:10:10] uh we need to find out exactly what's

[1:10:12] going to happen. What's going to happen

[1:10:14] before we proceed on with this? The

[1:10:17] other thing somebody mentioned that once

[1:10:19] this is approved, Come on, Mike, just

[1:10:21] let's just

[1:10:22] >> You got time. You got turn it off. No,

[1:10:24] you'll get her done.

[1:10:25] >> We have a lot to talk about.

[1:10:26] >> I come confident in

[1:10:27] >> I'm not going to vote for you again if

[1:10:29] you don't. [laughter]

[1:10:31] >> For the record, he doesn't live inside

[1:10:33] where he could vote for me. He's He said

[1:10:35] that since I'm 16. Well, I'm not a citizen of the United States,

[1:10:42] but anyway, the uh

[1:10:46] >> somebody you got me all

[1:10:48] >> Sorry, you brought it where somebody

[1:10:49] else said

[1:10:50] >> she said something about damn it, I've

[1:10:52] forgotten what [laughter]

[1:10:53] what she said. Oh, that once this has

[1:10:55] been approved, then it's it can be

[1:10:59] wherever. But I live out in Palmyra.

[1:11:01] Well, I right now I mainly live in

[1:11:03] Spanish Fort, but sometimes I'm in

[1:11:05] Palmyra, and that's where all this

[1:11:08] development's going to go. I am right

[1:11:10] now within

[1:11:13] uh two or 30 hundred yards for from

[1:11:16] where development is right now. And and

[1:11:19] the next place that a de or data center

[1:11:22] or data

[1:11:24] uh data center is going to be is out in

[1:11:27] that country. And that concerns me that

[1:11:30] that's going to happen. So Mike, I need

[1:11:32] you, Mayor Mike, I need you to put a

[1:11:35] stop to this stupid thing. All right.

[1:11:37] And and not let it go ahead and at least

[1:11:40] for a long time till we find out that

[1:11:42] I'm purposely continuing on.

[1:11:45] >> I know. I know.

[1:11:47] >> I'll talk to you after. We'll be all you

[1:11:49] and I

[1:11:49] >> because I know also we had brother

[1:11:52] Pendleton, Mr. Pendleton said, "Trust

[1:11:55] trust you guys." That is a bunch of of

[1:11:58] crap. Okay? Because you should not trust

[1:12:01] somebody you should trust. And then of

[1:12:03] course you verify.

[1:12:04] >> I I mean I know things about you, Mayor

[1:12:07] Mike. I know

[1:12:08] >> that I have written down when I wrote

[1:12:10] the article.

[1:12:10] >> I know

[1:12:11] >> that that I won't tell anybody.

[1:12:12] >> I know. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:12:14] >> But we need to have this thing stopped.

[1:12:16] Okay. I've got another minute or

[1:12:18] >> No, you don't got another minute.

[1:12:19] >> Let's Let's let somebody else and we

[1:12:22] don't want to be I'm entertaining people

[1:12:24] now.

[1:12:25] >> I know you are. Yeah. I know you think

[1:12:26] you are. Yeah. Thank you, Elden. I

[1:12:28] appreciate you coming.

[1:12:31] >> Hurry.

[1:12:33] >> I was trying to get you up quick.

[1:12:35] >> But do we get story time after?

[1:12:37] >> We'll get it. You can get

[1:12:38] [clears throat] it.

[1:12:39] >> Hello. My name is um MB Pena. She's my

[1:12:41] sister. She just came up. Um something

[1:12:44] that's been staring at me the entire

[1:12:45] time through this meeting is the wall

[1:12:47] behind you that says pride in progress.

[1:12:49] Um I think that if you were to allow

[1:12:51] this to happen, we would have to destroy

[1:12:54] that wall. Um, I think one of Spanish

[1:12:56] Forg's biggest pride is our community

[1:12:59] and uh, sorry, this is really

[1:13:01] nerve-wracking. Um,

[1:13:03] >> being up here.

[1:13:04] >> Yeah.

[1:13:05] >> Um, I think our biggest pride is our

[1:13:07] community and our views. Uh, I've grown

[1:13:09] up in Spanish Fork my whole life. And I

[1:13:11] think my entire childhood, I've always

[1:13:13] had someone to connect to, somewhere to

[1:13:15] go, something to do. And I feel like

[1:13:17] with the development of a data center

[1:13:20] like this, it would just um um

[1:13:24] [laughter] Oh my gosh. Okay.

[1:13:26] Um I think it would just kind of destroy

[1:13:28] all of those things. I don't think that

[1:13:30] people would be comfortable being

[1:13:31] outside. People would probably want to

[1:13:32] move. I wouldn't want to live here if

[1:13:35] we're allowing things like data centers

[1:13:36] to come here. Um and then also progress.

[1:13:38] I don't think that AI is progressing us

[1:13:41] at all. Um, I think it's destroying our

[1:13:44] communities and our connection to each

[1:13:45] other. And I think progress would be

[1:13:48] connecting us and, you know, creating

[1:13:50] more opportunities for us to get to know

[1:13:52] each other and be involved in our

[1:13:53] communities and contribute. Um, like one

[1:13:56] of the things I didn't even know about

[1:13:57] this meeting or that this was even

[1:13:59] proposed until two days ago. I don't

[1:14:01] think that that should be a thing. I

[1:14:02] think everyone in Spanish Forks should

[1:14:03] know that there was a city meeting

[1:14:04] tonight. And I think that everyone at

[1:14:06] Spanish Fork should know what's being

[1:14:08] proposed so that everybody has an

[1:14:10] opportunity to come and object or agree.

[1:14:12] Um, and then one last thing, um, or not

[1:14:15] one last thing, maybe, I don't know,

[1:14:18] I'm winging it. Um, when Cole was

[1:14:20] speaking, I think it was Stacy and

[1:14:24] I couldn't see very well. The guy in

[1:14:25] front of me was like seven feet tall.

[1:14:27] Um, one of one of you guys, um, you told

[1:14:30] him that you weren't taking money. And I

[1:14:32] would like to point out that by allowing

[1:14:34] if you allow this to happen, a statement

[1:14:36] like that would have no value as we are

[1:14:38] giving you our trust to vote in our

[1:14:40] favor. And most of the people behind me

[1:14:42] have expressed that they do not want

[1:14:43] this to happen. And if you allow that to

[1:14:47] happen, you will have broken our trust.

[1:14:48] And I think you should consider that.

[1:14:51] >> Thank you,

[1:14:51] >> Andy. Andy, real quick, can I ask what

[1:14:54] grade are you in?

[1:14:55] >> Um, I'm I'm in college. Uh, my last

[1:14:58] year. Good for you for

[1:15:01] >> It's not It's not easy to get up in

[1:15:03] front of a group like this.

[1:15:05] >> You did well.

[1:15:06] >> Kudos.

[1:15:06] >> Thanks. Good job. Thank you.

[1:15:09] >> Your sister did good, too.

[1:15:10] >> Yeah.

[1:15:18] » Hello. I'm I'm Marie Godfrey and I live

[1:15:22] in Spanish Fork and I haven't lived here

[1:15:24] all my life and I don't have pioneer

[1:15:26] heritage or all these fun things people

[1:15:28] are talking about, but I have concerns.

[1:15:32] Um, and I used AI to get some questions.

[1:15:37] AI doesn't always give me what I want,

[1:15:40] but so I have some questions about the

[1:15:43] fact that we have such warm temperatures

[1:15:46] here. And one of the things is in

[1:15:48] extreme summer heat, air cooling systems

[1:15:51] struggle to keep high heat AI chips

[1:15:54] under safe operating thresholds.

[1:15:58] In turn, operators need to throttle

[1:16:00] their performance. And I would ask that

[1:16:03] they tell you how they're going to

[1:16:04] throttle their performance when they

[1:16:07] have these problems or are they planning

[1:16:09] on adding supplemental evaporative

[1:16:11] cooling systems. So these things are not

[1:16:14] been possibly been addressed. Um, maybe

[1:16:17] I missed something. Um, the liquid

[1:16:20] inside a closed loop system is rarely

[1:16:22] pure water. It is concentrated chemical

[1:16:26] cocktail, nitrils for corrosion

[1:16:28] inhibitor, biocides, and glycol

[1:16:31] antifreeze. Where is this toxic waste

[1:16:34] recycled? I was told when I called into

[1:16:37] the city today that it's somewhere

[1:16:39] north.

[1:16:41] So, I'd like to know personally where is

[1:16:42] it going and how are they handling it?

[1:16:45] because we're contributing to that.

[1:16:48] Um, and is there a sustainability report

[1:16:51] comparing liquid versus versus immersion

[1:16:54] cooling or looking into the on-site

[1:16:56] power generation aspect? Has this been

[1:17:00] evaluated?

[1:17:02] Um,

[1:17:03] and I one of my big questions is what is

[1:17:06] the rush? As has been mentioned, there

[1:17:10] was ch words changed to may the city

[1:17:13] may. Well, I may have a car accident and

[1:17:15] be dead. I mean, may everything can

[1:17:18] happen May. I think it should say will.

[1:17:22] The city will enforce these things. The

[1:17:24] city will have public hearings. The city

[1:17:27] will do these things. Not may. That's

[1:17:30] just an arbitrary word. That means

[1:17:32] because my boss, I could I could give

[1:17:35] someone an evaluation. I may do it. I

[1:17:38] may fire them. I may not. May is a big

[1:17:42] word.

[1:17:44] Um, someone mentioned about you all

[1:17:46] being stewards, and I appreciate that

[1:17:48] you put your time into these things, but

[1:17:50] I must address the mayor

[1:17:53] on his own Facebook page

[1:17:56] that some I felt like some of the things

[1:17:58] you were saying to people need to be

[1:18:00] apologized for. Maddie,

[1:18:03] you and she were going back and forth, about it, and and you

[1:18:08] know exactly what I'm talking about. Um,

[1:18:10] I felt that it was a little shameful. It

[1:18:12] was embarrassing to me, whether it be

[1:18:15] that I'm a woman or what it is. It was

[1:18:17] embarrassing to me to hear you talking

[1:18:19] to some besides your wife about you're

[1:18:23] trying to chisel yourself. That's who

[1:18:26] you should be talking to about that not

[1:18:28] on Facebook. Thank you.

[1:18:30] >> Thank you, Marie.

[1:18:38] » It's been a little while. a long while.

[1:18:40] Yeah.

[1:18:40] >> Good to see you.

[1:18:41] too. My name is Gary

[1:18:43] Buckway. I'm a resident of Spanish Fork.

[1:18:47] I just want to bring, you know, there's

[1:18:48] a lot of people that have, you know, the

[1:18:50] concerns that are here and I that I do

[1:18:52] agree with, especially the will and the

[1:18:54] and not the making sure we got all our

[1:18:57] ducks lined up in a row for a data

[1:18:58] center. But I want to bring things up.

[1:19:00] Uh my background is that I worked in IT

[1:19:04] for 36 years and taught uh information

[1:19:07] systems at UVU for 40 years. So I've

[1:19:10] been around technology for a little

[1:19:11] while. And one of the things I had the

[1:19:14] opportunity of doing was working at the

[1:19:16] law school when the

[1:19:20] um the betnet was opened up to the

[1:19:23] internet.

[1:19:25] It exploded

[1:19:27] and there are all kinds of data centers.

[1:19:29] We can call it a data center. We can

[1:19:31] call it the communication centers. They

[1:19:33] all use computing.

[1:19:36] Okay? And they were being built right

[1:19:38] and left everywhere.

[1:19:40] So one thing to keep in mind is it's

[1:19:43] going to happen and whether we choose

[1:19:46] not to use it or to use it, the data

[1:19:48] centers are going to be built.

[1:19:50] Technology is going to be moved forward

[1:19:51] just like it did with the internet and

[1:19:54] other technology that we have. So then

[1:19:56] it becomes the part that if we have all

[1:19:58] of our ducks lined up in the row like

[1:19:59] people have mentioned here for the city,

[1:20:02] for the buildings, for the environment,

[1:20:05] for the electricity, for the water.

[1:20:08] Okay, that we know then we should be in

[1:20:10] a very good shape because when the

[1:20:12] internet opened up, nobody had a clue

[1:20:14] what was going to happen,

[1:20:16] but it did explode.

[1:20:19] These d these data centers and AI is

[1:20:21] going to happen and it'll have a lot of

[1:20:23] good uses. They've already used some of

[1:20:24] it even in medicine working on surgeries

[1:20:28] and some other things that it's helped

[1:20:30] and everybody thinks of the bad but

[1:20:32] nobody thinks of the possibilities and

[1:20:35] the good that it can help humanity also

[1:20:38] because they can think so much faster

[1:20:41] and and produce so many viable viable

[1:20:44] information quick so that we can use it

[1:20:47] in a timely manner. And so I just wanted

[1:20:49] everybody to kind of think about that.

[1:20:51] Um, we've been through it before

[1:20:54] and this is a new era and it's going to

[1:20:56] happen again and it's our choice as a

[1:20:58] city to decide on whether we want to be

[1:21:00] a part of it or not because it will

[1:21:03] happen and there's a lot of benefits as

[1:21:05] a lot of people have mentioned here of

[1:21:06] some of the tax benefits and other

[1:21:08] benefits the city can have. And so

[1:21:10] that's basically I want to say thanks.

[1:21:12] >> That's Gary.

[1:21:12] >> Thank you Gary.

[1:21:14] >> Gary's network security class was my

[1:21:17] favorite one in in college. just got to

[1:21:19] say.

[1:21:22] >> Anyone else for public comment?

[1:21:31] » Hi Paul.

[1:21:32] >> Hello

[1:21:34] >> commissioner.

[1:21:35] >> Oh commissioner. Yes. Uh Paul Dayton

[1:21:37] from Spanish Fork.

[1:21:39] I just want to say something completely

[1:21:41] unrelated to data centers.

[1:21:42] >> Please. 30 years ago this month, um I'm

[1:21:47] a student at Pacin Middle School, right?

[1:21:50] And I hear these rumors that there's

[1:21:52] going to be this band I've never heard

[1:21:54] of play before in Spanish Fork. The

[1:21:58] band's name was Rage Against the

[1:22:00] Machine. People told me that and

[1:22:03] literally I've never heard of this

[1:22:04] before. There was no AI, no internet, no

[1:22:06] way. Well, there was internet, not a lot

[1:22:08] of stuff on the internet. Um, but uh I

[1:22:11] remember thinking um I had to go tune in

[1:22:14] to X96 to actually hear what it sounded

[1:22:16] like before. Everybody told me there's

[1:22:18] going to be gangs from LA come to

[1:22:20] Spanish Fork. It's going to be crazy.

[1:22:22] The news story that came up.

[1:22:25] I remember just thinking to myself, a

[1:22:28] rock band in Spanish Fork and and I

[1:22:31] heard that one of the songs was called

[1:22:32] Bulls on Parade. [laughter]

[1:22:35] not the kind of bulls that we usually

[1:22:36] have at the uh at the rodeo fairgrounds.

[1:22:39] I joked to some of my friends, this data

[1:22:41] center is like the biggest thing to

[1:22:42] happen in Spanish Fork since Rage

[1:22:44] Against the Machine. But um the the

[1:22:47] thing I want to say is I really

[1:22:48] appreciate all the work that's been done

[1:22:50] by the city. I appreciate the comments

[1:22:51] that you've taken from me here on this

[1:22:52] um data center from the community. I

[1:22:55] love seeing the community participate

[1:22:58] and give their comments. I love seeing

[1:22:59] the feedback. I love you. We may not

[1:23:02] always be well informed um as a

[1:23:04] community. Um we may not be well

[1:23:06] informed as city officials and

[1:23:07] everything like that, but going through

[1:23:09] the discussion, I think it's been very

[1:23:10] good. Um and uh I'll just say this, you

[1:23:13] know, the city council, I have the

[1:23:14] utmost faith in in what you do. I know

[1:23:16] you're here as stewards as as Councilman

[1:23:19] Oiler said. And um just just take into

[1:23:22] consideration that, you know, the

[1:23:24] decisions we make here have a very long

[1:23:26] shadow. Um there um there was some

[1:23:30] discussion about you know if we don't

[1:23:31] have this data center a possibility that

[1:23:33] pera perhaps it would be a um you know a

[1:23:37] distribution facility which was what was

[1:23:38] approved a long long time ago but people

[1:23:40] far before us. So these decisions very

[1:23:43] much have a long shadow. Anyway, thank

[1:23:44] you for your service. Thank you for the

[1:23:46] time you've put into this. I'm sure

[1:23:48] you're uh excited to someday move on. Um

[1:23:51] and thanks for making this city truly a

[1:23:53] great place. It really is a place of

[1:23:55] pride and progress. Thank you.

[1:23:57] >> Thank you.

[1:24:02] » Anyone else?

[1:24:09] My name is Brady Redern. Um,

[1:24:13] I didn't prepare any remarks tonight

[1:24:16] unlike two weeks ago when I had big

[1:24:18] spiel because I wanted to get the uh

[1:24:20] data points right. So, I've been

[1:24:22] thinking a lot about different things

[1:24:23] that people have been saying. Um, I'd

[1:24:25] like to recommend to my um, fellow

[1:24:29] citizens here to uh, go and attend

[1:24:32] Spanish Fork 101 to learn more about the

[1:24:35] details about how the city actually

[1:24:36] functions and works. I was in the first

[1:24:39] class of that as you guys know because

[1:24:41] we were all in that together. Um, I I

[1:24:44] think a lot of the things that I hear

[1:24:46] from people, a lot of concerns, a lot of

[1:24:47] the questions people have, um, a lot of

[1:24:49] it is kind of like procedural and that's

[1:24:51] a great opportunity to learn about the

[1:24:53] details about how the city actually

[1:24:54] works, how things like amendments are

[1:24:56] created, just all the different

[1:24:57] processes and how the city functions.

[1:25:00] Um, so that, you know, that's just great

[1:25:02] for understanding how how things work

[1:25:04] around here. Um, to let you know, I I

[1:25:06] haven't changed my mind or my

[1:25:07] recommendation uh from two weeks ago. So

[1:25:10] yeah, I have a lot of experience in this

[1:25:12] domain. I've been working in uh

[1:25:13] specifically building AI technologies

[1:25:15] since 2012. I I was building IBM Watson

[1:25:18] at the time. Um and I've been all over

[1:25:20] the place from coast to coast since

[1:25:22] then, working on classified AI systems

[1:25:24] for the federal government. I've written

[1:25:25] AI policy for the Department of

[1:25:27] Commerce, uh for Homeland Security. Um

[1:25:29] I've done projects at places like INL

[1:25:31] where, uh those are really important

[1:25:33] topics. Um so I'm not afraid of AI. I

[1:25:37] use it every day. Uh right now I'm

[1:25:39] building AI products primarily in the

[1:25:41] education sector. So uh I still think

[1:25:45] this is a great opportunity for the city

[1:25:48] and uh you know like has been echoed

[1:25:50] before I want to let you all know that I

[1:25:51] really appreciate you know you take a a

[1:25:54] lot of hate [laughter]

[1:25:56] um from situations like this. Um but you

[1:25:58] know the great the great thing about

[1:26:00] living in a representative democracy is

[1:26:02] that we have elected you and we have

[1:26:03] chosen you to lead us forward into a

[1:26:05] future. Um so while people can give

[1:26:08] opinions and you know check in with you

[1:26:10] and and let you know what they think um

[1:26:12] we have chosen you to take us forward.

[1:26:16] Uh so you know as much as any of us

[1:26:19] actually want to give an opinion and and

[1:26:20] have you listen to us we already made

[1:26:23] that choice by electing you in the first

[1:26:24] place. So you know kind of that time has

[1:26:27] passed. Um and so we have put you know

[1:26:30] our our trust in you. And so you know

[1:26:32] while I think this is a much better

[1:26:34] decision living especially so close to

[1:26:36] it as I do um than something like a

[1:26:38] cement block plant or uh you know a

[1:26:41] larger warehouse um I I think that this

[1:26:44] kind of a solution that has a

[1:26:46] sustainable um a sustainable plan is

[1:26:49] much better for the community than any

[1:26:51] of the alternatives that anybody has

[1:26:52] proposed. Um, and you know, knowing what

[1:26:55] I do about how the city functions, you

[1:26:58] know, [clears throat] I am grateful for

[1:26:59] the time that you've taken to to think

[1:27:02] about this policy and um, you know, and

[1:27:04] execute it in a well-informed manner.

[1:27:06] Um, and so, you know, I I don't have any

[1:27:09] um, reservations over the last two weeks

[1:27:10] over my recommendation before. Thanks.

[1:27:13] >> Thank you, Brady.

[1:27:17] » Anyone else for public comment?

[1:27:29] I don't know if she's still in here. My

[1:27:30] name is Haley Packard from Smash Fork. I

[1:27:33] don't know if she's still in here, but

[1:27:34] the college girl, I am I just turned 40

[1:27:37] and it's absolutely terrifying to be up

[1:27:39] here, so I can concur. Um, before I read

[1:27:44] what I wrote down, I just want to give a

[1:27:46] little bit of a story. I I learn off of

[1:27:49] parallels and I work and do uh events at

[1:27:53] my my job and of course you do all the

[1:27:55] planning and all the things to make sure

[1:27:57] it's going to run smoothly but of course

[1:27:59] there's a lot of unknowns things that

[1:28:00] you can't control things that you didn't

[1:28:02] expect a variable completely outside of

[1:28:05] the event itself that it does affect you

[1:28:09] and sometimes you know it goes great and

[1:28:11] sometimes it doesn't and it falls on my

[1:28:14] head and it's not very fun but it

[1:28:16] happens. And so with that being said,

[1:28:17] I'm just going to move into this what I

[1:28:18] wrote. Um something to keep in mind, the

[1:28:21] US administration is currently seeking

[1:28:23] to restrict state regulations on AI. To

[1:28:26] clarify, they're directing the Justice

[1:28:27] Department to challenge state laws

[1:28:29] regulating artificial intelligence. This

[1:28:32] includes the establishment of an AI

[1:28:34] litigation task force to sue states over

[1:28:36] their AI regulations.

[1:28:39] Please consider this if this does come

[1:28:41] to fruition fruition as it removes the

[1:28:44] ability for our city, let alone our

[1:28:45] state to properly step in on behalf of

[1:28:48] its people. With so many unknown

[1:28:51] scenarios and variables and even more

[1:28:53] legitimate concerns surrounding this

[1:28:55] topic, both of which will compound into

[1:28:57] serious consequences if not properly

[1:28:59] meticulously scrutinized.

[1:29:02] It's all things that we definitely need

[1:29:03] to be considering for ourselves as well

[1:29:05] as our future. Please consider

[1:29:08] to keep this a public discussion as it's

[1:29:12] not something worth rushing. Thank you

[1:29:14] for your time.

[1:29:15] >> Thank you.

[1:29:20] Anyone else?

[1:29:29] Hello. Hello. I'm James Westwwater,

[1:29:32] a a long time 20 plus year resident of

[1:29:36] Spanish Fork and so far I'm very happy

[1:29:40] living here and I hope that happiness

[1:29:44] will continue

[1:29:46] and I just wanted to remind um council

[1:29:51] of what uh I quoted General Omar Bradley

[1:29:55] of saying um quite a while ago and I

[1:29:58] think that Bill Gates would agree.

[1:30:01] The world has achieved brilliance.

[1:30:04] He's talking about technology. The world

[1:30:07] has achieved brilliance without wisdom,

[1:30:11] power without conscience.

[1:30:15] Ours is a world of nuclear giants and

[1:30:18] ethical infants. We know more about war

[1:30:22] than we know about peace, more about

[1:30:26] killing than we know about living.

[1:30:30] If we continue to develop our technology

[1:30:35] without wisdom,

[1:30:38] our servant, in this case AI data

[1:30:41] centers will become our executioner.

[1:30:46] Close quote.

[1:30:48] May city council have the conscience and

[1:30:51] wisdom to not permit a data center to be

[1:30:56] built in Spanish fork. It would be

[1:30:59] harmful to our health, the health of the

[1:31:03] environment and the quality of life on

[1:31:06] which we, our children, nature and the

[1:31:10] future depend. Thank you.

[1:31:13] >> Thank you, James.

[1:31:17] Anyone else for public comment?

[1:31:23] » Okay, perfect. Thank you all. Thank you

[1:31:25] for participating and and thank you for

[1:31:27] uh for keeping it to the time everybody

[1:31:28] but Elden, you didn't keep it, but

[1:31:30] everybody else did.

[1:31:32] >> Thank you for that. Uh the that agenda

[1:31:34] item that every everybody was here to

[1:31:37] talk about is a little bit later on the

[1:31:38] agenda, so we have some other things to

[1:31:41] get to before that, but it it won't be

[1:31:43] very long. So, I'd encourage you if you

[1:31:45] had questions to uh to stay here and and

[1:31:48] u and be part of that discussion uh just

[1:31:51] in in a little bit here. Um you guys

[1:31:54] okay for break right now or not a break?

[1:31:57] You don't need a break. You're good.

[1:31:58] >> Okay.

[1:31:59] All right. Um our next item uh

[1:32:02] agenda goes to council comments where

[1:32:04] the council reports on meetings they've

[1:32:05] been to or what's happened uh in their

[1:32:09] represented life of the city over the

[1:32:11] last couple of weeks. So, we'll start

[1:32:13] council comments with councilwoman Beck

[1:32:16] because she was looking at me like she

[1:32:17] wanted to.

[1:32:18] >> You never start with me. So, I was just

[1:32:19] going to see who you were going to

[1:32:20] choose.

[1:32:20] >> We'll go councilwoman Beck, then we'll

[1:32:21] go Councilman Marshall, then we'll come

[1:32:23] back to you, Councilman Took. Is that

[1:32:24] all right? All right. Councilwoman Beck.

[1:32:26] >> I studied data centers and then I also

[1:32:28] attended a library board meeting. I

[1:32:30] wanted to report that September is

[1:32:32] National Library Card Signup Month. So,

[1:32:35] all new accounts this month will receive

[1:32:37] a library tote. Also, the library closed

[1:32:41] its summer reading program and had the

[1:32:43] biggest best turnout yet. This year's

[1:32:45] program um had 1,800 children, teens,

[1:32:50] adults completing the program. And um

[1:32:54] our library director just wanted me to

[1:32:56] be sure to thank the businesses that

[1:32:57] supported that, including Swig, Crumble,

[1:33:00] Nothing But Cakes, Macy's, Walmart,

[1:33:03] Hampton in Brookers, Ice Cream, and

[1:33:06] Lowe's. So, thanks to the library. Um,

[1:33:10] also, oh, and then I studied data

[1:33:12] centers and then I went to a fiesta

[1:33:16] days. I went with our current chair to

[1:33:20] ask our in a new couple for the incoming

[1:33:23] chair. Can I get a drum roll? We need to

[1:33:25] make this exciting. It's going to be a

[1:33:27] long night, guys. Jared and Tammy

[1:33:30] Hansen, both SF University graduates.

[1:33:34] So, they are excited to join us. Um,

[1:33:37] it's just a three-year commitment, a

[1:33:39] meeting every month, commit half your

[1:33:41] month of July being in 100 degree

[1:33:43] weather, but they do get a free t-shirt

[1:33:45] out of it, and that tipped them over the

[1:33:47] top. [laughter]

[1:33:48] >> That's true.

[1:33:49] >> Okay. And then after that, that day I

[1:33:52] spent a couple hours studying about the

[1:33:54] data center. And I also want to announce

[1:33:57] that we have wrapped up the 2026 season

[1:34:01] for yard of the week. So, I wanted to

[1:34:04] thank my committee for nominating

[1:34:06] people, voting, and especially thank the

[1:34:09] residents that really take good care of

[1:34:11] their yards. I know that takes time,

[1:34:15] money, energy, and it's fun to go out

[1:34:18] and recognize people. They get a sign,

[1:34:20] they get an official letter, they get

[1:34:23] social media shoutouts. So, that's over.

[1:34:26] I I took the last sign out last night.

[1:34:28] And then after that, I studied about

[1:34:30] some data centers.

[1:34:34] Yard of the week doesn't go into the

[1:34:36] fall for cleanup. You have to be able to

[1:34:38] be mowing your yard.

[1:34:39] >> I just barely got my yard green. Like,

[1:34:41] come on. It's time for my [laughter]

[1:34:42] yard.

[1:34:43] >> I saw some yards.

[1:34:44] >> Rain has been helpful.

[1:34:46] >> It has been helpful.

[1:34:46] >> Yards that had piles of uh uh hail in

[1:34:50] them last week. So, yeah, pretty crazy

[1:34:52] times. Thank you, Councilwoman Beck.

[1:34:54] Councilman Marshall,

[1:34:56] >> um echo everything you just said. um a

[1:34:58] little bit of data center studying,

[1:35:01] reading every single email. I didn't get

[1:35:04] a chance to respond to every single

[1:35:05] email, but read them all. Um not only

[1:35:08] are we not getting a kickback, I can't

[1:35:10] even compete for yard of the week

[1:35:13] >> because I'm on city council.

[1:35:15] >> Um

[1:35:15] >> nor would you win.

[1:35:18] >> I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm going to

[1:35:20] make this all the things you've said to

[1:35:22] me as light-hearted as I can.

[1:35:23] >> All the things you've said to me. Um,

[1:35:25] no, seriously, the the response has been

[1:35:27] great. I appreciated all the feedback.

[1:35:29] Um, and we'll probably get into this

[1:35:31] later on, but uh the the the folks that

[1:35:34] took the time to say here's specifically

[1:35:37] why I don't want this here was extremely

[1:35:40] helpful. Um, just saying I don't want it

[1:35:43] was I get it. I understand that a lot.

[1:35:45] Um, but saying exactly why, here are the

[1:35:48] things that bug me about the proposal or

[1:35:50] our code or whatever. Very, very helpful

[1:35:53] for us. Um, so thank you for doing that.

[1:35:55] Thank you everyone for taking the time.

[1:35:56] Phone calls, texts, um, emails. I I

[1:36:00] studied data centers for the last two

[1:36:01] weeks. That's it. That's what I did. Um,

[1:36:04] I traveled a couple times for work,

[1:36:06] study on the plane for data centers. So,

[1:36:08] it's been a lot. Um,

[1:36:10] we do take this super serious and and we

[1:36:14] wouldn't be up here if we didn't. So,

[1:36:16] again, thank you for your time and

[1:36:17] effort to to give us feedback.

[1:36:18] Appreciate it. That's it for me, Mayor.

[1:36:20] >> Thanks, Councilman Marshall. Councilman

[1:36:22] Tuk. Okay. Thank you, mayor. As those

[1:36:24] before me have indicated, I too have

[1:36:26] spent the last two weeks uh intensely

[1:36:28] studying data centers and and your

[1:36:30] concerns and questions. And I I I've

[1:36:32] often thought if I had studied this hard

[1:36:34] in college, I would have gone a lot

[1:36:35] further in life and uh probably been

[1:36:36] validictorian or something. So, it's

[1:36:39] been super insightful and I appreciate

[1:36:40] all of those of you who are here

[1:36:42] tonight. Uh you know, this is a

[1:36:43] democracy sharing your your feelings and what you want and and we represent

[1:36:48] you. So, thank you. Uh, as far as

[1:36:50] announcements go, I do have a couple

[1:36:52] things here for you. First of all, I

[1:36:53] want to give you all an update the city

[1:36:54] on the new public works building. Uh,

[1:36:57] it's we're in the design phase right now

[1:36:59] and it's it's absolutely fascinating to

[1:37:01] watch that come together and uh to see

[1:37:04] what's coming together. I'm excited. Uh,

[1:37:06] it's going to take a while, but it's

[1:37:08] definitely happening. And if you don't

[1:37:09] know, right now public works is spread

[1:37:11] out throughout the city. It's our

[1:37:13] largest division and we want to bring

[1:37:16] everyone together. And so that's what

[1:37:17] this building will do. and I'm just very

[1:37:19] excited about to be part of that team.

[1:37:21] So, I'll give more updates as that

[1:37:22] continues to prog continues to progress.

[1:37:25] Uh so, our my next set of announcements,

[1:37:27] there's just a couple here and that they

[1:37:28] come from the Chamber of Commerce. And

[1:37:30] so, our president, she had to leave

[1:37:31] early. Uh but I wanted to just share

[1:37:34] some things from her in regards to our

[1:37:36] business community here in Spanish Fork.

[1:37:37] And so, uh just three or four things

[1:37:40] here. First of all, uh there's a ribbon

[1:37:42] cutting this Thursday on the 3rd of

[1:37:44] September at noon. It's for a new

[1:37:46] company called Stone and Soul Wellness.

[1:37:48] And so that's an exciting new ad to the city.

[1:37:52] We also have a ribbon cutting next or

[1:37:54] Monday the 14th of September. Uh that's

[1:37:57] for a company called Levette Wealth.

[1:38:00] So another good one.

[1:38:02] That's at noon on the 14th. And then we

[1:38:04] have uh let's see new networking

[1:38:07] lunchon. This is something that the

[1:38:08] chamber does every month. That will be

[1:38:10] on the next one will be on September

[1:38:11] 17th at noon. uh the networking game day

[1:38:14] edition is what this is called and uh

[1:38:17] it'll be the Spanish Fork Sports Park is

[1:38:19] where that will be held. So that's a new

[1:38:21] networking lunch. If you're interested

[1:38:22] in attending and being a part of that,

[1:38:24] let me know. Please reach out. And then

[1:38:25] the last announcement I have from

[1:38:27] Kathleen is that on Thursday, September

[1:38:29] 24th, we have the the Chamber of

[1:38:31] Commerce uh business summit. And that'll

[1:38:34] be from 9:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the

[1:38:36] Spanish Fork Fairgrounds just down the

[1:38:37] street here. Uh there's advertising

[1:38:40] that'll be going on on social media and

[1:38:41] so forth, but if you have any questions,

[1:38:42] please reach out. I will also let

[1:38:44] Kathleen next council meeting on the

[1:38:46] 15th, she'll give more updates on a

[1:38:48] couple of these things and then also on

[1:38:50] the business summit that'll be coming up

[1:38:51] nine days later. But lots of exciting

[1:38:53] things happening in our business

[1:38:54] community here in the city. And that is

[1:38:58] all I have. Mayor,

[1:38:59] >> perfect. Thank you, Councilman Tuk and

[1:39:01] Councilman Carden.

[1:39:02] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I wanted to we

[1:39:05] talked about it earlier about Horse Moon

[1:39:06] Har and Wings and Wills. So, that's

[1:39:08] something that I um I'm a part of. But

[1:39:10] one of the things that was mentioned is

[1:39:11] how many volunteers we have. I think 50%

[1:39:14] of them come from the youth city

[1:39:15] council. I'm always going to give them a

[1:39:17] shout out. And we also have I won't I

[1:39:19] won't embarrass them too much, but we

[1:39:20] have a member of the city council who

[1:39:22] has been I think she spent almost the

[1:39:24] entire six hours last time and she's

[1:39:26] already made it through. We're almost to

[1:39:29] two hours now. So, who knows how long

[1:39:31] she'll last there, but thank you. Thank

[1:39:32] you for taking your responsibility

[1:39:34] seriously. Um, one of the things that

[1:39:37] has been really insightful and really

[1:39:40] awesome the last two weeks is the amount

[1:39:42] of public engagement that has been

[1:39:44] around this process. No matter if it's

[1:39:46] been for or against or neutral and just

[1:39:49] want to share thoughts, it's been

[1:39:51] awesome. And some of those emails have

[1:39:52] been really helpful. Um, not to to call

[1:39:54] them out. one email that I that I

[1:39:56] received and they're in the room. Um,

[1:39:57] but they sent the email and it had an

[1:39:59] attachment with links in the attachment

[1:40:01] that made it really easy to go and find

[1:40:03] the sources that they're talking about

[1:40:05] and give information. So, thank you.

[1:40:07] for doing that. Um,

[1:40:08] unfortunately, I think Councilman

[1:40:10] Marshall talked about it. It was near

[1:40:12] impossible to reply to everyone. I

[1:40:14] started trying to and I failed

[1:40:16] miserably. So, I apologize for that. Um,

[1:40:18] but thank you for being engaged. Um, I

[1:40:20] think that to some of the comments

[1:40:21] tonight, um, it goes to show I our room

[1:40:24] is never this packed. Um, especially at

[1:40:28] this hour or at 10:30 at night as the

[1:40:31] other one, but I think it goes to show

[1:40:33] that there is some there is that level

[1:40:34] of trust. But thank you for being

[1:40:36] involved. Thank you for being a part of

[1:40:38] what we're doing um, and caring about

[1:40:39] the city that we represent. One of the

[1:40:41] things I want to just mention is that

[1:40:44] there the six of us and I would include

[1:40:46] that to the city staff is that we love

[1:40:49] the city of Spanish Fork and no matter

[1:40:51] if we disagree, agree or whatever we do,

[1:40:54] we're doing it because we think that

[1:40:56] that's what's best for Spanish Fork. And

[1:40:58] as we work through this process, I don't

[1:40:59] think it'll be any different. That

[1:41:00] however whatever everyone does, I think

[1:41:04] it will be because they think it's

[1:41:05] what's best for Spanish work. And I

[1:41:06] don't know what they're what everyone up

[1:41:08] here is thinking at this moment. I just

[1:41:10] say that to say um I I do believe that

[1:41:12] everyone has the best intentions in what

[1:41:14] they're trying to do. That's all I got.

[1:41:15] Mayor,

[1:41:16] >> thanks Councilman Cardon. Councilman

[1:41:18] Oiler.

[1:41:19] >> Thank you, Mayor. I'll talk about data

[1:41:21] centers in a little bit when we get

[1:41:22] there. I've got a lot on my mind to

[1:41:24] share about that, but for now, let's

[1:41:26] talk about taxes.

[1:41:28] >> I want to talk a little bit about the

[1:41:31] city's

[1:41:32] >> agenda. Sorry. [laughter]

[1:41:34] >> The city's wrap tax. If you're not

[1:41:36] familiar with our wrap tax, it's

[1:41:38] recreation, arts, and parks. Seth or

[1:41:40] Bronco, maybe you can remind me. It is

[1:41:43] one cent of every how much?

[1:41:46] >> One cent on 10.

[1:41:47] >> One cent of every $10 that we spend in

[1:41:50] stores gets set aside towards towards

[1:41:52] our wrap tax. I sit on the city's RAP

[1:41:56] committee where grants from residents

[1:41:59] and and organizations within the

[1:42:01] community submit a grant and say, "Hey,

[1:42:03] we would love to get some wrap taxes to go towards this or that." And so

[1:42:08] today, I want to show you one of the

[1:42:10] grants that was submitted and what the

[1:42:13] end result was. So, we received a grant

[1:42:16] from the Nebo composite mountain bike

[1:42:20] team to put a track, a pump track down

[1:42:25] by the sports park along the river

[1:42:26] trail. If anybody lives in this area or

[1:42:30] walks the river trail in this area,

[1:42:32] you'll see that kids already have

[1:42:35] through the years over time, even my own

[1:42:37] kids back when they were small, created

[1:42:39] their own trails and bumps and jumps and

[1:42:42] everything. and and this group said,

[1:42:46] "Why don't we find a designated location

[1:42:49] where we can put in a really nice

[1:42:51] quality track that our youth and our

[1:42:54] kids can use?" And so I want to show you

[1:42:57] some of the videos. If you can click on

[1:42:58] one of those for me, David, this is what the city just within the

[1:43:03] last week or two has put in down down

[1:43:06] there. Hopefully this will play. All

[1:43:08] right. That's my little guy loving it.

[1:43:11] Um,

[1:43:13] every time that I've walked by, other

[1:43:15] than after the rainstorms and there were

[1:43:18] deep, deep puddles, there were probably

[1:43:20] still kids that were riding their bikes

[1:43:22] and playing in it. But it is getting

[1:43:24] heavily used. If you go to the next

[1:43:26] video, David, you can see some of the use that's taking place. And

[1:43:31] this is without too many in the

[1:43:32] community even knowing that it's there

[1:43:34] yet. So, just wanted to show how our

[1:43:38] community wrap taxes are being used to

[1:43:40] benefit the youth in our community. So,

[1:43:43] great job to our parks and rec

[1:43:45] department, Bronco. Let Bart and anyone

[1:43:48] else that was involved in this project

[1:43:51] know it is being heavily used and much

[1:43:54] appreciated by my 11-year-old and I'm

[1:43:56] sure many other youth in our community.

[1:43:59] >> I'm going to bring the Gen X version of

[1:44:01] that, pictures of that next time.

[1:44:02] >> Oh, yeah. which is just a wood thing in

[1:44:04] front of my house built up on center

[1:44:06] blocks

[1:44:07] >> back back when you still got your

[1:44:09] skateboard.

[1:44:11] >> No. [laughter]

[1:44:13] >> All right. Thank you.

[1:44:19] » Who did that?

[1:44:20] >> Oh, who like who installed it for the

[1:44:22] city? Bronco, do you have the the

[1:44:24] contact info of who? I know it's

[1:44:26] Shephardd's, but I can't remember

[1:44:27] exactly the business name that we hired.

[1:44:29] >> I don't I don't know their business

[1:44:30] name. of his Shepherd brothers from uh

[1:44:33] from here and uh they did just complete

[1:44:35] it, but we still need to put a fence.

[1:44:37] So, if you're walking by and those young

[1:44:39] kids or the mayor comes flying out on a

[1:44:41] bike, just enter with caution for a

[1:44:43] minute

[1:44:44] >> and be careful. Okay.

[1:44:45] >> Yeah.

[1:44:46] >> Thank you. Um next item, I want to turn

[1:44:49] some time over to Caleb Pollock, who's

[1:44:52] our chairman of the Historic

[1:44:54] Preservation Commission. Caleb's got a

[1:44:57] presentation that he's going to share

[1:44:58] with us and he's going to talk about a

[1:45:03] we talked about wings and wheels, we

[1:45:04] talked about harvest moon harrah.

[1:45:06] Squished in between those on the 18th we

[1:45:09] have another event that he's going to

[1:45:11] share with us. So Caleb, the time is all

[1:45:14] yours.

[1:45:20] Good evening, mayor and council. It's

[1:45:22] wonderful to be with you. Um,

[1:45:24] everybody's been apologizing me to me

[1:45:26] tonight that I've had to wait and I've

[1:45:29] said, you know, it's great. I just

[1:45:31] pulled out the history books off the

[1:45:32] shelf and got a little reading in and

[1:45:35] had some snacks left over from work, so

[1:45:37] I'm having a great night. Um, it's not

[1:45:39] nine o'clock yet, so that's good, too.

[1:45:41] Um, [laughter]

[1:45:42] but uh um just really again just an

[1:45:46] honor to be with you tonight. um the

[1:45:48] last two and a half years that the

[1:45:49] Historic Preservation Commission has

[1:45:51] existed, um we've had a lot of really

[1:45:53] wonderful initiatives that we've been

[1:45:55] able to work on and do for the

[1:45:58] community. Um but this is probably our

[1:46:00] largest yet and it's uh very exciting to

[1:46:03] share with you what we've been able to

[1:46:04] do. So this year of course is the 250th

[1:46:06] anniversary of the United States of

[1:46:09] America and it is also very fun to be

[1:46:14] celebrating the 250th anniversary of the

[1:46:17] Dominguez and Escalani expedition. Now

[1:46:20] why is that important? Well, it's the

[1:46:24] reason that our city is named Spanish

[1:46:27] Fork. And also Jack, did do you have a

[1:46:30] clicker?

[1:46:32] We can work on that. Okay. Um,

[1:46:36] so it's the reason that our name, our

[1:46:38] city's name is Spanish Fork. Um, there's

[1:46:40] some history that goes behind that. Um,

[1:46:42] but what we were able to do as a

[1:46:43] commission, we said we want to do

[1:46:44] something big to really highlight this

[1:46:46] anniversary that is key to our city's

[1:46:49] history. And so, um, in June of this

[1:46:53] year, you might recall that Senator

[1:46:54] Curtis, he did his big walk from Bear

[1:46:57] Lake to Provo where he walked 250 miles.

[1:47:00] So, that sparked some Oh, yeah. Thank

[1:47:02] you. That sparked some ideas in our

[1:47:05] minds and we said we want to do

[1:47:06] something really big and we said well

[1:47:08] wouldn't it be cool if we connected all

[1:47:10] the cities between Santa Fe, New Mexico

[1:47:13] where this expedition started and

[1:47:15] Spanish Fork and we started looking at

[1:47:17] that and to see what it would take and

[1:47:19] that's what we decided to do. So, um,

[1:47:22] obviously the most synonymous thing in

[1:47:24] our city with this anniversary is the

[1:47:26] cross on the hill. And, um, I just want

[1:47:29] to share a quick quote with you. Um,

[1:47:31] from the official report that was sent

[1:47:34] to King Carlos III of Spain to Madrid

[1:47:36] about our city. The most pleasant,

[1:47:39] happy, and fertile in all New Spain. It

[1:47:41] is alone capable of supporting a

[1:47:43] populace as great of that of Mexico

[1:47:45] City. At that time in 1776, the

[1:47:48] population in Mexico City was about

[1:47:49] 100,000 people. its inhabitants would

[1:47:52] enjoy many conveniences since it

[1:47:53] possesses everything necessary for the

[1:47:55] maintenance of human life. Now, I don't

[1:47:57] know if that included a data center in

[1:47:59] their vision, [laughter]

[1:48:01] but they had pretty good foresight.

[1:48:05] So, um, of course, if you've ever been

[1:48:09] to the Utah State Capital, you'll know

[1:48:11] that on the pendantives of the dome,

[1:48:15] there are murals. And one mural is of

[1:48:17] this expedition in this history. And

[1:48:20] here's just a copy of the map that they

[1:48:22] made, one portion of it. And of course,

[1:48:24] the statue in City Park from 1976

[1:48:27] on the other murals in the dome is also

[1:48:31] relayed our city's history, which is

[1:48:32] very interesting. On three of the four

[1:48:34] pendantives, I don't know of another

[1:48:36] city in the state that can say that. I

[1:48:38] don't know of another city in the

[1:48:39] country that can say that their entire

[1:48:40] history, founding history is on their

[1:48:43] state capital dome. That's pretty

[1:48:44] amazing. But this is John C. Fremont. He

[1:48:47] used the maps that Dominguez and

[1:48:49] Escalani created to create his map which

[1:48:52] later would be in the hands of Brigham

[1:48:54] Y. Young and the pioneers in Nauvoo when

[1:48:56] they were planning to arrive in the Salt

[1:48:58] Lake Valley. And his map was

[1:49:00] instrumental. So quite literally without

[1:49:02] Dominguez and Escalani, Brigham Y. Young

[1:49:04] may and the pioneers may have never made

[1:49:07] it to Utah at the time that they did.

[1:49:09] And that could have changed history for

[1:49:10] Utah and for so many people forever. So,

[1:49:14] here's the map of the relay that we

[1:49:16] decided that we would take on. Now, this

[1:49:19] is including 34 different organizations

[1:49:22] and cities across the Southwest. And we

[1:49:25] started reaching out to all these groups

[1:49:27] and we said, "Is this something that

[1:49:28] you're going to be interested in?" And

[1:49:30] they all said yes, of course. And so,

[1:49:32] this is us in Santa Fe on July 29th, 17

[1:49:36] on July 29th of this year. And we were

[1:49:39] able to be there at the exact hour that

[1:49:42] Dominguez and Escalani would have left

[1:49:44] at 10 o'clock a.m. on the same street in

[1:49:46] front of the same building that was

[1:49:48] there. That building is called the

[1:49:50] Palace of the Governors. It's the New

[1:49:51] Mexico State History Museum and it was

[1:49:53] built in 1610.

[1:49:56] And then we were able to go across the

[1:49:58] Southwest visiting different historical

[1:50:00] areas, different groups, different

[1:50:02] organizations. I won't bore you with all

[1:50:04] the details, but as we went through all

[1:50:06] these different places, Spanish Fork

[1:50:09] again and again came up and people

[1:50:10] always said, "This is my connection. My

[1:50:12] sister lived there. That's where we get

[1:50:14] our meat processed. You guys have an

[1:50:16] amazing rodeo." And on and on and on.

[1:50:18] And people just wanted to tell me so

[1:50:19] much about how they were connected to

[1:50:21] our city.

[1:50:24] And so many stories, so many just so

[1:50:26] many memories. I will remember this

[1:50:28] forever. Um but of course um as we

[1:50:31] approach the uh anniversary which is on

[1:50:34] September 23rd, the commission will be

[1:50:36] holding a ceremony in City Park on

[1:50:39] Friday, September 18th in conjunction

[1:50:41] with food truck Friday. And we'll be

[1:50:43] having a big ceremony. We'll have

[1:50:45] dancers and speakers. Um we'll have a

[1:50:47] speaker from the Catholic Dascese. We'll

[1:50:50] speak to the history of the Roman

[1:50:51] Catholic Church in regards to this

[1:50:53] anniversary. Um we couldn't be more

[1:50:55] thrilled um to be able to be celebrating

[1:50:57] this massive milestone. Um in 1976 they

[1:51:01] did a ton of things. They did 23

[1:51:03] individual events across the entire

[1:51:05] county. We're just doing our small part

[1:51:07] to keep the history alive. Thank you so

[1:51:09] much again um council for all of your

[1:51:11] support to our commission. Um it has

[1:51:14] been just amazing to have Tara and Pete

[1:51:17] and everybody who is on our commission

[1:51:19] who works with us on city staff.

[1:51:21] Councilman Oiler for being our champion.

[1:51:23] It has just been wonderful and a dream

[1:51:25] come true for me as a young person. So,

[1:51:27] if you have any questions, um, I'm happy

[1:51:30] to answer those or you can just email

[1:51:32] me. Um, but thank you again. This is

[1:51:34] >> Will you turn that around so everybody

[1:51:35] can see it as well.

[1:51:37] >> I feel like we're hogging it.

[1:51:40] >> Oh, it's different.

[1:51:41] >> Oh, you guys were hogging it.

[1:51:45] >> Oh, that's cool. Yeah.

[1:51:46] >> So, did we get a grant to fund you to go

[1:51:49] do this or were you just like I want to

[1:51:50] spend my summer traveling and this is

[1:51:52] how you do it.

[1:51:53] >> Yeah. Well, we actually reached out and

[1:51:55] we said if you want to donate, you can

[1:51:56] donate. And they covered the cost of the

[1:51:58] entire thing, all the organizations. And

[1:52:01] this organization at the bottom is the

[1:52:03] uh Old Spanish Trail Association. They

[1:52:05] were very generous and gave us a $500

[1:52:07] grant from their organization. So, um

[1:52:11] just really the phenomenal turnout from

[1:52:12] everybody and it was a smashing success.

[1:52:15] We'll be going to uh Eastern Utah next

[1:52:19] week and then to the Dascese of Salt

[1:52:21] Lake on the 16th and then we'll be we're

[1:52:24] trying to plan something up at the

[1:52:25] Capitol building which is still pending

[1:52:27] with our state partners and the Museum

[1:52:29] of the Utah and the America 250 Utah

[1:52:32] Commission, but that's up in the air and

[1:52:34] so we'll see. But thank you again. Um

[1:52:36] this has just been really wonderful.

[1:52:39] >> That's really cool. Where's that going?

[1:52:41] Yeah, we're hoping to have it downstairs

[1:52:44] in the display for a little while. Um,

[1:52:46] eventually it'll probably go live with

[1:52:48] Darla Butler at the at the museum, but

[1:52:51] we're excited.

[1:52:52] >> That's awesome. Well done.

[1:52:53] >> Good work. Yeah. Thank you.

[1:52:54] >> Good work.

[1:52:55] >> Thank you, Caleb.

[1:52:55] >> Thanks, Caleb.

[1:53:04] » That's all I've got, Mayor.

[1:53:05] >> Okay, that's all.

[1:53:06] >> Thank you.

[1:53:07] >> That's it.

[1:53:08] >> Thank you, Councilman Oiler. Uh, yeah.

[1:53:10] Thank you for that video. I sent one to Bronco of It's not just kids on

[1:53:14] there, but if if you're older and get on

[1:53:16] that track, you'll get out of breath

[1:53:17] pretty quick. He alluded to it. Uh but

[1:53:20] so cool that uh some some people got

[1:53:23] together that know how to do that stuff

[1:53:24] and and donated their time and equipment

[1:53:26] and stuff and then got some some some

[1:53:28] funding from a great rap tax, too. But

[1:53:31] you can tell that's going to be a a fun

[1:53:33] thing for years and years to come uh for that area. So, that's cool that your kids saw kids experiencing it. Um,

[1:53:41] one thing that I want to point out, uh,

[1:53:43] downstairs, uh, I told the Jordan, Jordan just left, but Jordan's

[1:53:48] department downstairs, our billing

[1:53:50] department,

[1:53:51] um, it's, uh, been a hot summer and so I

[1:53:55] know electric bills with the summer

[1:53:58] heat, as our resident electrician here

[1:54:02] could attest to, but those are not cheap

[1:54:05] to run. and uh and so city bills when I

[1:54:07] saw mine was like well we must have left

[1:54:10] the door open the whole dang summer uh

[1:54:12] and uh and just cooled the outside too.

[1:54:15] But I want to tell you a real experience

[1:54:17] that that happened of uh of

[1:54:21] an older um resident that came and spoke

[1:54:24] to me uh and said, "Hey, I've I've got a a bill that's way higher than usual."

[1:54:30] and and I did mention to her, yeah,

[1:54:33] those those usually go up in the summer

[1:54:35] just cuz we're trying to cool our

[1:54:36] houses, but she said it was her water

[1:54:38] portion of her bill that went up and

[1:54:40] this is an old older widow that lives in

[1:54:42] town. And and I would confidently just

[1:54:45] send her down to the city office and

[1:54:46] said, "Hey, this is who you need to go

[1:54:48] talk to. Go talk to Jordan's people down

[1:54:50] there." And of course, they took care of

[1:54:52] her. Saw that there were some readings

[1:54:54] on her bill that were kind of out of uh

[1:54:57] of range. and uh they went and checked

[1:55:00] and found the leak at her house. So, she

[1:55:02] hadn't been using water. She had been

[1:55:04] losing water. And um she came back to my office um later that afternoon, gave

[1:55:10] me a big hug with tears in her eyes and

[1:55:12] said, "Hey, you don't know what $200

[1:55:14] means to a to an old widow." And um and

[1:55:18] so just again uh compliments to to our

[1:55:22] people that take care of people here in

[1:55:23] the city. Uh and uh and and help out

[1:55:27] where we can. If you ever see something

[1:55:29] kind of out of the ordinary on your

[1:55:31] bill, that's the place to go talk to

[1:55:33] them. You can reach out to us online as

[1:55:36] well. But there's friendly faces right

[1:55:38] downstairs from where we are and they can help you understand anything

[1:55:42] you need on that. Um lastly, before I

[1:55:45] forget and anybody leaves, um I

[1:55:47] appreciate uh Marie uh bringing this up

[1:55:51] um context of of my uh post. I'm not

[1:55:54] sure if Marie's still here. Is she right

[1:55:56] there? Uh um yeah, try me trying to be

[1:55:59] funny and piffy. You could probably go

[1:56:00] through all of my Facebook uh uh history

[1:56:04] and find that I'm not very funny and

[1:56:05] probably not very pathy and maybe that

[1:56:07] didn't land well and uh and so my

[1:56:09] apologies. I'm I'm not above saying

[1:56:11] sorry to anybody I offended. Um what

[1:56:14] you're referencing there is is somebody

[1:56:16] calling the mayor a piece of work and um

[1:56:19] and I said uh something to the effect of I'm trying to do more pull-ups to

[1:56:24] become a better piece of work. Uh, and I will tell you part of that in

[1:56:29] my own life is that a few months ago, I

[1:56:33] couldn't do any pull-ups. I couldn't

[1:56:34] hardly do a sit-up or a push-up either.

[1:56:36] And the Fit City Center has u has made

[1:56:39] me live up to more of those standards

[1:56:41] than than anything. uh and uh and doing

[1:56:44] that with u with a bunch of uh friends

[1:56:46] and and people that do it together uh

[1:56:49] maybe gave me a little bit more

[1:56:51] confidence in in in a moment uh to to to

[1:56:54] post a video of me doing a pull-up. It

[1:56:57] was only two pull-ups, so I can't do

[1:56:58] them very good either. U but uh but

[1:57:00] yeah, anybody I've offended in in in

[1:57:02] that realm, I apologize. Um

[1:57:06] now, uh I think the next item are on our

[1:57:10] agenda, if no one else wants to

[1:57:11] apologize, do you have anything?

[1:57:14] [laughter]

[1:57:15] >> Just me. Okay. Um we have a consent

[1:57:18] portion of our agenda. Again, there's

[1:57:20] three items on the consent agenda. These

[1:57:22] are routine items that have been

[1:57:24] discussed. You can see them on the

[1:57:26] agenda if you click on those hyperlinks

[1:57:27] and see what they are. But we have three

[1:57:29] items on our on our consent agenda

[1:57:32] tonight. If there's no questions from

[1:57:34] the council, I would entertain a motion

[1:57:36] on the consent items.

[1:57:38] >> I move to approve the consent items.

[1:57:40] >> Motion made by Councilman Carden.

[1:57:44] >> Second.

[1:57:45] by Councilwoman Beck. All in

[1:57:47] favor say yes.

[1:57:48] >> Yes.

[1:57:49] >> Consent items are approved. It takes us

[1:57:51] to the new uh business section of our

[1:57:53] agenda uh that u that I think uh some people are here for. We have

[1:58:00] no other Oh, we do have a a youth

[1:58:03] theater

[1:58:04] agreement after that.

[1:58:06] >> We can do that last. Yeah.

[1:58:07] >> Is that okay? Yep. So, nobody's here

[1:58:09] waiting for for that. Okay. Perfect.

[1:58:11] Okay. Let's uh let's go to our new

[1:58:13] business section 10.1. Mr. Von P. Pel uh

[1:58:17] will uh start us out on this.

[1:58:26] Mayor and council, thanks for your time

[1:58:28] tonight. Um, what I plan to do is kind

[1:58:31] of walk through some of the changes that

[1:58:33] are that are in the proposed text since

[1:58:36] the the meeting two weeks ago. So, since

[1:58:39] that time, the count with the council's

[1:58:41] robust discussion, they had the public

[1:58:42] hearing, of course, lots and lots of

[1:58:45] public comment, which was good and

[1:58:47] informative. Um there's been kind of a

[1:58:50] collaborative approach to refine and

[1:58:52] improve the the text of the ordinance.

[1:58:55] Um starting with the planning

[1:58:57] commission's recommendation and then

[1:58:59] staff input and input from the

[1:59:02] applicant, obviously city council

[1:59:04] members heavily involved including their

[1:59:06] own comments and drafts. Um so it was

[1:59:09] kind of a lot to juggle. Um and so what

[1:59:13] we did is kind of almost start over,

[1:59:16] right? It's it's a different version of

[1:59:18] the ordinance for tonight. So, um I'll

[1:59:21] just kind of walk through make that a

[1:59:23] little bit bigger. That framework kind

[1:59:25] of shows um what the ordinance is trying

[1:59:28] to do with with uh all the different

[1:59:31] areas of concern. You can see the areas

[1:59:33] of concern on the left side, power,

[1:59:35] water, air, and so on.

[1:59:39] Um, and then you'll see where where

[1:59:42] those concerns are being addressed. In

[1:59:45] title 15, it'll have a check mark there.

[1:59:47] So, for noise, for example, there's a section in the proposed

[1:59:52] ordinance about noise, and there's also

[1:59:54] a section in the proposed development

[1:59:56] agreement about noise. Um, so just for

[1:59:59] your education there, that's that's

[2:00:01] where we're trying to address them. some

[2:00:02] things aren't appropriate in in like the

[2:00:06] development agreement, the citywide

[2:00:08] limit. Uh that's not something you would

[2:00:10] cover in the development agreement. So,

[2:00:13] um let me just go through a few of the

[2:00:16] things. Uh it still has a data center

[2:00:20] with on-site power generation as a use

[2:00:23] subject to conditions. And I can tell

[2:00:26] you the reason why. Um the goal was to

[2:00:29] provide more legislative control, more

[2:00:32] public hearings in relation to approving

[2:00:35] a a data center. So we've had planning

[2:00:37] commission public hearing, we've had

[2:00:38] public public hearing here two weeks

[2:00:40] ago, more public comment tonight. Um if

[2:00:43] we were to put it as a conditional use

[2:00:46] permit, you would have one public

[2:00:48] hearing on that, right? The planning

[2:00:50] commission would have one. And so the

[2:00:51] idea was to control that and allow more

[2:00:54] public hearings to happen with the city

[2:00:56] council. Um I can also explain that a

[2:01:00] conditional use is kind of a misnomer.

[2:01:02] It really is like a permitted use that

[2:01:06] you craft uh reasonable conditions that

[2:01:09] address negative impacts that might

[2:01:11] happen from a proposed use. The the

[2:01:14] thing that most people don't know is

[2:01:16] that it's not something you can say yes

[2:01:18] or no. we we we don't want that or we do

[2:01:22] it's in the state code that they shall

[2:01:24] be approved and if reasonable conditions

[2:01:26] can be imposed. Um

[2:01:30] so with that in mind it was in

[2:01:33] intentional to put it as a use subject

[2:01:35] to conditions so that the conditions

[2:01:37] that are approved by the city council

[2:01:39] the in this in the ordinance would be

[2:01:41] those that would be applied to the

[2:01:43] application.

[2:01:46] First, I want to say that the the

[2:01:48] proposed ordinance reduces the cap. So,

[2:01:51] there's not two. So, another data center

[2:01:54] couldn't come to town and be approved.

[2:01:56] It there's only one allowed as the cap.

[2:01:58] And so, that requires a whole set of

[2:02:01] public hearings to amend the proposed

[2:02:04] ordinance to allow a second one. So,

[2:02:07] that that's the reason why we've reduced

[2:02:08] it to one and kept it as a use subject

[2:02:11] to conditions. Um,

[2:02:14] >> so Bon, if I can just highlight that for

[2:02:15] a second. I think that's a big that's

[2:02:17] change, excuse me, that's a big change

[2:02:18] from last week, sorry, last council

[2:02:20] meeting to this council meeting. The

[2:02:22] planning commission I think did a really

[2:02:23] good job of considering the ordinance

[2:02:25] and in their efforts said let's have two

[2:02:29] from the discussions that we've had the

[2:02:31] feedback from the community and and what

[2:02:34] Bon just expressed

[2:02:36] uh changing that to one in conversations

[2:02:39] with each of you really strengthens it

[2:02:42] and and allows for public comment the

[2:02:44] next if there were to be another one

[2:02:45] that wanted to be there and you wanted

[2:02:46] to talk about it. So they require a text

[2:02:49] amendment which would allow for further

[2:02:52] public dialogue.

[2:02:53] >> It's a Can we chat now?

[2:02:55] >> That's what I'm wondering. Are we

[2:02:57] starting? What are we

[2:02:59] >> My goal was to kind of walk through the

[2:03:00] ordinance.

[2:03:01] >> I just wanted to make sure that

[2:03:02] >> Canad I just wanted to highlight I'm

[2:03:04] part of his team.

[2:03:05] >> But I'm here for you guys. Fair enough.

[2:03:06] >> Fair enough. But I wanted to highlight

[2:03:07] that because sometimes you know we can

[2:03:09] be quiet.

[2:03:10] >> Write it down Shane. Write it down so

[2:03:11] you don't

[2:03:12] >> Those two already got it.

[2:03:13] >> Okay.

[2:03:14] >> Thank you. Another thing right off the

[2:03:16] bat that that the ordinance does it

[2:03:18] reduces the max megawatt generation down

[2:03:20] to 450 more in closer in line to what's

[2:03:25] been proposed by valition. So that's

[2:03:28] been reduced.

[2:03:30] It also induces this concept of material

[2:03:33] modification. So any change to their to

[2:03:36] the data center that might have an

[2:03:39] impact on the environment, utilities,

[2:03:41] safety, neighborhood impacts, uh

[2:03:44] generation capacity, computing capacity,

[2:03:46] those are all listed in the ordinance.

[2:03:48] uh generation technology, the primary

[2:03:50] fuel use, the cooling technology, energy

[2:03:53] storage system, the facility layout,

[2:03:56] water use, noise, vibration, heat,

[2:03:59] emissions, waste water, chemical

[2:04:00] storage, fire risk, or any other concern

[2:04:02] of the city. That would be considered a

[2:04:04] material modification and additional

[2:04:07] studies and data would need to be

[2:04:08] submitted before that could be approved.

[2:04:10] So

[2:04:12] that this ordinance will set forward the

[2:04:14] standards, but if they want to change

[2:04:15] any of that, then there's going to have

[2:04:17] to be additional studies and data that

[2:04:18] be proved through an amendment to the

[2:04:20] development agreement or to amended site

[2:04:22] plan or maybe any other uh regulatory

[2:04:25] permit that they they have. Um, also

[2:04:28] importantly, this agreement or excuse

[2:04:30] me, this version of the ordinance

[2:04:32] requires a development agreement which

[2:04:34] would run with the land. And that's key. That's basically legal

[2:04:39] jargon for saying that this is going to

[2:04:40] bind any successor owner, any future

[2:04:43] purchaser, they're going to still have

[2:04:45] to abide by the requirements of that

[2:04:48] recorded restrictive covenant, they call

[2:04:50] it, and a development agreement. Um

[2:04:54] the language in the ordinance requires

[2:04:56] that that development agreement be

[2:04:58] approved before a building permit is

[2:05:00] approved. So that that's still to come.

[2:05:02] Um air quality

[2:05:07] There was comment tonight about why were

[2:05:09] the Knox levels removed because those

[2:05:11] are the state levels and we realize it's

[2:05:13] probably better to have the state

[2:05:15] regulator, the division of air quality

[2:05:17] that's going to be issued the air

[2:05:18] quality permits be the one to do that.

[2:05:20] They have their own inspection program

[2:05:23] um review program. There's already a

[2:05:26] permit that's been issued for an intent

[2:05:28] to approve uh for valition. So that's I

[2:05:32] found that in googling in three seconds.

[2:05:34] Um so anybody can go look and see

[2:05:36] exactly what they've proposed to do. U

[2:05:40] another area of concern is electric

[2:05:42] isolation. So the design of the facility

[2:05:45] needs to demonstrate that there will be

[2:05:47] no interconnection with the city's

[2:05:49] electric system, electric grid or any

[2:05:52] electric utilities system. Um they need

[2:05:54] to produce and consume their own

[2:05:56] electricity. They cannot support export

[2:05:59] it or sell it or do anything like that.

[2:06:01] Um noise is another concern. They have

[2:06:05] to comply with our existing noise

[2:06:07] ordinance that but in addition to that

[2:06:10] they the ordinance will require an

[2:06:12] acoustic analysis to study a whole

[2:06:14] number of things including

[2:06:17] and um including modeling the sources,

[2:06:20] the time of day, tonal sounds, low

[2:06:23] frequencies, even subsonic frequencies

[2:06:25] that humans can't hear. uh weather,

[2:06:28] topography, predicting the sound levels

[2:06:30] at the property line, zoning boundary,

[2:06:34] existing residences, and other sensitive

[2:06:36] receptors that are chosen. Um this study

[2:06:39] will be done at the maximum predicted

[2:06:41] load. So if if they can stay within that

[2:06:45] baseline study, you know, then then

[2:06:48] certainly if they're somewhere lower

[2:06:49] than that that in their load, then it

[2:06:51] would be not as significant.

[2:06:54] After the study, there will be after uh

[2:06:57] verification testing to ensure that it

[2:07:00] does comply with that acoustic analysis.

[2:07:04] Uh a new section we've added, it wasn't

[2:07:06] in the version before, is about ground

[2:07:08] vibration. That would be an analysis

[2:07:11] they'd have to submit with their site

[2:07:13] plan and then require testing and

[2:07:15] verification afterwards to ensure that

[2:07:17] it is compliant with that analysis.

[2:07:22] heat again requiring a thermal analysis

[2:07:25] with the site plan application to

[2:07:27] evaluate their heat, the conditions,

[2:07:29] their technology they're using for

[2:07:30] cooling um sensitive receptors,

[2:07:33] topography, whether that's a condition

[2:07:36] of the site plan. Um and the development

[2:07:39] agreement for ongoing monitoring to and

[2:07:42] mitigation if it's required to minimize

[2:07:45] the heat.

[2:07:47] Um water use and cooling. They have to

[2:07:49] submit an annual water use estimate by

[2:07:52] category like how much is devoted to

[2:07:53] their computing, how much to cooling,

[2:07:55] how much is outdoor irrigation which

[2:07:59] likely be the bulk of it. Um just like

[2:08:01] anywhere and also then indoor use like

[2:08:04] offices and restrooms and custodial

[2:08:07] facilities as well. Um, so they they

[2:08:09] submit that annual estimate and then

[2:08:12] they'll be capped to 1 million gallons

[2:08:14] per year to or for the initial fill I

[2:08:17] should say and then 300,000 gallons per

[2:08:19] year for the humidification of the

[2:08:21] cooling of the computing

[2:08:24] waste water. There's a section on that

[2:08:26] requires pre-treatment consistent with

[2:08:28] our existing city ordinance on

[2:08:30] pre-treatment. And then also a

[2:08:32] requirement that they use propyline

[2:08:34] glycol rather than ethylene glycol.

[2:08:36] Propylene glycol is the food safe uh

[2:08:39] version of of the coolant. Um it's in

[2:08:42] food products. It's it's in your RV

[2:08:44] antifreeze. So if you ingest it, there's

[2:08:46] you won't be sick. Um and also require a

[2:08:51] 247 spill response plan monitoring and

[2:08:54] then what to do when when they do detect

[2:08:57] spills.

[2:08:59] There will be an emergency response

[2:09:01] plan. uh a decommissioning plan is

[2:09:03] required and a a financial assurance to

[2:09:06] ensure that they have the capability to do the decommissioning. So that will

[2:09:11] basically a bond in place to ensure that work can be done with regular

[2:09:16] updates so that it you know the numbers

[2:09:18] don't get stale after inflation after a

[2:09:20] few years. Um there's an allowance for

[2:09:24] the city to do independent testing on

[2:09:26] any of these areas of concern that we're considering in the ordinance. Um

[2:09:30] that primary obligation is on them to

[2:09:33] demonstrate compliance with their

[2:09:34] ordinance, but the city can step in at

[2:09:36] any time and do our own uh

[2:09:38] investigations, testing to verify that what they have reported is is

[2:09:44] correct. Um

[2:09:47] then there's an annual compliance report

[2:09:49] where they need to report on all of

[2:09:51] these areas of concern. If there's been

[2:09:53] an exceedence in water use, they'd have

[2:09:55] to demonstrate that and and disclose

[2:09:57] that. there's been exceedence in

[2:09:59] temperatures and things like that, they

[2:10:00] would need to disclose that in that

[2:10:02] report and that's to become a public

[2:10:04] report.

[2:10:05] Um,

[2:10:08] finally, I want to kind of go through

[2:10:10] the menu of enforcement options that the

[2:10:12] city has in this ordinance. The first I

[2:10:15] mentioned is the inspection testing,

[2:10:17] right? We verify we can verify that what

[2:10:20] they're doing is within the within the

[2:10:22] parameters of the ordinance or the

[2:10:24] different uh analysis that are plans

[2:10:27] that there are studies they're required

[2:10:29] to do for the site plan. Then if they

[2:10:32] let's assume they're not in compliance,

[2:10:33] then we would issue a notice and give

[2:10:35] them an opportunity to cure that defect

[2:10:37] and come back into compliance. Um if if

[2:10:40] that's unsuccessful,

[2:10:42] um then there's a section on operation

[2:10:45] restrictions and suspension up to and

[2:10:48] including revocation of their business

[2:10:49] license. That's basically the ultimate

[2:10:51] thing that city can do is revoke go

[2:10:54] through a due process to to evaluate

[2:10:57] that and have a notice and a hearing but

[2:10:59] ultimately revoke a business license

[2:11:02] which would halt operations. Um there

[2:11:04] are other damages remedies in the

[2:11:06] development agreement including

[2:11:07] liquidated damages. uh court-ordered

[2:11:10] specific performance, meaning the court

[2:11:12] orders them to do something to come into

[2:11:14] compliance or court-ordered injunction

[2:11:17] to halt them from doing something that

[2:11:19] is taking them out of compliance. Um and

[2:11:24] finally, the cost of enforcement. It the

[2:11:27] ordinance says that that will be borne

[2:11:28] by the owner as well. So, it's not going

[2:11:30] to be as heavy burden on the city. Um if

[2:11:32] we need to do a test or study to ensure

[2:11:34] compliance, that cost of enforcement

[2:11:37] will be on them.

[2:11:38] have any questions about the draft?

[2:11:42] >> Where do we start?

[2:11:45] >> We can go paragraph by paragraph. And if

[2:11:46] you like paragraph one, great. If not,

[2:11:48] let's let's fire out why and see what we

[2:11:50] can do to address it.

[2:11:51] >> Yeah, I think I think this um this grid

[2:11:54] is helpful on the screen here. Um if if

[2:11:58] none of you have seen this, it's it's in

[2:12:00] the this is in the packet, right, Seth?

[2:12:03] We clicked in there. So that's something

[2:12:05] the public can certainly see not just up

[2:12:07] on the screen but on your devices as

[2:12:09] well. Um I [clears throat] think that is

[2:12:11] smart. I think I think going through

[2:12:13] kind of the agreement what what I tried

[2:12:15] to say uh at the first is what you are

[2:12:18] looking at as an agreement um or excuse

[2:12:22] me modification to title 15 is uh is in

[2:12:28] response to what we've what we've heard

[2:12:30] what we've listened to and and what

[2:12:32] we've forwarded as far as concerns and

[2:12:34] things. So, uh, I just want to set that

[2:12:37] baseline with with everybody that's here

[2:12:39] and interested in this is is you're

[2:12:41] going to hear about baseline, you know,

[2:12:43] readings in in throughout this, but but

[2:12:46] the baseline is that we are trying to to

[2:12:49] listen and um and and take your concerns

[2:12:52] seriously and and the the council as a

[2:12:55] whole uh does that. So, um that's that's

[2:13:00] maybe my preamble to that. Seth, you

[2:13:02] >> Yeah. I'm wondering, Bon, if you think

[2:13:04] it would be productive to have any if

[2:13:07] there's anything that the applicant

[2:13:08] wants to share in relation to this

[2:13:10] before we dive into the the depths of

[2:13:13] the code.

[2:13:14] >> Yeah, we would like to do that.

[2:13:16] >> Let me let me preamble that too really

[2:13:17] quick. There's been some people that

[2:13:19] have asked us before and and we get this

[2:13:21] is a topic that some people maybe this

[2:13:23] is some of your first meetings that

[2:13:24] you've been to and so why does an

[2:13:26] applicant get a time? uh is because they

[2:13:30] are the applicant. Um if you were the

[2:13:32] applicant talking about something uh in the city, you'd get time to explain

[2:13:38] and to answer questions as well. So just

[2:13:41] to point out that's not abnormal. That's

[2:13:43] very normal in the processes of public

[2:13:45] meetings. So just set that standard if

[2:13:47] the applicant would like to come up and

[2:13:49] present uh anything that that you have

[2:13:52] and then we'll see

[2:13:54] we need those questions.

[2:13:55] >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you everybody for

[2:13:57] uh again I echo so much of what has

[2:14:00] already been said by

[2:14:02] almost everybody who's come to the

[2:14:03] microphone tonight. Uh we appreciate the

[2:14:06] time that you've spent um taking this so

[2:14:10] seriously and I think the process has

[2:14:14] really

[2:14:16] um allowed us to be refined also and

[2:14:19] improve. Um so we're we're grateful for

[2:14:23] that. Um, one of the things that I hope

[2:14:28] that we have begun to demonstrate and

[2:14:31] will continue to demonstrate because

[2:14:34] ultimately we're at a point now where

[2:14:38] um

[2:14:40] the city has to decide if they will

[2:14:43] trust our organization to move forward

[2:14:47] um and create accountability

[2:14:50] um so that we are held accountable to

[2:14:55] what we have proposed.

[2:14:58] Um, when we first walked into your

[2:15:02] offices many months ago,

[2:15:04] uh, I remember when I outlined this in

[2:15:08] the context of all of the other data

[2:15:11] centers that have been brought before

[2:15:13] the city and that were in the news, uh,

[2:15:16] there was a lot of sort of like, yeah,

[2:15:18] that sounds great, you know, sure, uh,

[2:15:22] we'll see. and some um healthy

[2:15:25] skepticism about what we proposed in our

[2:15:28] engineering. Um and and our approach has

[2:15:31] been okay,

[2:15:33] what do you need from us? Please come

[2:15:36] see for yourself. And so over the many

[2:15:39] months, the city has done that. They've

[2:15:42] come to see for themselves in a variety

[2:15:44] of ways. And um my observation has been

[2:15:47] that every time um there has been an

[2:15:50] investigation around the things that we

[2:15:52] have promised or the way that we have

[2:15:53] proposed them

[2:15:56] um the answer has sort of been h okay it

[2:15:59] you know it really is very quiet or you

[2:16:02] know it really is very clean it really

[2:16:05] is and so forth and so forth. So, um, we

[2:16:09] feel like we have continually stood up

[2:16:13] to the requests that have been made. I I

[2:16:17] hope that we're earning some trust

[2:16:18] around that process. When we began the

[2:16:21] open comments, we said to you, we want

[2:16:24] to take more time, not not less. We want

[2:16:27] to do more public meetings, not less. We

[2:16:30] want those public meetings to be longer,

[2:16:33] not shorter. And in those meetings, we

[2:16:36] then said to the public, here's how to

[2:16:39] get a hold of us. Please contact us. We

[2:16:42] will answer you. We will respond. And in

[2:16:46] that process, we have had hundreds and

[2:16:48] hundreds of requests and comments. And

[2:16:51] we have responded literally to everyone

[2:16:55] as ear as recent as a couple hours ago

[2:16:58] for for the doctor who was here um

[2:17:01] stating his case. And so, um, I can

[2:17:07] stand and unequivocally

[2:17:10] represent this company in saying that

[2:17:12] our response to commitments, our

[2:17:16] willingness to be accountable, our

[2:17:19] commitment to doing what we say we will

[2:17:22] do, um, will continue. And um so we want

[2:17:29] to just take a few minutes not to rehash

[2:17:31] everything that we've already talked

[2:17:32] about, but we do want to sort of report

[2:17:36] on what has happened um in the last two

[2:17:40] weeks and what we've heard. Um you've

[2:17:45] also heard way too much from me. And I'm

[2:17:47] going to ask uh Brian Velmir, who is one

[2:17:50] of our executive team members, to take

[2:17:53] you through just a couple slides and

[2:17:57] begin to outline how we view and welcome

[2:18:00] the accountability piece. Um and then

[2:18:03] I'm just going to conclude with um a

[2:18:07] little bit of consideration about, you

[2:18:09] know, the the choice that you that you

[2:18:12] will ultimately need to make. So, Brian,

[2:18:14] could I have you come up and

[2:18:17] >> Yes.

[2:18:19] >> Thanks, Jeff. Uh, thank you. My name is

[2:18:23] Brian. As uh Jeff mentioned, pleasure to

[2:18:25] meet most of you. Haven't met you

[2:18:27] before. Thanks, Mary. Mayor, um, I want

[2:18:29] to thank the council also for the amount

[2:18:30] of time that you've spent. I know that

[2:18:32] this has been uh, dozens of hours on

[2:18:35] each of your behalf. And so, thank you

[2:18:37] for the opportunity. Um, we're going to

[2:18:39] keep this relatively brief. we don't

[2:18:42] necessarily want to be here until 1 in

[2:18:43] the morning um again, although we will

[2:18:45] if if if that's what required. But I

[2:18:48] think um we've heard you and it's become

[2:18:52] apparent to me how special this place is

[2:18:55] and how much the citizens care and uh as

[2:18:58] Jeff alluded to, we we literally have

[2:19:01] seen and answered and considered

[2:19:04] hundreds of questions. Um,

[2:19:07] when I kind of take a step back and

[2:19:09] think about what is it that the citizens

[2:19:12] are asking you, what are you asking of

[2:19:15] us to protect? Um, I think most of those

[2:19:18] things fall into three buckets. Number

[2:19:20] one, this place that you love. Um, you

[2:19:23] know, you see it in every city council

[2:19:25] meeting, right? The pump track and just

[2:19:27] there's a special thing here and it's

[2:19:30] worth protecting.

[2:19:32] keeping your neighborhoods quiet,

[2:19:34] keeping uh the natural resources, the

[2:19:36] air and water, the roads safe and quiet,

[2:19:39] the river, the canyon. Um most people

[2:19:43] take a great amount of pride in the

[2:19:44] quality of life here, and that's worth

[2:19:46] protecting. Most of the questions that

[2:19:48] we've gotten have been about protecting

[2:19:50] that. Second thing, and this uh this is

[2:19:53] kind of tapered off because I think

[2:19:54] we've answered the question quite a bit,

[2:19:56] but everybody wants to make sure that

[2:19:58] the essential services that are critical

[2:20:01] to the city, critical to the citizens

[2:20:03] that I know that you've pioneered a new

[2:20:06] way of kind of providing some of these

[2:20:07] services that um those are not going to

[2:20:10] be compromised, right? Those things are

[2:20:11] going to be protected. That growth and I

[2:20:14] know Spanish Fork has experienced a

[2:20:17] couple of decades of persistent growth.

[2:20:20] that's not something that we're gonna

[2:20:21] come and uh compete with, right? We're

[2:20:24] not going to pull off of your resources

[2:20:27] and that's worth protecting. And then

[2:20:29] finally, and I think we heard quite a

[2:20:31] bit of this tonight, that um the

[2:20:34] citizens and obviously the council wants

[2:20:36] to maintain control, maintain the voice

[2:20:39] in the process. And so we've considered

[2:20:41] that. And um I think you'll see and you

[2:20:44] have seen with what um Van just shared

[2:20:48] that we're working very very diligently

[2:20:50] to be intentional about that we want to

[2:20:53] be accountable, right? We want to make

[2:20:55] sure that these are not just promises.

[2:20:57] This is not just some outside company

[2:20:59] coming in and making claims that are not

[2:21:01] defendable, that we're not accountable,

[2:21:03] that you can't govern against them. We

[2:21:04] want to make sure that those things are

[2:21:06] all covered.

[2:21:08] So essentially, right, we've we've

[2:21:10] covered lots of ground and lots of

[2:21:12] questions, but

[2:21:14] I'm not going to go through this entire

[2:21:16] slide necessarily, but we want to be

[2:21:19] accountable to these three priorities

[2:21:21] that we've heard about. Protecting the

[2:21:24] place that you love, protecting your

[2:21:26] essential services, and helping both the

[2:21:28] council and the citizens maintain voice

[2:21:31] and control. Right? The way that we're

[2:21:33] going to do that, you can kind of see,

[2:21:35] we're going to set and test limits

[2:21:37] early. We're going to make just about

[2:21:39] every set of numbers auditable, right?

[2:21:42] And we're going to be accountable to

[2:21:43] those things. You've heard about no grid

[2:21:46] connection. You've heard about our

[2:21:47] water. You've heard about us um paying

[2:21:50] for the natural gas pipeline upgrade.

[2:21:53] Those are things that we are keeping

[2:21:55] separate. We are not imposing on the

[2:21:57] city's um infrastructure or services in

[2:22:01] any way. You've heard, I think Van

[2:22:03] explained it. I want to reiterate it.

[2:22:05] Many people were concerned that yeah

[2:22:06] okay ma maybe valition they are going to

[2:22:09] do what they say maybe they are pretty

[2:22:10] decent you know people governed by a set

[2:22:13] of culture and values but what about if

[2:22:15] they fail what about if they sell all of

[2:22:19] the covenants we are writing in that

[2:22:22] they they stay with the land they stay

[2:22:24] with the property if we sell if we fail

[2:22:26] that property is still able to be used

[2:22:29] by the city and then finally your voice

[2:22:32] and control and helping you keep that we

[2:22:34] are going to publish everything that we

[2:22:36] can pos possibly publish at every stage.

[2:22:40] Right now, we can't do sound checks

[2:22:43] because the thing isn't built yet. But

[2:22:44] at each and appropriate stage of

[2:22:46] development, we will be accountable. We

[2:22:49] will meter it and there will be

[2:22:50] provisions on on um that we are meeting

[2:22:54] the obligations that are set forth and

[2:22:56] that there's remedy to address each and

[2:22:58] every one of those things. And then

[2:23:00] finally

[2:23:02] um you'll see in the next slide there is

[2:23:04] a there is a matrix right and most of

[2:23:07] the decisions most of the things that

[2:23:10] are unique to this particular project

[2:23:11] and what we're proposing are written

[2:23:13] into the development agreement and

[2:23:15] covered and qualified by the amendments

[2:23:18] that we're talking about title 15. We're

[2:23:20] also still accountable to the city

[2:23:23] ordinance that already exists the state

[2:23:25] ordinances and the national ordinances.

[2:23:27] So you guys have primary control over

[2:23:30] what we're what we're doing and what

[2:23:32] we're proposing over time. This is an

[2:23:34] amended um matrix that uh Van just

[2:23:38] showed without all of the detail. You

[2:23:41] know, underneath each of these little

[2:23:43] check marks that fit on a nice neat

[2:23:45] slide, there's hundreds of pages with

[2:23:48] very detailed specificity that either

[2:23:51] has been done or is in the process of

[2:23:53] being done. Right? I think tonight is

[2:23:55] mostly about title 15. Um we are working

[2:23:59] towards a development agreement that

[2:24:01] meet all the requirements that the

[2:24:02] council that you have all set forth and

[2:24:04] we're trying to work very intentionally

[2:24:06] with you and then we're also going to be

[2:24:08] governed by local state and national

[2:24:10] governments both for the time that we're

[2:24:12] off operating but there are very

[2:24:14] specific provisions around what happens

[2:24:17] when we change right what happens when

[2:24:20] any any sort of change happens again

[2:24:22] governed. So, I just want to reiterate

[2:24:25] that this this is a really special

[2:24:27] place. Um, prior to this process, I was

[2:24:30] not that familiar with Spanish Fork.

[2:24:32] It's been a pleasure um to engage quite

[2:24:34] a bit with your community, with your

[2:24:36] city. Um, I've mostly been in the

[2:24:38] background, but I've really admired your

[2:24:40] city. I've really admired the um I think

[2:24:43] the intentionality that um Councilman

[2:24:47] Oiler talked about stewardship. This is

[2:24:49] all about stewardship of so many things,

[2:24:51] right? the existing city, the land, the

[2:24:53] building, the development, the the the

[2:24:56] voice and the heart and the passions of

[2:24:59] the citizens. Um, and so I just thank

[2:25:01] you and I admire your stewardship. And

[2:25:04] um, with that, I'm going to turn it back

[2:25:07] over to Jeff to talk through the very

[2:25:11] tangible decisions

[2:25:13] um, of stewarding what is going to

[2:25:16] happen with this particular building.

[2:25:21] Thank you, Brian. Um, I wanted to add

[2:25:25] just an answer to one question that came

[2:25:27] up, I think, three different times from

[2:25:30] uh residents.

[2:25:32] The current text amendment that you have

[2:25:35] before you has in fact changed. Every

[2:25:38] scenario where it said that uh the city

[2:25:42] may do this has been changed to at least

[2:25:46] not I don't know if he's here to shall.

[2:25:49] So at any place where it previously

[2:25:52] suggested that there was kind of an

[2:25:53] option that the city may require this or

[2:25:56] may do that has now been changed to

[2:25:59] shall. So I just wanted to um highlight

[2:26:03] that update as well. Ultimately

[2:26:08] um you know this comes down to a choice

[2:26:12] around this current property.

[2:26:17] Um, there are four very real outcomes

[2:26:20] for this property

[2:26:23] that interestingly require no vote,

[2:26:28] requires no new oversight.

[2:26:33] Um,

[2:26:34] today

[2:26:36] uh there's more traffic even in its

[2:26:39] minimal use uh than we will ever bring.

[2:26:43] They use more water than we will use. Um

[2:26:49] they are

[2:26:51] um right now the ambient sound is very

[2:26:54] close to what the ambient sound will be

[2:26:57] uh when we are there. Um it brings very

[2:27:01] little uh you know minimal property tax

[2:27:04] and that's what is going on there. These

[2:27:07] owners are selling the building.

[2:27:11] Um, it could be a distribution hub, 85

[2:27:14] bays with traffic, noise,

[2:27:19] um, and impact on the city that is

[2:27:23] substantial

[2:27:24] and flies in the face of kind of many of

[2:27:27] the questions that people have posed

[2:27:30] concerning us. We we know it will be be

[2:27:35] worse. Um, very recently on the far end,

[2:27:39] we've, you know, we've heard about a

[2:27:41] kind of a competing proposal to buy this

[2:27:44] building that could be a concrete plant.

[2:27:47] Um, a whole lot of negative impact.

[2:27:51] All of those can just move forward under

[2:27:56] current

[2:27:57] uh requirement.

[2:27:59] In our proposal, we provide the city

[2:28:04] with total control

[2:28:08] um total control over the way that we

[2:28:11] will conduct business, develop a site,

[2:28:15] etc. And in addition to that, because of

[2:28:19] our engineering, because of our design,

[2:28:23] we will have low emission. we will we

[2:28:27] will blend into the landscape as it

[2:28:29] relates to sound. I understand there's a

[2:28:31] lot of concern about sound

[2:28:34] but almost if all of you uh I think

[2:28:39] almost all of you have done your due

[2:28:42] diligence. You have gone to another data

[2:28:45] center here in Utah. You have stood next

[2:28:47] to the equipment. Landon was the pioneer

[2:28:50] in your group and he came and stood at

[2:28:52] equipment many months ago uh in

[2:28:55] California.

[2:28:57] Um we have gone doortodoor and talked to

[2:29:01] residents across the street and they

[2:29:03] indicate door after door that they don't

[2:29:06] even notice it and that data center is

[2:29:09] not designed as efficiently as ours.

[2:29:13] And so, um, those things

[2:29:17] stand on their own, but then we have

[2:29:22] this meaningful impact for your

[2:29:25] community as it relates to your tax

[2:29:28] income. And as I have said before, this

[2:29:32] figure that we demonstrate is literally

[2:29:35] a conservative figure.

[2:29:38] And so as we um hear the concerns, as we

[2:29:44] address people's genuine concerns,

[2:29:48] um you we can't address every single

[2:29:52] one. Um but we've done a really good job

[2:29:57] of building what we call the solution in

[2:30:02] the data center industry. There's a need

[2:30:05] for a solution based on all the problems

[2:30:08] that that historical data centers have

[2:30:12] caused and plowing, you know, acres and

[2:30:16] acres of land, etc., etc. We built this

[2:30:20] company as a solution to that problem,

[2:30:25] and we're executing on that. So, you

[2:30:28] know, as this narrows down, I I hope

[2:30:30] that you're looking at the alternative,

[2:30:34] our accountability and your control over

[2:30:39] the way that we ultimately will operate

[2:30:42] in your community. Um, and finally, this last slide just to kind of give

[2:30:47] some context because I think sometimes

[2:30:50] this is lost in the shuffle here.

[2:30:53] Title 15. Um, many people think that it

[2:30:57] means that we then are approved to go

[2:31:01] build a data center or that we now have

[2:31:04] no obstacle. And that is not the case.

[2:31:07] Title 15

[2:31:09] only allows for a company's approval to

[2:31:13] build on-site power under a very strict

[2:31:18] um set of requirements with [snorts]

[2:31:21] builtin penalties and remedies

[2:31:26] after this title 15 if it were to be

[2:31:29] approved.

[2:31:31] We now have to complete the development

[2:31:34] agreement that documents the additional

[2:31:38] remedies that we came to this city and offered and proposed and it's

[2:31:44] legally binding. If we don't accomplish

[2:31:46] that, we do not proceed.

[2:31:50] The project does not proceed. If we

[2:31:54] accomplish that together, which we will,

[2:31:56] we then have strict construction

[2:32:00] guidelines.

[2:32:01] We will submit all of the final

[2:32:03] engineering. Everything the city and the

[2:32:07] state has already created as guidelines

[2:32:10] we have to adhere to. That means when

[2:32:13] we're permitting and we install

[2:32:14] equipment, there's going to be an

[2:32:16] inspector who comes. Inspectors will

[2:32:18] come to every phase of this trade. And

[2:32:22] if all of a sudden we've got a cooling

[2:32:24] system that's running at 110 dB when we

[2:32:30] said it was going to be 99 and then at

[2:32:32] the at the fence line it's 80, not 60.

[2:32:37] Guess what? We don't get a permit.

[2:32:40] And so all the way along this process we

[2:32:44] can be stopped.

[2:32:47] Do not, you know, pass go. I think

[2:32:49] that's what it is. But we had stopped

[2:32:51] along the way and

[2:32:55] after the site plan it continues on

[2:32:59] and until we turn on the lights we have

[2:33:04] and you have jurisdiction over the

[2:33:07] ongoing approval of this process. So

[2:33:09] it's important for the residents to

[2:33:11] understand I encourage I'm just

[2:33:14] reminding you who already know this that

[2:33:17] the approval of title 15 is not a cart

[2:33:20] blanch approval for us or anyone to

[2:33:24] build a data center. It only allows us

[2:33:27] to proceed

[2:33:30] to accept the requirements

[2:33:33] and then we will be gated at every stage

[2:33:36] along the way.

[2:33:38] Um I think that's relevant and um there

[2:33:42] has been some you know question about

[2:33:45] speed and about taking time and uh we we

[2:33:49] operate our business that way. Um we

[2:33:52] never came here in a rush. We we've been

[2:33:54] at this for for many months and the

[2:33:56] public visibility um started several

[2:34:00] months ago as well. And so we have we

[2:34:04] understand where this is new for folks

[2:34:05] and that's why we've wanted to give

[2:34:07] those extra weeks to help them become

[2:34:09] educated. But up to this point there is

[2:34:11] nothing new. There is no new technology

[2:34:14] to consider. There's nothing we're going

[2:34:16] to add to this. There is um there's no

[2:34:21] new revelation that will come forward

[2:34:23] about everything that we've put before

[2:34:26] you in total cander or transparency. Um,

[2:34:32] we as a company do have some challenges

[2:34:36] on timeline that we have worked very

[2:34:38] hard to manage over the last several

[2:34:40] months.

[2:34:42] And that challenge in timeline is that

[2:34:44] we have these phenomenal partners,

[2:34:47] phenomenal contractors who as an

[2:34:51] argument to hey Valition has never done

[2:34:53] this. Um, our team has done this many

[2:34:57] times touching all of this equipment and

[2:35:01] because of the growth of data centers,

[2:35:03] our partners are under high demand. Our

[2:35:08] partners have been working with us for a

[2:35:11] long time. at any point they really do

[2:35:14] have the ability to say, "Man, we've

[2:35:18] wanted to do this with you, but we just

[2:35:20] have so many other options in these

[2:35:23] western states that Valition, you know,

[2:35:26] we we may need to move on." Um, and

[2:35:28] that's something that we're really

[2:35:31] challenged with right now um in keeping

[2:35:34] them on on the project. An option we

[2:35:38] have if this continues on several weeks, an option that we have to consider is that we can go with our contractor to another

[2:35:48] project that can move quickly. And so um

[2:35:53] we are wrestling with the decision

[2:35:55] around the timing of this. And um we

[2:35:59] want to strive with you in your process

[2:36:02] as long as we possibly can. But our

[2:36:06] request of you tonight is that you will

[2:36:08] choose to proceed with a vote on this

[2:36:11] one way or the other wherever this

[2:36:14] lands. Because what happens is if we go

[2:36:17] another two or 3 weeks before we

[2:36:19] consider a vote, um if there is a

[2:36:23] majority vote or maybe not a unanimous

[2:36:25] vote, then we will the the process will

[2:36:29] allow for residents to move to another

[2:36:32] action to attempt to put this onto a

[2:36:36] ballot. That can take another 45 days or

[2:36:39] so. And in that window there is a chance

[2:36:42] that um we may have to move in a

[2:36:46] different direction

[2:36:48] and we don't we don't want to do that.

[2:36:51] Um but if if the city needs to go

[2:36:53] through a process that would allow

[2:36:55] citizens to you know attempt a different

[2:36:57] path then uh we welcome that sooner than

[2:37:01] later. Our request of you um is that you

[2:37:06] unanimously approve

[2:37:08] um our request to revise Title 15, which

[2:37:14] allows us simply to proceed.

[2:37:18] And

[2:37:19] we can be stopped any point along the

[2:37:22] way if we fail to live up to the

[2:37:26] requirements that you are uh asking us

[2:37:29] to meet.

[2:37:31] Um, we hope that you will support us

[2:37:32] unanimously in this so that we can move

[2:37:34] forward. We do hope that one way or the

[2:37:37] other, uh, you will bring this to a vote

[2:37:39] tonight. Thank you.

[2:37:40] >> Thanks, Jeeoff.

[2:37:41] >> Thank you, Jeff.

[2:37:42] >> Appreciate that.

[2:37:43] >> Mayor, do you think we could take a

[2:37:44] quick break before we jump into

[2:37:46] paragraph by paragraph?

[2:37:47] >> Uh, do we have to have a motion to do

[2:37:49] that?

[2:37:50] >> Okay. Council,

[2:37:51] >> can I move that we go on a quick break?

[2:37:53] >> All right. Five minute break, he says.

[2:37:55] Do I have a second?

[2:37:56] >> Second.

[2:37:57] >> Seconded by Councilman Oiler. All in

[2:37:59] favor say yes. Yes,

[2:38:00] >> we'll be back in five minutes. Thank

[2:38:02] you.

[2:48:30] five hour energy. Let's go.

[2:48:32] >> Okay, we got the thumbs up from Travis

[2:48:35] that uh we're going to get going again.

[2:48:37] So, thank you all for

[2:48:38] >> for that break and uh we'll get back

[2:48:41] into into council meeting

[2:48:44] [clears throat]

[2:48:45] >> again. Thanks uh everybody for for

[2:48:47] involvement and in being here and and

[2:48:49] spending time with us and and time on

[2:48:51] this on this project. It's not lost on

[2:48:54] us. The the time that's been spent uh in

[2:48:56] your own lives as well as our lives on this uh on this item and and we

[2:49:01] appreciate uh the applicant running

[2:49:03] through that stuff. I think

[2:49:05] >> I think um maybe if if we could the next

[2:49:08] step of this meeting since some of the

[2:49:10] questions that have been brought up and and some some good slides that have

[2:49:14] some summary but like uh Mr. Von Pquel,

[2:49:17] our city attorney, said, uh, this the

[2:49:21] Title 15, um, you know, we we kind of

[2:49:25] started the the rewrite instead of red

[2:49:27] lines, right?

[2:49:31] » Yeah. So, so, so the whole document was

[2:49:34] becoming red is what you're saying. Y

[2:49:36] >> and so so we just kind of started fresh

[2:49:38] and and and again that's an attachment

[2:49:40] in your in your agenda items there. But

[2:49:42] if we could maybe that this will help us

[2:49:45] keep on on track because it does go

[2:49:47] paragraph by paragraph and some

[2:49:49] paragraphs might not be pertinent to us

[2:49:51] but some uh some certainly will be and so if we could kind of get to that

[2:49:56] page and uh and and just kind of go

[2:49:58] through this this this might help us uh

[2:50:01] have a little bit of a format here. Um,

[2:50:04] I think Councilman Marshall has has

[2:50:06] requested he's got some some maybe

[2:50:08] bigger questions that that might be able

[2:50:11] to be said. Hey, that's in paragraph

[2:50:14] 15.2 or something. Uh, and so we can get

[2:50:18] to it that way. But please follow along

[2:50:20] with what we're going in and and the

[2:50:22] applicants here too. So, if we have a

[2:50:24] question that we would like to ask uh

[2:50:26] city staff or the applicant, they're

[2:50:29] here available as well. So, uh, if we

[2:50:32] can go go that route. Councilman

[2:50:34] Marshall, you have

[2:50:35] >> Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate it. Um,

[2:50:37] before I get started, um, in my opening

[2:50:40] comments, I made a joke about thinking

[2:50:43] about data centers for the last couple

[2:50:44] weeks. That was not to say that, um,

[2:50:49] well, it sound like I was whining, and I

[2:50:51] wasn't whining. I was trying to take

[2:50:52] this super serious about making sure

[2:50:54] that we get somewhere. I was not

[2:50:56] whining. You've elected us to do exactly

[2:50:58] that. think about tough issues like this

[2:51:01] to debate and discuss tough issues like

[2:51:05] this and so we're taking it very

[2:51:06] serious. I was not man it sounded like I

[2:51:08] was whining so I want to clarify that

[2:51:10] >> because you are a whiner.

[2:51:11] >> I typically am whining. Um couple big

[2:51:15] questions for me as we go through this

[2:51:16] so you all know where my head is. One

[2:51:19] are the guardrails. Number one I

[2:51:21] appreciate valitions all your support

[2:51:23] all of your feedback that we've gotten

[2:51:25] from you. It's now our title 15. We're

[2:51:27] going to move forward as it's our title

[2:51:29] 15 that the city is going to either

[2:51:31] approve or disapprove and move forward

[2:51:33] from there. Um so big picture, are the

[2:51:36] guard rules adequate? Are they do we

[2:51:39] have enough of them? Are they tight

[2:51:40] enough to protect our community if

[2:51:42] something like this was built in our

[2:51:43] community? Are they transparent enough?

[2:51:46] Meaning that some of them play out in

[2:51:48] the development agreement more than they

[2:51:50] play out in the title 15. Is that is

[2:51:52] that transparent enough for us as we

[2:51:55] move forward? At the end of the day, it

[2:51:57] would not matter necessarily if we get

[2:51:59] to an approved development agreement.

[2:52:01] However, um I do like more specificity

[2:52:04] in the title 15 than the development

[2:52:06] agreement, but I know Van will probably

[2:52:09] strike me down on a couple of those,

[2:52:11] which is fine. That's why we're going to

[2:52:12] have go line by line. Um third, can we

[2:52:15] hold any applicant accountable? Do we

[2:52:17] have the right um not just the measures

[2:52:20] but do we have the right mechanisms

[2:52:23] if they if they are in violation to to

[2:52:26] do something about it and then three the

[2:52:29] approval process itself a couple of

[2:52:31] folks mentioned the public process it's

[2:52:33] very important that we maintain that as

[2:52:34] we move forward um and I want to make

[2:52:37] sure that we have builtin public process

[2:52:40] for anything like this in the future

[2:52:42] because this won't be the last time I

[2:52:44] don't think we talk about it even if we

[2:52:46] change it to on which I think

[2:52:49] well we're going to get to that point in

[2:52:51] the code so I won't bring it up yet. Um

[2:52:53] but so those are my three things.

[2:52:55] Guardrails, transparency and can we can

[2:52:57] we hold them accountable?

[2:52:59] >> I have a bigger issue as well. Okay,

[2:53:01] >> that's not on there. I want

[2:53:02] >> not me right. Besides Shane,

[2:53:06] >> can can we do an overlay zone so the

[2:53:10] public is involved and informed about

[2:53:12] each potential data center we discuss

[2:53:14] and it's easier to control expansion?

[2:53:17] Title 15, we have less control and

[2:53:19] overlay we have more control. Could we

[2:53:22] have a data center overlay

[2:53:26] type of conversation? Have we we have

[2:53:28] not had that type of a conversation up

[2:53:30] to this point? Correct. I don't think

[2:53:32] we've talked about that here. I can let

[2:53:33] Dave and Bon weigh in on that.

[2:53:35] >> Okay.

[2:53:36] >> Thank you, Councilwoman Beck. Councilman

[2:53:39] Oiler, any big picture items or will you

[2:53:42] have

[2:53:42] >> discussion items in the body of it?

[2:53:44] >> Discussion items. Yeah,

[2:53:45] >> in the body of it. Okay. Counciloman

[2:53:47] Carden,

[2:53:47] >> one of my biggest

[2:53:50] parts of this that I think is going to

[2:53:51] be uh it comes up very quick in the

[2:53:54] document is the zoning and what zone

[2:53:56] it's being proposed in. Um it's probably

[2:53:58] like I don't know, it's on page one on

[2:54:00] both documents. that we have or that I

[2:54:02] have in front of me. Um, [clears throat]

[2:54:05] the reason why it's an issue for me

[2:54:07] specifically is we have some windmills

[2:54:09] at the mouth of the canyon right nearby

[2:54:11] and windmills fall into the I3 zone and

[2:54:15] we're proposing this in the I1 zone. Um,

[2:54:19] and the windmills, Jake, what did you

[2:54:21] say? How much do they generate?

[2:54:24] >> When they first were put in, I think

[2:54:26] it's about nine megawws

[2:54:27] >> per windmill. No, that's total almost

[2:54:30] one megawatt per windmill.

[2:54:31] >> Total. Yeah.

[2:54:32] >> So, these windmills that we have up

[2:54:33] there, we we put them in an I3

[2:54:36] >> and this we're proposing an I1. That's a

[2:54:38] pretty big sticking point for me. So,

[2:54:40] that's something we're probably need to

[2:54:41] work through.

[2:54:41] >> Okay.

[2:54:43] >> Sort of related to Counciloman.

[2:54:46] >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:54:48] >> Councilman Tuk, uh,

[2:54:50] >> not a whole lot at the moment, but in

[2:54:51] regards to big picture, I I love the

[2:54:54] comment earlier about uh the analogy

[2:54:56] with heart surgery. I thought that was

[2:54:58] fantastic if you remember that in

[2:54:59] regards to this conversation and so uh

[2:55:02] all I'll say right now is that um you

[2:55:05] know this is bigger than valition and I

[2:55:07] feel like this is you know when we think

[2:55:09] about this um it will affect future op

[2:55:13] you know operators uh technologies

[2:55:14] ownership uh and so I'm just I'm glad

[2:55:17] we're looking at from a 30,000 foot you

[2:55:19] know view for a minute but may come back

[2:55:21] but for now that's all same

[2:55:22] >> perfect okay thank you um okay Uh the

[2:55:27] definitions are are pretty

[2:55:29] self-explanatory

[2:55:31] in these paragraphs. It kind of lays out

[2:55:33] what um what everything means when we

[2:55:37] say something. I think the important

[2:55:39] part uh right there, the material

[2:55:42] modification

[2:55:44] um

[2:55:46] is a change that that I don't think I I

[2:55:49] want to belabor it of what Vaughan said

[2:55:52] there, but you I I think it's important

[2:55:55] for the the the public to know that

[2:55:58] that's added language that that uh

[2:56:01] wasn't there before

[2:56:03] um that now is in Title 15 to where the

[2:56:06] worry about approving something at title

[2:56:08] 15 and and now what can happen or what

[2:56:11] could you do if something changed in the

[2:56:13] format or in the company or or in all

[2:56:16] those different areas there uh that does

[2:56:18] give you a uh a lot of guard rails if

[2:56:24] you will I think that's the right uh the

[2:56:26] right

[2:56:27] word Councilman Marshall and

[2:56:29] [clears throat] enforcement issues if

[2:56:31] any material modification happens and I

[2:56:34] think some of the stuff that I've been

[2:56:36] sent had some of that in it. I think

[2:56:38] some people said, "Hey, here's here's a

[2:56:40] an article about uh noise or an article

[2:56:43] about um emissions or something that had

[2:56:47] happened." And when you clicked on that

[2:56:48] and read the story, those were material

[2:56:52] modifications in in a in in what was

[2:56:55] proposed. instead of using, you know,

[2:56:57] clean uh energy on site, it was big

[2:57:02] diesel engines on site, even powered by

[2:57:05] natural gas, but big diesel engines,

[2:57:06] right? So, um I think that's an

[2:57:09] important paragraph to just point out. I

[2:57:10] don't have any questions.

[2:57:11] >> I think I think you're spot on. I think

[2:57:13] a lot of questions we got, a lot of

[2:57:14] feedback we got was beware of the bait

[2:57:17] and switch.

[2:57:17] >> Y mayor, can I please

[2:57:19] >> I think this helps.

[2:57:20] >> Let me give an example of this exact

[2:57:23] definition why it's in there. We just

[2:57:25] before our meeting tonight, we got an

[2:57:27] email from a resident with some

[2:57:28] concerns. Top 10 concerns. One of those

[2:57:30] concerns, the number one that they've

[2:57:32] listed here is that there's nothing in

[2:57:34] the title after reviewing the latest

[2:57:36] changes. They didn't see anything in

[2:57:38] there that prohibits combustionbased

[2:57:41] primary generation. Basically, she's

[2:57:43] concerned if well, they're using Bloom

[2:57:46] currently. What if later down the road

[2:57:48] they decide to

[2:57:50] go to some other technology that

[2:57:52] actually causes a combustion, a flame?

[2:57:56] This says that you cannot do that. Um,

[2:57:59] if if they were to decide to do any

[2:58:02] other change, that would have to come

[2:58:04] back before the city council because of

[2:58:06] this change or this addition that we've

[2:58:09] put into the latest version of the code.

[2:58:11] So, that's just an example.

[2:58:12] >> That's a great great example, Kevin. Um,

[2:58:14] question for you, Von. Who approves of

[2:58:15] this? who who proves a material

[2:58:17] modification, does it come back here?

[2:58:20] >> It likely would if it's a amendment to

[2:58:22] the development agreement, for example,

[2:58:23] to vary any of those standards in there,

[2:58:26] possibly the DRC if it's a site plan

[2:58:28] modification. Um, so yeah, probably the

[2:58:32] council for development agreement.

[2:58:34] >> Okay. So because title 15 requires a

[2:58:37] development agreement now

[2:58:40] regardless of the number of data centers

[2:58:42] allowed in Spanish Fork city council

[2:58:45] would always approve the development

[2:58:47] agreement

[2:58:47] >> right if there were no there's still the

[2:58:50] development agreement requirement

[2:58:51] >> there may not be a public hearing on it

[2:58:53] but it would be at least debated and

[2:58:55] talked about right

[2:58:56] >> in a public setting

[2:58:57] >> correct

[2:58:58] >> okay all right

[2:59:01] >> I think one thing that was added in

[2:59:03] there that as I understood it and maybe

[2:59:05] you can correct me Seth or or Von if I'm

[2:59:08] wrong but [clears throat] like modifying

[2:59:11] a a DAQ permit and saying to the

[2:59:13] Division of Air Quality, hey, we can

[2:59:15] still fit under these standards and and

[2:59:18] this is the new thing we're going to do

[2:59:19] instead of this thing. Just the

[2:59:22] modification request is a material

[2:59:25] >> uh modification to us. Right.

[2:59:28] >> That's correct.

[2:59:28] >> Right. So, for example, another one on

[2:59:30] that bloom. Don't ask me why, but I

[2:59:33] spent a couple of hours Saturday

[2:59:35] watching their sales call. And

[2:59:37] >> why

[2:59:38] >> their sales call? You said not to.

[2:59:40] >> Yeah, their sales call. So, one thing

[2:59:42] that's never been discussed and that Valition's never really brought up

[2:59:46] is BU Bloom has futureproofed their

[2:59:50] equipment, meaning you can it currently

[2:59:53] uses natural gas, but in the future you

[2:59:55] can change that to hydrogen

[2:59:57] >> and so which is a cleaner could be a

[3:00:00] cleaner solution, but because they would

[3:00:03] be switching from natural gas to

[3:00:05] hydrogen, there would be a change in the

[3:00:06] equipment that would have to come again

[3:00:08] to the Spanish Fork to the city cil.

[3:00:10] also before that could before that could

[3:00:12] happen.

[3:00:14] >> That's right.

[3:00:17] >> So, what one of the questions we got was

[3:00:20] if if a data center was approved on a

[3:00:24] parcel of land, could they subdivise

[3:00:26] that land and build a second one?

[3:00:28] >> No,

[3:00:30] >> that's a material change.

[3:00:31] >> Yeah.

[3:00:31] >> Okay.

[3:00:32] >> They're only allowed to have one.

[3:00:33] >> Yeah. And I think that's specifically

[3:00:34] prohibited in in the subsequent

[3:00:36] language.

[3:00:37] >> Perfect.

[3:00:37] >> Thank you.

[3:00:40] Okay, there's the material modification

[3:00:42] uh paragraph that I think is important

[3:00:44] in those definition areas. Um

[3:00:50] I1 light industrial zone

[3:00:57] that just says what uses are subject to the conditions

[3:01:02] that we're talking about.

[3:01:03] >> Okay.

[3:01:08] So, if we were to talk about the right

[3:01:11] zone, that would be the section to talk

[3:01:13] about it.

[3:01:14] >> Y

[3:01:18] » Yeah. L1 light industrial. So, to

[3:01:21] Jesse's point, the council

[3:01:23] >> Jesse, we're just scrolling past.

[3:01:24] >> I know, right? Just going right past it.

[3:01:26] >> Come on.

[3:01:27] >> Yeah. So, since [clears throat]

[3:01:30] this isn't any news to any city staff

[3:01:32] member, I've talked about this since the

[3:01:34] beginning. One of the things that's just

[3:01:36] been a little bit when we're talking

[3:01:38] about the amount of power that is being

[3:01:40] generated on this site, it's a lot,

[3:01:42] right? We're talking upwards of 400

[3:01:44] megawws.

[3:01:46] Um, it's just been a little bit

[3:01:48] interesting. So, when I was looking

[3:01:49] through our municipal code, um, yeah, in

[3:01:53] I3, which I didn't even know we had an

[3:01:54] I3 until today or this week, I guess it

[3:01:57] wasn't today, it was this week, but I3

[3:02:00] use subject to conditions, large wind

[3:02:02] energy systems is on there. Um, I was

[3:02:07] always under the impression, well, I was

[3:02:08] looking at I2 because it felt like that

[3:02:11] was a better zoning district. And so,

[3:02:12] I'm not saying which one is right. Are

[3:02:14] any of these right? It could be a new

[3:02:16] zoning district that we need to add to

[3:02:17] the code. I don't feel like light

[3:02:20] industrial really describes what's

[3:02:21] happening with the amount of power that

[3:02:23] is being generated on there because when

[3:02:25] it says um in our municipal code it says

[3:02:30] uh employment related uses include light

[3:02:32] manufacturing, assembly warehouses and

[3:02:34] wholesale activities. Associated offices

[3:02:36] support commercial uses are allowed.

[3:02:38] Uses that emit significant amount of

[3:02:40] air, water and noise pollution will not

[3:02:42] be allowed. residential uses are not

[3:02:44] allowed. And then it goes on to tell you

[3:02:46] what they are. And just for maybe for

[3:02:50] our knowledge, concrete, a concrete

[3:02:53] company would not be able to function in

[3:02:55] our I1 zone. It would have to be in an

[3:02:56] I2. So if that was the proposal that

[3:02:59] ended up buying the building if decide

[3:03:01] to move on, they would have to come to

[3:03:03] us before they could do that on that

[3:03:06] site.

[3:03:08] So your your argument is that because

[3:03:10] it's generating a large amount of power,

[3:03:12] it doesn't fit in the light industry.

[3:03:13] It's a power generation issue, not a

[3:03:17] potential impact problem.

[3:03:18] >> Correct. And as I as I studied, as I

[3:03:21] looked at it, we went to I went to what

[3:03:23] the councilman took, we went up to NOVA

[3:03:25] this last week on Monday. Thank you to

[3:03:27] Valition's team for helping us get there

[3:03:28] and city staff. Um, one of the things I

[3:03:31] started looking at while I was before we

[3:03:33] went is their zoning of their area and

[3:03:37] those I think everybody's been there at

[3:03:38] this point, but um, one of the

[3:03:41] interesting

[3:03:43] >> Shane has not been there for the record.

[3:03:45] Um,

[3:03:46] >> that

[3:03:48] the area around it is their zoning is

[3:03:51] obviously different. Every municipality

[3:03:52] is different, but theirs is in their

[3:03:55] higher manufacturing district in that

[3:03:58] area. So that kind of started leading

[3:04:00] down that maybe that path of researching

[3:04:02] it more and understanding. And I don't

[3:04:04] know all the data centers in Utah. I

[3:04:06] don't know where they all exist, but um

[3:04:09] it seems like a data center itself

[3:04:12] probably could fit in our I1. It's the

[3:04:14] power generation that probably in my

[3:04:16] opinion doesn't fit well in the I1

[3:04:19] industrial area.

[3:04:22] Do you think there's any uh semblance of

[3:04:25] um of you know when usually when we're

[3:04:28] making zoning decisions about what can

[3:04:31] be an industrial one it's because hey

[3:04:34] now that's forever going to be an

[3:04:35] industrial one.

[3:04:38] Um, do you think some of your concerns

[3:04:41] are covered uh or helped to be mitigated

[3:04:45] at all by the covenants here that we're

[3:04:48] going into as far as that wouldn't open

[3:04:52] another data center to be approved in

[3:04:56] our city? So, so if a data center can be

[3:04:59] in I1, it's not like another data center

[3:05:03] could pop up in I1

[3:05:05] >> out by the airport. Not today, but

[3:05:07] another city council could very well

[3:05:09] decide that yeah, we can change that

[3:05:10] from 1 to 10, right?

[3:05:13] >> But what's written is that it can't

[3:05:15] change without a public hearing,

[3:05:17] >> right? It have to go through a public

[3:05:18] process. I I I I get that. I do think

[3:05:21] that when we're talking, and this is the

[3:05:23] planning commissioner and me, so take

[3:05:25] that for what it's worth, is um that

[3:05:29] when we're talking Title 15, it's

[3:05:30] important that we are looking at the

[3:05:32] next project, not necessarily always

[3:05:33] just this project. and what we're

[3:05:35] opening.

[3:05:35] >> Not a one-off.

[3:05:36] Shane's favorite thing.

[3:05:39] >> But I do think that it's important that

[3:05:40] we we put it where it's intended to be

[3:05:43] from the beginning, not necessarily just

[3:05:45] because of what project is in front of

[3:05:47] us. Cuz to some of the things that we've

[3:05:48] talked about, if Valition sold to

[3:05:50] another company or they didn't produce

[3:05:53] this, but we approved Title 15, another

[3:05:55] company can then come in front of us to go about this without maybe some of

[3:06:00] the public process because there

[3:06:01] wouldn't be a data center in Spanish

[3:06:03] Fork at this time.

[3:06:06] If we did a data center overlay, we

[3:06:08] would have to have a public hearing,

[3:06:11] public process every single time.

[3:06:13] Correct.

[3:06:14] >> I don't know the answer to that

[3:06:15] question.

[3:06:16] >> Yes, that's correct. Okay.

[3:06:18] >> Thank you.

[3:06:20] >> So, how would Dave, how would that

[3:06:22] overlay look work? I mean, we have one

[3:06:25] that's called large utility facility

[3:06:27] overlay zone, correct?

[3:06:29] >> So,

[3:06:30] >> not anymore.

[3:06:31] >> Not Oh, yeah. We we took that off. We

[3:06:32] approved it and we Okay.

[3:06:35] How to work just from an overlay

[3:06:37] perspective?

[3:06:38] >> Yeah. So, um, an overlay is a change to

[3:06:43] the city's zoning map. So, it changes

[3:06:45] the law relative to uses that are

[3:06:48] allowed on a particular piece of

[3:06:50] property, particular geography in the

[3:06:52] community. Um, the city council, you

[3:06:56] guys review changes to the zoning map on

[3:06:58] a typically a monthly basis. there seems

[3:07:00] to always be something in the works here

[3:07:01] in town to where that's that's on an

[3:07:04] agenda. Uh

[3:07:07] that certainly is a tool that you have

[3:07:10] at, you know, your disposal if you'd

[3:07:12] like us to prepare

[3:07:14] uh language to create an overlay um to

[3:07:19] address the different things that have

[3:07:21] been talked about relative to this

[3:07:22] proposal. Um that could be considered as

[3:07:26] a text amendment to create the overlay.

[3:07:28] And at the same time, if you chose to,

[3:07:29] you could act on a map amendment to put

[3:07:32] that overlay in place on any particular

[3:07:35] property that that you wanted to.

[3:07:39] We'd have we'd go through there's a

[3:07:41] process that we always go through which

[3:07:43] involves a certain amount of public

[3:07:44] notice um in advance of public hearings.

[3:07:47] In the case of both the creation of the

[3:07:48] text amendment and uh the map amendment,

[3:07:51] there would be a public hearing with

[3:07:52] both the planning commission and the

[3:07:53] city council.

[3:07:55] But that it couldn't apply anywhere in

[3:07:57] the city, right?

[3:07:59] >> It depends on how it's written. Okay.

[3:08:00] So, some of our overlays are zone

[3:08:02] specific. In fact, I think most of them

[3:08:05] are. [clears throat]

[3:08:06] [snorts]

[3:08:06] >> Um, some of them can be applied in

[3:08:08] multiple zoning districts. Some are more

[3:08:11] restrictive.

[3:08:12] >> For example, you could say if there was

[3:08:14] a data center overlay

[3:08:16] zone, is it a zone?

[3:08:19] >> I would call them a zone.

[3:08:20] >> Okay. So if there was a data center

[3:08:22] overlay zone, it could apply in I1, two,

[3:08:24] or three.

[3:08:26] >> Or all three.

[3:08:27] >> However you wanted. Exactly.

[3:08:29] >> All right.

[3:08:31] >> And in an overlay, we wouldn't put

[3:08:33] there. There's only one because multiple

[3:08:36] applicants could come in and apply for

[3:08:39] that overlay zone. Correct.

[3:08:41] >> You know, I think you could have a quota

[3:08:43] with an overlay zone. I'd let Mr. Pel

[3:08:46] weigh in on that if you wanted to. uh we

[3:08:49] don't have that in place for any of the

[3:08:52] overlays that we have on the books

[3:08:54] today.

[3:08:55] >> Okay.

[3:08:56] >> And everything that we're going to talk

[3:08:58] about in this title 15 change could

[3:09:00] apply to that overlay. You these same

[3:09:03] set of rules would say this is the these

[3:09:05] are the rules you need to live by if you

[3:09:07] want to use this overlay. I think what's

[3:09:08] proposed tonight would translate really

[3:09:10] well and in order for somebody to

[3:09:13] qualify to be approved with the overlay,

[3:09:17] they would have to meet the conditions

[3:09:18] that are are already before the council.

[3:09:21] >> Okay.

[3:09:22] >> So, can you explain the pros and cons

[3:09:26] like with an overlay? Like it would be

[3:09:28] more strict an overlay, correct?

[3:09:31] >> Or would that just depend on how it's

[3:09:33] written? Uh, I think it would work much

[3:09:35] like what's being proposed today. Um,

[3:09:40] I like overlays. I like the idea of

[3:09:46] having a process that involves a

[3:09:48] sightspecific review and uh ultimately

[3:09:52] the council being to act legislatively

[3:09:54] on a land use proposal. So, I'm a fan of

[3:09:56] that. Um, I think some communities do

[3:10:00] overuse them. I don't think we're there

[3:10:02] yet. Um,

[3:10:05] in this case, we've been through the

[3:10:08] same process that I would expect us to

[3:10:10] go through um to get to a point to where

[3:10:14] the council could act on what it would

[3:10:16] take to put an overlay in place for the

[3:10:18] project that's proposed. Um,

[3:10:23] but really it it wouldn't differ from

[3:10:25] what we've we've done so far. I guess

[3:10:28] that's where I'm trying to get to with

[3:10:30] my questions is is changing a zone from

[3:10:34] one to the other is the process that

[3:10:37] we're probably going through now to be

[3:10:40] that specific and same with the overlay

[3:10:43] discussion of it. Uh especially with

[3:10:47] some of the contractual, you know,

[3:10:49] development agreement stuff that's in

[3:10:51] here in addition to title 15 stuff.

[3:10:55] Uh, the more that I think about it, I

[3:10:57] think it might just boil down to your

[3:10:59] preference as to how you'd like to see

[3:11:04] um this particular land use handled from

[3:11:07] a zoning perspective.

[3:11:08] >> Mayor, I think I think you are exactly

[3:11:11] correct. I think that we would be in the

[3:11:13] exact same position we are right now had

[3:11:15] we chose to change the zone, put an

[3:11:18] overlay to it. The process is identical

[3:11:21] up to this point. For me, it's about the

[3:11:24] next one. And maybe that can be maybe

[3:11:28] we'll get Title 15 in a in a place that

[3:11:31] we're comfortable with, whether that's

[3:11:34] tonight or two weeks from now, whenever

[3:11:35] that might be

[3:11:37] that

[3:11:38] we say, "Okay, those are the rules.

[3:11:41] Current applicant, go follow them."

[3:11:44] But we work on a better public a more

[3:11:48] robust public process than subject to

[3:11:51] conditions

[3:11:52] for what could be the next one. You know

[3:11:55] what I'm saying? Because I think really

[3:11:57] you I think your argument was is and

[3:12:01] it's a valid one. I don't want to back

[3:12:02] up and go back through the process

[3:12:05] because it's identical to where we are

[3:12:07] today. And I I I agree with that part.

[3:12:11] But I I think once this is changed, I'm

[3:12:14] not comfortable

[3:12:16] going through what would be the future

[3:12:19] process because it won't be like this.

[3:12:22] >> But how would there be a future process

[3:12:24] if we approved it?

[3:12:25] >> We'd come back in a month and say staff

[3:12:29] prepare an overlay zone with this title

[3:12:31] with these requirements to it and we

[3:12:33] changed 15

[3:12:35] >> after we've approved it.

[3:12:37] >> You can do that, right?

[3:12:40] >> [clears throat]

[3:12:41] >> What's the squinching?

[3:12:42] >> I'm thinking through what you said. So

[3:12:44] after we approve title 15,

[3:12:45] >> so we could I think we could if we're

[3:12:48] comfortable at some point that title 15

[3:12:50] has the the guard rails, the

[3:12:52] accountability, all the things that we

[3:12:54] talked about or I think we all talked

[3:12:56] about is in place today. There's an

[3:12:59] applicant in front of us. We can say we

[3:13:02] approve it. Go forward, start working on

[3:13:04] the development agreement. We'll prove

[3:13:06] that in some we will we'll debate that

[3:13:08] in a future council meeting.

[3:13:12] We then say staff, we like the idea of a

[3:13:16] title or a zone change or a zone overlay

[3:13:20] for the next round of this. Prepare

[3:13:21] title 15

[3:13:23] for that. You basically just cut and

[3:13:25] paste these rules into the future

[3:13:29] process. That way we have a very

[3:13:33] transparent public process if this

[3:13:37] happens again

[3:13:40] without having to [clears throat] back

[3:13:41] up and walk through this exact same

[3:13:43] thing over the next two months. It's not

[3:13:48] super clean,

[3:13:50] but it it continues this thing moving

[3:13:52] forward assuming that we can get to a

[3:13:56] vote at some point on Title 15. Let me

[3:13:59] share some thoughts if I can.

[3:14:01] >> Nope.

[3:14:02] >> Just change the meeting now.

[3:14:04] >> So, [laughter]

[3:14:06] so I've been thinking I I don't have any

[3:14:08] concerns whether this

[3:14:11] moved to an I3 or an overlay or any of

[3:14:13] that, but I guess the question that I've

[3:14:15] got is what's the purpose behind

[3:14:18] different zoning

[3:14:20] districts?

[3:14:23] Why do we have different zone? Why is

[3:14:25] there an I1 and I2 and I3? What what's

[3:14:27] the purpose?

[3:14:28] >> Don't look like this is rhetorical and a

[3:14:30] test.

[3:14:31] >> You just tell us, Kevin.

[3:14:32] >> Yeah, you just you just tell us.

[3:14:33] >> I'm curious.

[3:14:34] >> Yeah, Dave Oiler said,

[3:14:36] >> what's why do we have different zoning

[3:14:38] districts? What's the purpose behind

[3:14:40] them?

[3:14:40] >> Each of them have different development

[3:14:42] categories.

[3:14:43] >> Why?

[3:14:44] >> Because they're different uses.

[3:14:46] >> Why?

[3:14:47] >> Oh, Dad, stop it.

[3:14:49] >> I'm not going to keep going. I think

[3:14:50] different effects.

[3:14:51] >> Let me use the example you gave. So, you

[3:14:53] talked about the i3 with windmills. Just

[3:14:56] to share just the example you gave. Why

[3:14:58] are those in an i3 and not an i1? Is it

[3:15:01] because of the power generation? We

[3:15:03] already proved or found out that they

[3:15:06] don't produce nearly what this will

[3:15:07] produce. So, it's not because of the

[3:15:09] power generation. It's because they're

[3:15:11] dang tall. And I3 has to be a certain

[3:15:15] distance away from a residential area.

[3:15:19] You don't want those falling down on

[3:15:21] houses or falling down on vehicles or

[3:15:23] people. And so I3

[3:15:26] has different reason re different

[3:15:29] restrictions or or

[3:15:32] laws because of the impact that

[3:15:36] something in an I3 would have compared

[3:15:38] to something in an I2 or an I1. So for

[3:15:40] me, it's I don't care which zoning

[3:15:43] district it's in. It's how is it going

[3:15:45] to affect or impact the people or the

[3:15:48] businesses that are around it. We've got

[3:15:51] examples all over the place of

[3:15:54] businesses in our commercial zone that

[3:15:56] we've permitted that cause an impact to

[3:15:59] homes right next door. Car washes that

[3:16:02] have produced sounds that keep people up

[3:16:04] at night that we've had to go back and

[3:16:06] adjust and fix because of the impact

[3:16:10] that they have. We've had industrial

[3:16:12] areas that produce a sound in indust in an I1 zone or an I2 zone that cause

[3:16:19] an impact that we've had to try and

[3:16:21] retrofit and fix. We've had gravel

[3:16:25] yards. I can't tell you how many emails

[3:16:28] and calls I got about a gravel yard

[3:16:30] that's now being developed into

[3:16:32] residential that every time the wind

[3:16:34] blew, there was a plume of dust that

[3:16:37] came into these people's backyards and

[3:16:40] it was causing an impact because of the

[3:16:42] zoning it was in. What could we have

[3:16:44] done differently?

[3:16:46] We could have spent the time that we're

[3:16:48] spending on this to try and reduce the

[3:16:50] impact that those zones or those those

[3:16:53] things cause. Doesn't matter which zone

[3:16:56] they're in. It's how do we make sure

[3:16:57] that the impact of whatever we're

[3:16:59] allowing or not allowing doesn't affect

[3:17:03] in a detrimental way the people around

[3:17:05] it. So, as far as the the zone, I'm I'm

[3:17:08] totally fine if we do an overlay or if

[3:17:10] we do, but I think we're kind of missing

[3:17:13] the point of

[3:17:15] not focusing on what's the impact going

[3:17:18] to be, not just of this, but anything

[3:17:20] that we approve in council, when we're

[3:17:23] looking at a zone change or or allowing

[3:17:26] something or changing an ordinance, our

[3:17:28] number one focus needs to be how is this

[3:17:30] going to impact the people that live

[3:17:33] around it? because there are there have

[3:17:36] been things that we've dropped the ball

[3:17:37] on, no doubt. And so my focus with this

[3:17:41] whole process is how do we make sure

[3:17:44] that we are not impacting in a negative

[3:17:46] way the people that that will be around

[3:17:48] it.

[3:17:49] >> I agree completely with 95% of what you

[3:17:52] said. Um it is about impact for sure.

[3:17:57] The the reason that I wanted to stop and

[3:17:59] talk about this and I appreciate um

[3:18:02] Stacy's comment about an overlay zone

[3:18:03] and and and Jesse's about whatever zone

[3:18:06] it might be in. There is a process that

[3:18:09] we need to go through to get to a

[3:18:11] decision

[3:18:14] and we've heard three or four times

[3:18:16] tonight that don't remove the public

[3:18:19] process from our decision-m

[3:18:21] >> and I don't think that you said that we

[3:18:23] should in any way, Kevin, at all. My

[3:18:26] point is if we made a tweak here to a

[3:18:29] future application, it would go through

[3:18:30] a very transparent public process with a

[3:18:33] public hearing,

[3:18:33] >> which is why I support that. No concern.

[3:18:36] >> So I but that is the that is the only

[3:18:38] reason I wanted to stop here is because

[3:18:39] that I want to check that box and say if

[3:18:43] we did it this way, which is whatever

[3:18:45] way we come up with a future discussion,

[3:18:48] we'll go through this exact same

[3:18:49] transparent process to get to the point

[3:18:51] we are tonight. I've liked that we have

[3:18:53] had a very transparent and open process

[3:18:56] to this point. I want to make sure that

[3:18:57] it continues on the next time we have

[3:18:59] this conversation. So that's the only

[3:19:01] reason I stopped. But I I I agree with

[3:19:03] you 100%. We are I am getting buried in

[3:19:06] the weeds on this section when the the

[3:19:09] meat of it is the page after this.

[3:19:11] >> Okay. No, I'm ready to move on. That was

[3:19:14] a helpful discussion though

[3:19:16] >> for me. Okay.

[3:19:18] >> Thank you.

[3:19:20] Let's move to the next pages.

[3:19:26] » Y'all bored yet?

[3:19:29] because I'm not

[3:19:38] » I think uh that uh Van pointed out that

[3:19:42] the adjustment there on paragraph three

[3:19:44] of applicability and capacity

[3:19:48] uh that's a minimum of 50 and not more

[3:19:50] than 450.

[3:19:52] Um that's a an adjusted number there as

[3:19:55] you mentioned. Um, hey, if you can go

[3:19:59] back to the purpose bon uh or Jack, what

[3:20:03] did you call yourself? Mariano Rivera.

[3:20:04] What did you say you were?

[3:20:06] >> Mariano.

[3:20:08] >> Um, do we want to strike permitted uses

[3:20:11] from that language? At least as we are

[3:20:13] talking today or is this the old

[3:20:15] version?

[3:20:17] So, I think I mentioned this to you that

[3:20:20] I think we're we're only thinking about

[3:20:22] data center, but actually there's

[3:20:23] another use permitted that is just the

[3:20:26] on-site power generation that could

[3:20:27] potentially support another permitted

[3:20:29] use elsewhere.

[3:20:30] >> Okay.

[3:20:31] >> So, I think that's why it's written that

[3:20:32] way.

[3:20:32] >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:20:33] >> Yeah. The

[3:20:36] call that I was on listening to Bloom

[3:20:38] again back to that. So, they talked

[3:20:41] about the demand that they've got right

[3:20:42] now with with on-site power generation

[3:20:45] and and how many people We we talk a

[3:20:48] little bit about how, you know, this is

[3:20:52] guinea pigs. We're being guinea pigs

[3:20:53] here. This is something that's never

[3:20:54] been done before. Bloom has has, if

[3:20:57] you've been to any of the open houses

[3:21:00] and whatnot, Bloom's been around for a

[3:21:02] long time. Bloom is not just used for

[3:21:04] data centers. You've got hospitals today

[3:21:07] that are moving to power through Bloom

[3:21:10] because it's more stable than being on

[3:21:12] the grid. um they don't have to worry

[3:21:14] about backup generators if the power

[3:21:16] goes out because Bloom is stable. You've

[3:21:18] got um schools, you've got lots of

[3:21:22] things outside of data centers that are

[3:21:25] using this kind of technology and it's

[3:21:27] becoming more and more in demand because

[3:21:29] of how reliable it is. And so I just

[3:21:31] wanted to point that out that to Von's

[3:21:34] point, we're not talking about just data

[3:21:36] centers. We're talking about on-site

[3:21:39] power generation. We could have our

[3:21:40] hospital in Spanish Fork that decides

[3:21:42] they want to not be on our grid because

[3:21:45] they want to be more secure and stable

[3:21:47] in case if an emergency happens and they

[3:21:49] need to have power to perform surgeries,

[3:21:52] then we may be having the same

[3:21:54] discussion about a hospital and not not

[3:21:57] a data center. So, I just wanted to

[3:21:59] point that out.

[3:21:59] >> That's a good point. That is a that's a

[3:22:01] valid point. Um, I will say under

[3:22:04] purpose as well. This is something

[3:22:06] that's been brought up to us, I think,

[3:22:07] in emails and and texts and messages,

[3:22:10] uh, that that I think is valid valid

[3:22:13] concerns of residents. But the section

[3:22:16] that applies to current city

[3:22:17] requirements for noise, fugitive dust

[3:22:19] and emissions, environmental protection,

[3:22:21] wastewater, site plan review, setback

[3:22:23] screening, all those things that the

[3:22:25] public's brought up to us, I think you

[3:22:27] need to know those those are in our code

[3:22:30] now. You can't. Um I ran into a

[3:22:32] gentleman in city hall earlier today

[3:22:35] that said, "Hey, where do I who do I

[3:22:38] talk to about my neighbor that has a a

[3:22:41] dog business and he's breeding x amount

[3:22:44] of dogs and now it's causing flies and

[3:22:48] smells and dust in my backyard." that

[3:22:51] there is a code that deals with that

[3:22:53] stuff and it's pretty strict in the in

[3:22:55] the way of industrial uses as as well.

[3:22:58] But your home there's code enforcement

[3:23:00] that goes into you cannot affect a

[3:23:04] neighboring property in in a quality of

[3:23:07] life way uh in quiet enjoyment. And so I

[3:23:10] think it's important to to just point

[3:23:12] out that that's referring to that but

[3:23:15] those are in place now.

[3:23:17] the applicants agreed to some even

[3:23:19] stricter standards and some monitoring

[3:23:22] of that that is real time monitoring

[3:23:25] that that that you're going to going to

[3:23:27] be able to to check all of us are going

[3:23:29] to be able to check and the city's

[3:23:31] certainly going to be able to check too

[3:23:32] but I think that's an important point to

[3:23:34] make that um that that when people have

[3:23:38] asked those questions those those are in

[3:23:40] code those are staying in code those

[3:23:42] aren't being modified at all in the

[3:23:44] looser way for for this applicant in

[3:23:48] this use

[3:23:51] sense.

[3:23:51] >> I think so.

[3:23:52] >> Okay, let's scroll.

[3:23:55] >> Yeah, I did.

[3:23:58] [clears throat]

[3:23:59] >> Mayor, do you mind if I respond to

[3:24:00] something in section two?

[3:24:02] >> Yes, please.

[3:24:03] >> Um, the very last sentence, um, somebody

[3:24:06] pointed out that it refers to expansion

[3:24:08] in subsection three. I think that that

[3:24:11] is extraneous reference once we have the

[3:24:16] what's it called the changes in section

[3:24:18] 19 the material change I think that's

[3:24:21] where it should be a reference to

[3:24:23] section 19 not section three

[3:24:26] >> okay so that would need to adjust to

[3:24:28] that

[3:24:35] » I I appreciated you guys that went

[3:24:37] through this because weren't we

[3:24:39] originally Well, two weeks ago

[3:24:40] discussing 500 megawatts, you guys

[3:24:43] brought it down to 450. And if I

[3:24:46] remember, Jeff, did you say you guys

[3:24:48] would use like max 390 or something?

[3:24:52] >> Yes.

[3:24:52] >> So why I'm just curious why 450 instead

[3:24:56] of 400? Like what are there error

[3:24:59] quality, noise, anything? Would that

[3:25:01] make residents feel any happier if it

[3:25:03] went down to from 500 to four? We're

[3:25:06] just um we're just asking for a buffer

[3:25:10] [clears throat] in the event. So an

[3:25:12] example could be um

[3:25:16] let's say bloom. We put a certain amount

[3:25:19] of bloom out and that amount of bloom is

[3:25:23] supposed to generate

[3:25:25] um x amount of power for us

[3:25:31] and it produces a few percentage points

[3:25:34] less

[3:25:36] than we may have to increase the amount

[3:25:38] of bloom to make up the difference. So,

[3:25:41] we're trying to oversize so that we have

[3:25:45] everything we need covered and we're

[3:25:48] just asking for a buffer ju just in

[3:25:51] case.

[3:25:52] >> That's what I was just wondering. Thank

[3:25:53] you,

[3:25:54] >> Jeeoff. In that case then if you assumed

[3:25:57] I don't know how many if you assumed

[3:26:00] that it's going to generate 400 megawws

[3:26:03] and you actually were getting 350.

[3:26:07] So you added enough generators to bump

[3:26:09] it up which would probably go over this.

[3:26:12] That's your buffer you're talking about.

[3:26:13] Sound you may have to have a resubmitt

[3:26:17] of your air quality permit then.

[3:26:20] And it would be a material qual

[3:26:22] material.

[3:26:24] That's the right word if

[3:26:25] >> modification

[3:26:26] >> any anything

[3:26:28] that would require modification we'll

[3:26:31] have to go through the process.

[3:26:32] >> All right. So what would the air quality

[3:26:34] permit be based on? 450

[3:26:37] >> go how

[3:26:38] >> 395 is what it's based on. Right.

[3:26:39] >> The number the number of the air quality

[3:26:42] permit right now. What are we

[3:26:43] >> at? 393.

[3:26:45] >> Okay.

[3:26:46] >> So if if we added anything and we needed

[3:26:49] 410 or something, do we have to

[3:26:51] resubmit?

[3:26:52] >> Yep.

[3:26:53] Okay. Okay.

[3:26:54] >> I mean, we'll just have to live with the requirements.

[3:26:56] >> So, there is some my point of asking

[3:26:58] this is there's some there's some

[3:27:00] backstopping on some of these things.

[3:27:03] They're all they're all related in some

[3:27:04] way. And the air quality permit is a

[3:27:08] document that the state will issue

[3:27:10] saying you have permission. You you can

[3:27:13] emit this much based on 395 megawatts.

[3:27:18] going over that is a material

[3:27:19] modification that we would be that we

[3:27:22] would be on the hook or we would be

[3:27:24] looking at to approve.

[3:27:26] >> Okay.

[3:27:27] >> Our our our response in a like a modest

[3:27:32] >> change we would probably heir on the

[3:27:34] side of just we would keep producing

[3:27:38] underneath the minimum.

[3:27:39] >> Sure. Because you don't want to come

[3:27:40] back

[3:27:40] >> and deal and deal with having a little

[3:27:42] less energy.

[3:27:43] >> Yep. Yeah,

[3:27:43] >> that would make sense. Well, while I got

[3:27:45] you here, Jeff, and this isn't I know

[3:27:48] we're going over the title 15 uh

[3:27:51] paragraphs here and it's not included in

[3:27:54] their

[3:27:56] but where we are talking about air

[3:27:57] quality here which is a a concern people

[3:28:00] have had and I think it comes down to

[3:28:02] air quality temperature

[3:28:05] uh and um and then noise. Um

[3:28:12] you guys have proposed we we talked

[3:28:13] about having some sensors close

[3:28:16] >> Yeah.

[3:28:16] >> to your property and and where we own

[3:28:18] public places for those to kind of be.

[3:28:20] We already have some purple air monitors

[3:28:22] up there that tell us the air and

[3:28:24] everything.

[3:28:25] >> Maybe this is a good good part for you

[3:28:27] to mention maybe what you're offering in

[3:28:29] that development agreement that would be

[3:28:31] accessible to the city but citizens as

[3:28:33] well.

[3:28:34] >> Yeah.

[3:28:34] >> Uh right by your property.

[3:28:36] >> Yeah. Thanks for bringing that up. So uh

[3:28:38] yeah, this whole conversation has just

[3:28:40] increased our sort of sensitivity to and

[3:28:43] interest in documenting every data point

[3:28:46] we can because as a company this helps

[3:28:49] us as we move, you know, if we're doing

[3:28:51] something in Arizona or in California,

[3:28:54] um we'll be able we want to provide as

[3:28:56] much empirical data as we possibly can.

[3:28:58] So, we're going to effectively kind of

[3:28:59] build like a little weather station on

[3:29:02] property um that allows us to with

[3:29:06] sensors track

[3:29:08] noise like at the you know right next to

[3:29:11] equipment, heat right next to equipment,

[3:29:15] heat and noise at a at 100 feet at 1,000

[3:29:19] feet. um and then also um sponsor a

[3:29:25] network of of um sensors that would be

[3:29:29] you know quarter mile out for example.

[3:29:31] So,

[3:29:33] um, we want to know without any

[3:29:36] question.

[3:29:38] Uh, for example, on the least ideal day,

[3:29:42] you know, it's 95 degrees, we have no

[3:29:44] wind from the canyon. Um, we'd like to

[3:29:48] know right on site, uh, how much did our

[3:29:52] onsite temperature increase that day?

[3:29:54] Did it stay at six or seven degrees or

[3:29:58] did it go to 11? Um, so we'll have those

[3:30:02] monitors on site to and then it also

[3:30:04] makes it really easy for us to quickly

[3:30:06] be accountable in all of our regular

[3:30:08] accounting.

[3:30:10] >> Great. I I think the important part that

[3:30:12] if the citizen didn't hear there is

[3:30:15] we've all received maybe some messages,

[3:30:17] including myself, of hey, how do uh how

[3:30:21] do I how do I trust these guys? and and

[3:30:24] I don't know him and and I've replied

[3:30:26] back I don't know him all that long

[3:30:27] either so I don't know what to tell you know but

[3:30:31] >> uh

[3:30:32] that's the important verified piece of of this that um that you're willing

[3:30:40] to put in agreement here of here's the

[3:30:43] actual data that you can access and and

[3:30:46] I think that's important I think that's

[3:30:47] important

[3:30:47] >> yeah there there have been you know fair

[3:30:49] comments uh in a variety of places where

[3:30:52] they've said things people have said

[3:30:53] things like you you can't just trust

[3:30:55] these guys and we're not asking you to

[3:30:57] just trust us.

[3:30:58] >> Okay.

[3:30:58] >> Yeah.

[3:31:00] >> So, mayor on that I think that's a good

[3:31:02] point of

[3:31:04] they have agreed or they will agree to

[3:31:07] further monitoring or real time

[3:31:09] monitoring and development agreement. We

[3:31:12] appreciate that.

[3:31:14] Um,

[3:31:16] if a future data center came in, what makes what would make or I I guess

[3:31:23] if they sold it, it would be in the

[3:31:25] development agreement. We would be okay

[3:31:26] with that, right? Um, but there's

[3:31:29] nothing in our code that says you must

[3:31:30] monitor it.

[3:31:32] That's sort of the goodwill that they

[3:31:34] have. They want to generate and I

[3:31:36] appreciate the applicant wanting to do

[3:31:37] that because I I think that's important.

[3:31:40] >> Look at number 10. Look at section 10.

[3:31:42] I We're not there yet.

[3:31:44] >> Well, just say it's in section 10,

[3:31:45] Shane. We'll get there when we get

[3:31:46] there.

[3:31:46] >> Okay, it's in section 10. I think we'll

[3:31:48] get there.

[3:31:49] >> We He's there now.

[3:31:51] >> Did that at

[3:31:52] >> Don't laugh at him.

[3:31:53] >> There we did that.

[3:31:55] >> Okay.

[3:31:56] >> I think the intent there is

[3:31:59] conditions may include ongoing

[3:32:01] monitoring at the facility locations off

[3:32:03] site.

[3:32:03] >> Oh, so do we have this in air then?

[3:32:04] >> Yep.

[3:32:06] >> And

[3:32:07] >> what is eight?

[3:32:10] >> We're talking eight, aren't we? We No,

[3:32:11] we were talking air.

[3:32:14] We were on section three air.

[3:32:15] >> We're on heat.

[3:32:16] >> No, but he was talking about heat.

[3:32:18] >> Jeff was talking about heat and

[3:32:19] monitoring. So,

[3:32:20] >> I was following his lead in that

[3:32:22] question.

[3:32:23] >> Okay.

[3:32:23] >> To Shane to

[3:32:24] >> Well, let me pivot back to air then.

[3:32:26] >> Whether it's air or noise or whatever

[3:32:28] Shane's point is,

[3:32:29] >> thank you.

[3:32:29] >> Is it in the code?

[3:32:30] >> Yeah.

[3:32:31] I think so.

[3:32:31] >> Is it in the code?

[3:32:32] >> Yeah, the air air. I stopped this I

[3:32:35] tripped us up at air quality and

[3:32:36] probably covered two more, but if you if

[3:32:38] you keep scrolling down, what's what's

[3:32:41] five there?

[3:32:43] >> You can't say that on the microphone.

[3:32:44] >> So So I think this is an important thing

[3:32:46] too that I probably should have included

[3:32:48] in there, but the the the baseline I

[3:32:52] think is an important addition and and

[3:32:54] again residents, this is this is you

[3:32:56] asking some good questions to find out

[3:32:59] well what's currently there and now what

[3:33:01] that what this would add to it. will

[3:33:04] again I think it's already been been

[3:33:05] brought up that we're not the the

[3:33:07] experts as the city in in that stuff. So

[3:33:09] a third party independent uh uh uh look

[3:33:13] at that that gives you a baseline number

[3:33:17] and then and then what something would

[3:33:20] do to that baseline number is uh is the

[3:33:23] testing and monitoring there. Um,

[3:33:27] >> mayor, let's talk about that just

[3:33:28] briefly because we've had a lot of

[3:33:30] residents that bring up the the DAQ

[3:33:34] permit

[3:33:36] and whether this should be approved

[3:33:38] before that's finalized. Um,

[3:33:43] September 5th, and you guys can correct

[3:33:45] me if I'm wrong, September 5th is when

[3:33:47] public comment for that permit closes.

[3:33:49] And at that point, they'll, I guess,

[3:33:53] proceed or make an announcement. If we

[3:33:55] were to vote on this tonight

[3:33:58] and approve it, if the DAQ, which is a

[3:34:02] state agency that monitors there,

[3:34:04] they'll they're doing all of the

[3:34:06] studies, the analysis on the equipment

[3:34:08] that's that's going to be used on this

[3:34:11] site at maximum capacity. If I'm

[3:34:13] correct,

[3:34:14] they're they're doing all the analysis.

[3:34:17] The city can't do that. We don't have

[3:34:18] the people. We don't have the expertise.

[3:34:20] The state does that. There's an entire

[3:34:21] department that does that. If we get to

[3:34:24] the 5th of September and public comment

[3:34:27] closes and DAQ says, you know what,

[3:34:29] based on public comment and things that

[3:34:31] we've researched, this doesn't fly, even

[3:34:34] though we pass it tonight, they don't

[3:34:36] move forward. Um, they're they're tied

[3:34:39] to whatever state requires. So, even if

[3:34:41] we were to pass this tonight, DAQ comes

[3:34:43] in and says, based on what we've

[3:34:45] researched and found out,

[3:34:48] your equipment won't fly with what our

[3:34:50] state requirements are. They don't move

[3:34:52] forward.

[3:34:54] I I believe when Kevin says stuff, but

[3:34:56] is that is that correct?

[3:34:58] >> Yes, Mr. Attorney. Okay,

[3:35:00] >> Kevin said it. [laughter]

[3:35:02] >> Trust but verified.

[3:35:03] >> So, I I agree with what Kevin just said

[3:35:06] 100%. That is the case. The the state

[3:35:09] has a a let's just take pick a number

[3:35:12] VOX budget for Utah County. They'll moni

[3:35:17] they will say what is the VOX coming

[3:35:19] from site the site does it fit within

[3:35:21] the budget it could be five tons a year

[3:35:24] it could be 25 tons a year it will still

[3:35:25] permit it will still fit under that

[3:35:28] permit if there's a budget so I'm not

[3:35:31] sure this gives us the the

[3:35:35] protection

[3:35:37] I think it gives us the protection long

[3:35:38] term because once that budget's set then

[3:35:40] we are protected

[3:35:41] >> right

[3:35:42] >> but I don't know that it gives us the number we're comfortable with

[3:35:47] initially

[3:35:48] >> and the transparency.

[3:35:49] >> Yeah, it will be there. Absolutely 100%.

[3:35:52] You are right. The permit will come. If

[3:35:54] they get a permit, it'll say your budget

[3:35:56] is X.

[3:35:58] >> But how do we going forward

[3:36:00] >> is that X are we are we comfortable with

[3:36:02] that X?

[3:36:03] >> Are we comfortable with them setting the

[3:36:04] X or should we set the X beforehand?

[3:36:06] >> Correct. Yeah. Should we have numbers in

[3:36:08] our our code? And

[3:36:10] >> it let me just inject a thought here. We

[3:36:13] somewhere in here

[3:36:15] I'm not seeing it in

[3:36:18] p in the air quality baseline somewhere

[3:36:22] in here we talk about the minor

[3:36:24] um the minor permit

[3:36:27] >> or better

[3:36:28] >> paragraph three

[3:36:30] >> it's in four I flipped my page um

[3:36:35] then

[3:36:36] we have in our discussions have proposed

[3:36:40] to put their uh air quality permit

[3:36:46] application as a part of an exhibit two

[3:36:49] and a part of the development agreement.

[3:36:51] So I think to your question that you're

[3:36:53] asking Shane trying to memorialize this

[3:36:56] is what it is and this is where the the

[3:36:58] standard is the minor source permit is

[3:37:01] greater probably greater I'm assuming

[3:37:03] it's not less right so that's why

[3:37:06] they're getting the minor source there's

[3:37:07] a small source a minor source and a

[3:37:10] major source permit and probably others

[3:37:13] um and so I think our our attempt there

[3:37:16] to be specific is as long as you're

[3:37:19] within the minor permit this says you're

[3:37:21] okay to move forward in a development

[3:37:23] agreement.

[3:37:24] >> Even a little stricter. If you look at

[3:37:26] the third paragraph under four, this is

[3:37:29] my change. I requested that the facility

[3:37:31] shall obtain the permit. Turn your mic.

[3:37:34] >> I just got to get closer. Sorry, it's

[3:37:35] on.

[3:37:36] >> Um, meet its terms and conditions and

[3:37:38] then it may not exceed the levels

[3:37:41] identified in the minor source permit

[3:37:42] application.

[3:37:43] >> Perfect. So they

[3:37:44] >> you're getting there

[3:37:45] >> identify the equipment they're using and

[3:37:48] the name plate emissions that that would

[3:37:50] have.

[3:37:51] >> So that was the attempt even if the

[3:37:53] minor source permit would allow more is

[3:37:55] to limit them to what they've applied

[3:37:57] for.

[3:37:58] >> Mr.

[3:38:00] So along those lines, I mean, we could

[3:38:02] reference the project number that they

[3:38:06] filed with the state that or we could

[3:38:09] reference the the engineers review by

[3:38:12] the date that that was completed, you

[3:38:14] know, or something like that. We could

[3:38:16] be that specific. Their application is

[3:38:19] extremely specific down to the number of

[3:38:22] fuel cells that they would have on site.

[3:38:23] >> Sure. references to how much fuel they

[3:38:25] would use. I think they're for the hours

[3:38:27] of operation, different things like

[3:38:29] that. So, I mean, if this is what you're

[3:38:32] intending to hold them to, it wouldn't

[3:38:35] be hard to reference this explicitly.

[3:38:37] >> But if we're if we're being that

[3:38:39] explicit, why not just put the numbers

[3:38:40] in the title 15 document?

[3:38:42] >> Well, we could, but the way that the

[3:38:44] state reviews it, it's not numbers of or

[3:38:46] it's not the amount of emissions, at

[3:38:48] least I haven't read that yet in the

[3:38:50] engineers review. they they base their

[3:38:54] calculations on actually I take that

[3:38:56] back they have numbers in the permit

[3:38:58] application but um it's my understanding

[3:39:01] that more importantly they identify for

[3:39:03] example that valition is proposed to put

[3:39:05] 1210 fuel cells of a particular you know

[3:39:08] make model on the site so

[3:39:11] >> to generate x number of tons per

[3:39:12] megawatt

[3:39:13] >> exactly for sure so

[3:39:15] >> I no problem with that part the the

[3:39:21] question I have back to Jesse's the what

[3:39:24] is the permit minor source permit has a

[3:39:27] maximum number of tons per year what is

[3:39:31] that number and are we comfortable with

[3:39:33] any applicant going to that maximum to

[3:39:36] meet the minimum source permit

[3:39:40] that's my concern these guys absolutely

[3:39:43] I'm comfortable with it because I've

[3:39:44] seen their numbers

[3:39:46] >> and it's 5.2 two tons of VOX per year.

[3:39:50] That's a a a number that I think in that

[3:39:54] low

[3:39:55] >> for this type of facility can work.

[3:39:57] >> I think

[3:39:58] >> but what's the next one?

[3:39:59] >> Let me ask a question on that. Is that

[3:40:02] because I think you're making a

[3:40:04] [clears throat] great point.

[3:40:05] >> Yeah,

[3:40:06] >> I said that.

[3:40:07] >> I'm leaving.

[3:40:08] >> Is is this something then that you would

[3:40:10] want to apply across the board for any

[3:40:12] indust industrial that were to come in?

[3:40:14] >> That is the challenge, Kevin. I think um

[3:40:18] I I have to look in the mirror

[3:40:19] occasionally and say why am I holding

[3:40:22] this industry to this type of

[3:40:26] requirement that I have not held any

[3:40:28] other industry to.

[3:40:29] >> We we received a great study that was

[3:40:32] done that shows the university hospital

[3:40:33] in Provo probably emits greater

[3:40:36] emissions than than what DAC is.

[3:40:39] >> Is that how you say it? DAC or DAQ.

[3:40:41] >> DAQ.

[3:40:42] what DAQ is projecting call that

[3:40:45] from now on

[3:40:46] >> that this would submit

[3:40:48] >> I that is that is my I I get that 100%.

[3:40:51] It is

[3:40:53] yeah part of my to for me to get to the

[3:40:56] point where I can look the citizens in

[3:40:58] the face and say um because of your

[3:41:01] significant concerns about this type of

[3:41:03] industry we're holding them to this

[3:41:05] standard

[3:41:07] >> but

[3:41:07] >> and it is

[3:41:09] >> I think we are getting worried about I

[3:41:11] think we're getting worried about the

[3:41:12] next one

[3:41:12] >> if if we're comfortable if we're

[3:41:14] comfortable what the DAQ

[3:41:16] >> and [clears throat] their minor source

[3:41:18] permit

[3:41:19] >> and and if they didn't get that stops

[3:41:21] them now. Anyway, the the next one that

[3:41:25] by the way we haven't written that there

[3:41:28] even could be a next one stop somebody

[3:41:31] coming and asking us could simply be

[3:41:35] >> uh you know what we want to see your we

[3:41:37] want to see your DIQ

[3:41:39] >> uh permit application and we want to

[3:41:42] review that and and would we be tied to

[3:41:45] treating that

[3:41:47] >> the same the same exact way here?

[3:41:51] I don't I I I think that's a different

[3:41:53] development that's not in front of us

[3:41:56] and we're saying we're saying

[3:41:58] >> well that development

[3:42:00] >> could have a different development

[3:42:02] agreement.

[3:42:02] >> It could be

[3:42:06] you're not going to like what I'm about

[3:42:07] to say but I'm going to say it anyway.

[3:42:09] It could be that they take that

[3:42:11] application because it only generates

[3:42:12] 390 megawws and have to resubmit it to

[3:42:16] 450 because our code now allows that and

[3:42:20] that that 5.2 goes to 10.5 and we have

[3:42:24] nothing to say about that.

[3:42:25] >> Yeah.

[3:42:26] >> Because it would allow it.

[3:42:27] >> Yeah. Because the way that it says the

[3:42:28] facilities have obtained a minor source

[3:42:29] permit or better from the Utah Division,

[3:42:32] >> right? It doesn't say what number that

[3:42:35] >> Now I not going to I don't not trust

[3:42:39] them but that is a that is a a path

[3:42:42] forward that an applicant could take.

[3:42:45] >> Yeah. And I'm not saying trust them

[3:42:47] either. I'm saying what we're already

[3:42:49] getting into is now saying

[3:42:54] we're the de facto DAQ.

[3:42:57] >> No, I don't want to say that.

[3:42:58] >> We're the ones that are okay with the

[3:43:00] minor source permits this level.

[3:43:03] and and and and we're not okay with it

[3:43:05] for some reason, then you know that

[3:43:09] we're dealing with a hypothetical there

[3:43:11] that I think we're trying to solve for

[3:43:13] in a in a current application in front

[3:43:15] of us. Maybe

[3:43:19] I I guess if I knew what the maximum

[3:43:21] amount of emissions were to get a minor

[3:43:24] source, which is super weird to say, the

[3:43:27] maximum emissions in a minor source

[3:43:30] permit, I might feel more comfortable,

[3:43:32] but that's all we're saying is

[3:43:36] get a minor source permit, period. We're

[3:43:39] not limiting to anything other than keep

[3:43:41] it under the minor. I think that that's

[3:43:44] too high. they can do better and they've

[3:43:46] proven that they can do better and they

[3:43:48] are doing better.

[3:43:50] Why not put a number in there?

[3:43:55] » They do have numbers of emission. Sorry

[3:43:57] to bl Yes. So

[3:43:59] >> on their application they

[3:44:01] >> I'm sorry the state I believe has

[3:44:05] calculated

[3:44:06] >> the types of criteria pollutants and

[3:44:09] hazardous air pollutants and the volume

[3:44:11] of emissions that would be generated

[3:44:15] from Valition's proposal. So we do have

[3:44:17] those numbers.

[3:44:18] >> Question about the air permit just real

[3:44:20] quick while we're on the topic. So in

[3:44:22] the permit they talk about Bloom

[3:44:24] technology that that's what they're

[3:44:25] going to use. I know that Jeff in one of

[3:44:27] his presentations said like, "Hey,

[3:44:28] there's a chance that we could use

[3:44:29] something else." Maybe this is your

[3:44:30] question. I don't know if you change the

[3:44:33] technology that you're using. Do you

[3:44:34] have to resubmit the air quality permit?

[3:44:36] >> Yes.

[3:44:37] >> Yeah.

[3:44:41] No, the whole permit just says Bloom

[3:44:42] throughout it.

[3:44:43] >> Okay.

[3:44:44] >> Whether it says Bloom or whatever, it

[3:44:46] says this piece of equipment generates

[3:44:48] this much of emissions and any other

[3:44:50] equipment would be a different number

[3:44:51] and they'd have to resubmit.

[3:44:52] >> Yeah. It goes back to the change of use.

[3:44:54] >> Yep. No, I'm that's why I'm asking the

[3:44:56] question.

[3:44:56] >> Yeah. So, like Bloom

[3:44:58] >> Yeah.

[3:44:58] >> they're using natural gas today. We

[3:45:00] could decide there's a strain on natural

[3:45:03] gas in the future and so they start to

[3:45:05] develop more hydrogen somehow and it

[3:45:06] switches over to hydrogen.

[3:45:08] >> Right.

[3:45:08] >> Then you're looking at a new DAQ

[3:45:10] probably and you're also looking at a

[3:45:12] new development agreement approval that

[3:45:14] would go through city council.

[3:45:15] >> Right.

[3:45:16] >> Just want to make sure. So Mike, to your

[3:45:19] point,

[3:45:22] I guess I could be okay as written

[3:45:25] knowing what they've submitted to the

[3:45:26] DAQ.

[3:45:28] When we get the development agreement,

[3:45:29] if it's anything less than that or

[3:45:31] anything more than that,

[3:45:34] it's a no.

[3:45:38] » Okay,

[3:45:40] maybe you've got me there.

[3:45:41] >> Yeah. And I think that's where they I

[3:45:43] think I think it's

[3:45:45] >> what

[3:45:45] >> twofold is is it's it's it's what they

[3:45:49] said and what they said in there and

[3:45:50] it's got to be it's got to be that and

[3:45:53] again number two I think it's an

[3:45:55] important change that we've we've been

[3:45:57] to to where

[3:45:58] >> we are not trying to make decisions that

[3:46:01] are for the next applicant that come to

[3:46:04] Spanish Fork for a data center. It's it's not it's going to be

[3:46:08] >> this process and uh

[3:46:12] and and and it's not going to be written

[3:46:14] into code that they can apply for it.

[3:46:18] >> Hard for me to, you know, businesses uh

[3:46:21] that are in front of us to talk about

[3:46:22] something and ask uh and apply and and

[3:46:26] to judge them too far down the road of

[3:46:28] the next business and what that could

[3:46:30] be. And I know we do that in our

[3:46:32] >> in our zoning code and stuff.

[3:46:34] >> I can I can understand where that comes

[3:46:36] from. But when we're talking about title

[3:46:37] 15, we're codifying this not for

[3:46:39] valition, but for our code, right? This

[3:46:41] isn't valition. This is our code. So I

[3:46:42] think that's where I think that's

[3:46:43] different. It's not necessarily saying,

[3:46:44] hey, valition, we're that's what the

[3:46:46] development agreement is for, but this

[3:46:48] is to make sure that we have our code.

[3:46:50] >> What's our code going to say? How many

[3:46:51] data centers?

[3:46:52] >> Right. Well, right now it says or it

[3:46:54] says one. Yeah.

[3:46:55] >> But today it says zero, right? So we're

[3:46:56] we are allowing one if we had this. And

[3:46:58] if we got into the allnight discussion

[3:47:00] of councils binding future councils,

[3:47:02] that would be future councils with

[3:47:05] proven technologies or not proven

[3:47:07] technologies to discuss the next

[3:47:09] hypothetical coming up. Is this an

[3:47:11] instance where the you know going back

[3:47:14] to that accountability matrix where you

[3:47:16] have the inter interlaced uh

[3:47:19] circumstances where the code talks about

[3:47:22] this

[3:47:23] the greater specificity comes into comes

[3:47:27] into play in the development agreement

[3:47:29] but the language here again says it will

[3:47:31] have to meet the terms identified in the

[3:47:33] minor source permit. So, it's, you know,

[3:47:36] the minor source permit, if if I'm

[3:47:38] reading this right, and again, Dave or

[3:47:39] Von, as you've chatted with the DAQ

[3:47:41] folks,

[3:47:43] uh, we're saying if the permit source

[3:47:45] limits are here, but their application

[3:47:48] level is here, their application level

[3:47:50] is

[3:47:51] >> that's not my problem. And and so then

[3:47:53] if we have another, you know, if we have

[3:47:54] that future one, if we're looking at

[3:47:57] their numbers, candidly, I think if if

[3:48:01] data center number two were to walk in,

[3:48:03] I would probably be like, let me see

[3:48:05] what these guys did and let's look at

[3:48:08] those. And I don't know if this is what

[3:48:10] you said a moment ago, but I would I

[3:48:12] would instantly compare because as has

[3:48:14] been said, I'm not an air quality guy.

[3:48:16] And so I'm going to look at them and say

[3:48:18] this is more or this is less. and on

[3:48:21] this and probably start with that

[3:48:25] and and hold them to

[3:48:29] that uh that measuring stick. That's

[3:48:31] where I think I start.

[3:48:32] >> Yeah, but this code does not allow you

[3:48:34] to do that.

[3:48:38] » It doesn't develop agreement.

[3:48:40] >> Development agreement's required. No.

[3:48:42] >> Yeah, the development agreement is

[3:48:43] required.

[3:48:43] >> So you could

[3:48:45] >> So you you're you're suggesting we can

[3:48:47] have a different standard in the

[3:48:48] development agreement that we do in our

[3:48:49] code. And I think

[3:48:51] >> just just out of personal preference,

[3:48:52] >> they can agree to it.

[3:48:57] » I think that's what we've mapped out.

[3:48:59] >> I I think in this very specific case, to

[3:49:02] your point, Mike, it's I'm more

[3:49:05] comfortable with the vagueness in this

[3:49:07] because I know what their permit says. I

[3:49:10] know what's going to be in the

[3:49:11] development agreement. your point about

[3:49:13] a future.

[3:49:15] If we hold hard and fast to the one,

[3:49:20] if it ever comes up,

[3:49:22] >> I can get my questions answered on the

[3:49:24] next one.

[3:49:27] » So, I get that.

[3:49:30] I'm not comfortable with the way it's

[3:49:32] written for a future application. It's

[3:49:35] too vague for me. But, I have actually

[3:49:38] seen the permit. I'm I'm comfortable

[3:49:40] with the numbers in the permit. I know

[3:49:42] we'll be in the development agreement.

[3:49:43] If they come back with a different

[3:49:44] permit application in the development

[3:49:46] agreement,

[3:49:48] >> I'm hard no.

[3:49:49] >> Right.

[3:49:49] >> Because that violates the trust that

[3:49:51] we've been talking about all night. So I I get your point. We are protected in

[3:49:57] this particular case.

[3:49:59] >> Is that enough?

[3:50:00] It's it's it's enough

[3:50:02] because it's one,

[3:50:03] >> right? And

[3:50:04] >> and that's sort of the catchall of all

[3:50:06] this.

[3:50:06] >> And if it if it changes,

[3:50:09] >> who knows when, right? on the road.

[3:50:12] We're having this discussion all over

[3:50:13] again.

[3:50:14] >> Yep. And I

[3:50:14] >> for the next one,

[3:50:15] >> then it'll be an overlay.

[3:50:18] >> I much prefer that than one, but Yep.

[3:50:20] Okay.

[3:50:22] >> All right,

[3:50:24] >> Mr. Mayor.

[3:50:25] >> Yes.

[3:50:25] >> Agree with me.

[3:50:26] >> So,

[3:50:26] >> I don't want to backtrack, but the

[3:50:28] specific issue that we're talking about

[3:50:31] >> that would be easier to address with an

[3:50:34] overlay. So if that's something that

[3:50:36] you're contemplating because the council

[3:50:38] does have legislative authority to

[3:50:41] review a particular application and you

[3:50:44] know the admission levels that exactly

[3:50:46] you could evaluate that

[3:50:48] >> and I think whatever you wanted to

[3:50:50] determine that would be appropriate for

[3:50:52] whatever site it is that you're talking

[3:50:53] about at that point in time. you could

[3:50:55] nail that down in a very specific way um

[3:51:00] more easily than

[3:51:03] how it would be with what's proposed

[3:51:04] tonight.

[3:51:05] >> Sure.

[3:51:06] >> Yeah. The alternative of that is to put

[3:51:07] a bunch of numbers in this.

[3:51:09] >> Exactly.

[3:51:09] >> And say stay under these regardless of

[3:51:11] what the permit says, stay under these.

[3:51:12] >> Right. Who

[3:51:14] >> who comes up with those numbers?

[3:51:15] >> Yeah.

[3:51:16] >> We'll get them wrong.

[3:51:17] >> I'm an air quality expert. As of last

[3:51:19] week,

[3:51:19] >> that'll be the first thing. As we've

[3:51:21] worked through it on the staff side,

[3:51:22] I've been really hesitant about getting

[3:51:24] into this space because we're just not

[3:51:26] >> I 100% agree that we don't want to be in

[3:51:29] the monitoring space. You've convinced

[3:51:30] me that that's a bad idea.

[3:51:32] >> You've somewhat convinced me that's a

[3:51:34] bad idea.

[3:51:34] >> Oh, if it was somebody else, you'd have

[3:51:36] said you

[3:51:36] >> Nope. Um,

[3:51:40] we're going to monitor anyway. They're

[3:51:41] going to do that.

[3:51:42] >> It's not getting into the space to stay

[3:51:44] under these levels. That's not getting

[3:51:46] into the air quality space.

[3:51:47] >> Yeah. I just don't I what I was reading

[3:51:50] doing some Kevin like research and I was

[3:51:53] reading some data and and it I'm not

[3:51:56] going to get into all the details but it

[3:51:57] said it was going to raise whatever

[3:52:00] emission level um from three from a

[3:52:03] range of three to 27 and I remember

[3:52:06] reading I think I may have talked to you

[3:52:07] about this one

[3:52:09] in one of the many conversations we've

[3:52:10] all had and I was like wow 3 to 27

[3:52:13] that's huge maybe and then I kept

[3:52:15] reading And you know the the the

[3:52:18] dangerous level was like 10 times

[3:52:21] wherever it was. So it was like nobody

[3:52:23] would have noticed it. It would have

[3:52:24] been uh you know 3 to 27 was on a scale

[3:52:28] of 300 to 5,000 is where we were

[3:52:31] talking. And so it was 303 to 5,000,

[3:52:34] right? And so I'm just not comfortable

[3:52:37] that

[3:52:39] >> we got we can get there with those

[3:52:41] numbers. the

[3:52:42] >> what? [clears throat] They they don't

[3:52:43] make

[3:52:44] >> they're a state agency for a reason.

[3:52:46] They do this. They do this for a living.

[3:52:48] I get it.

[3:52:49] >> Um

[3:52:49] >> they have the budget, too.

[3:52:50] >> I I I find it this is sort of Sorry,

[3:52:54] mayor. I'm going to be a little

[3:52:55] political. This I find it super ironic

[3:52:57] that now because of this, we are hyper aware

[3:53:04] of air quality in Utah County.

[3:53:07] I'm I'm cruising behind a a a uh a truck

[3:53:11] and it rolls coal in my face and now

[3:53:15] I'm more concerned about air quality

[3:53:16] because of data center, not that truck

[3:53:17] in front of me. But

[3:53:19] >> whatever whatever brings awareness, I

[3:53:20] don't care.

[3:53:22] >> But

[3:53:22] >> those questions have been asked to me

[3:53:24] the last couple of weeks. Now, wait a

[3:53:25] second. We we should be caring about

[3:53:27] this more in absolutely in other places,

[3:53:31] not not just this current place.

[3:53:33] >> It's interesting. I was talking to my

[3:53:34] counterpart in another city that has a

[3:53:36] couple of these and number one, he

[3:53:38] didn't know that the data center that we

[3:53:41] were talking about in particular was

[3:53:42] operating Bloom equipment. Um, and so I

[3:53:45] was telling him some of the things that

[3:53:46] we had we had experienced and what uh

[3:53:49] what we had seen and smelled and heard,

[3:53:51] etc., and what we didn't see and smell

[3:53:52] and hear and the like. And and he was

[3:53:56] he's like, "I have no idea what you're

[3:53:57] talking about. You know more about the

[3:53:58] data center in my town than I do." And I said, "Well, what do you what do

[3:54:02] you guys put in place about air quality

[3:54:04] and he's like we don't even talk about

[3:54:06] it. It's a state thing. Like we don't

[3:54:08] it's not a part of what we do.

[3:54:10] >> And interestingly that particular plant

[3:54:12] that's running this technology is

[3:54:14] running that this technology that is

[3:54:16] cleaner as a stop gap on their way to

[3:54:19] diesel generators that will be the

[3:54:20] eventual technology when they when

[3:54:22] that's done. And so whatever it is

[3:54:24] they're doing, it'll be worse uh based

[3:54:27] on the permits and whatnot. But they've completely kicked it over too.

[3:54:30] I'm looking forward to the robust

[3:54:32] conversation that this council has on

[3:54:34] future applicants, not data centers, on

[3:54:37] any industry emits emits solutions.

[3:54:40] >> Things will be like this.

[3:54:43] >> Things will change in the future. I one

[3:54:45] of my favorite childhood memories was

[3:54:47] sitting in the basement with a bucket of

[3:54:49] popcorn watching a movie and the wood

[3:54:51] burning stove going. How many how many

[3:54:54] wood burning stoves do we have in our

[3:54:55] basements anymore that people light up?

[3:54:57] >> I know of two in town. Yeah, I can I can

[3:55:00] smell them when they're on.

[3:55:02] >> So, things change.

[3:55:03] >> Well, and and and and I want to point

[3:55:05] out there too like the the facility that

[3:55:08] we are talking about that has been

[3:55:09] brought up that we've went to um it it

[3:55:12] is we're unique in Spanish Fork, but I

[3:55:14] will tell you that place is is in the

[3:55:17] valley that has inversion problems, too.

[3:55:20] We both valleys, our valley and Salt

[3:55:22] Lake have have those inversion issues.

[3:55:25] And so it's don't don't think that it's

[3:55:28] not been top of our mind uh and and in deep kind of the deep dive of this is

[3:55:35] because we do know what sometimes we

[3:55:38] deal with in in our area with with

[3:55:41] trapped hot air um uh over cold. So

[3:55:47] >> while we're on air, can I ask or confirm

[3:55:49] one thing? We got a couple emails about

[3:55:51] Knox, which I didn't even know what that

[3:55:53] was. I'm assuming NOX is in the minor.

[3:55:57] >> Yeah.

[3:55:58] >> Right. So, that's something when people

[3:56:01] reach out to us and say, "What about

[3:56:02] Knox the particles?" I I don't know what

[3:56:04] that is, but someone at the state does.

[3:56:06] And they're they're going to get that

[3:56:07] and they're going to monitor it. So, I

[3:56:09] just wanted to confirm the emails that

[3:56:11] we received about Knox. It's in this

[3:56:14] minor

[3:56:14] >> Knox and many other things. many other

[3:56:17] many

[3:56:17] >> which again I think we've said it but

[3:56:19] that is a proposal that they've they're

[3:56:22] going over now and measuring on the

[3:56:24] hypothetical of what's built but it

[3:56:27] doesn't stop right applicant it is it is

[3:56:29] something that they come out and test

[3:56:32] and you have to report on at least

[3:56:34] annually so it's not a oneandone it is continuous so

[3:56:43] okay um energy storage. Um, I think this

[3:56:49] is an important part that mentions

[3:56:51] electrical and fire codes and applicable

[3:56:53] state and federal requirements. The

[3:56:55] applicant hasn't asked for it, so I'm

[3:56:56] just I just want to state it publicly.

[3:57:00] So, our citizens get it too. There there

[3:57:02] is a cost and fire chief is here, but

[3:57:05] there is a cost if there's an incident

[3:57:07] at a place like this. Um and and and

[3:57:12] as far as I've can tell and written in

[3:57:16] code here, it's not on us. Uh obviously

[3:57:20] somebody we have to respond to

[3:57:22] businesses and residential in our

[3:57:24] community, but it's not it's not on us

[3:57:28] that we're having to um what the

[3:57:32] citizens are have to cover this cost by

[3:57:34] any any means. We already go to that

[3:57:35] place. If there's an incident there, has been incidences there in n

[3:57:39] since 93. We already go there. We still

[3:57:42] have to go there as the as the fire

[3:57:44] marshall and emergency services.

[3:57:47] >> Von, is this one of the places where

[3:57:48] that may will turn into a shell?

[3:57:55] » First sentence.

[3:57:56] >> Yeah. An on-site power generation

[3:57:58] facility shall.

[3:57:59] >> I don't know if they need to have that.

[3:58:02] That's the battery backup system.

[3:58:04] >> Are you talking about the first May?

[3:58:05] Yeah, I'm Yeah,

[3:58:06] >> I don't think that needs to be a shell.

[3:58:08] >> I don't think that should

[3:58:08] >> There was just a statement earlier. You

[3:58:09] said that the maze were shells. That's

[3:58:11] why I was asking the question.

[3:58:11] >> Not all maze should be shells. They are

[3:58:13] different.

[3:58:14] >> Somebody said somebody said that.

[3:58:16] >> So, this is a may that says if they the

[3:58:18] applicant want to have batteries, they

[3:58:20] may have.

[3:58:21] >> Got it. Thank you. That's

[3:58:22] >> not not the city may do some test. So,

[3:58:25] yeah.

[3:58:28] » But go down to the next paragraph and

[3:58:31] there was a may that fourth word was

[3:58:32] probably a may comply and it said shall,

[3:58:34] right? That's the That's the difference.

[3:58:36] >> There may still be a few point that we

[3:58:39] will catch that will be better. I

[3:58:40] highlighted them. So,

[3:58:43] >> but not here.

[3:58:44] >> Uh there's a big one big one here in in

[3:58:47] the isolation part of this shall not

[3:58:50] interconnect um with with the current

[3:58:52] grid. And so I we have been sent

[3:58:55] articles which I completely understand

[3:58:57] and appreciate people searching those

[3:58:59] out too of um of other other facilities

[3:59:05] pro possibly being on the grid and what

[3:59:08] that does to us all being on the grid.

[3:59:12] This doesn't allow it. So, they wouldn't

[3:59:14] be connected to the grid. And they some

[3:59:16] people say, "Well, how do you know?" Uh

[3:59:19] because that's metered. We would know if

[3:59:21] you if you plugged in an extra meter to

[3:59:24] your house, to your business, uh we we

[3:59:26] would know. And we're talking about

[3:59:28] larger power issues here that you you

[3:59:31] couldn't do it uh without us knowing. Um

[3:59:35] we do have Jake here. I think we take

[3:59:37] advantage of Mr. Tire sitting over

[3:59:39] there.

[3:59:39] >> Yeah, Jake, I'll ask you a question.

[3:59:41] >> If they connected to the grid, would you

[3:59:43] know it?

[3:59:44] >> Yes, absolutely. Sorry.

[3:59:47] >> Yes, absolutely. Our meters read both

[3:59:49] ways.

[3:59:49] >> And I think you'd know it in other ways,

[3:59:52] too.

[3:59:53] >> We would melt down. I mean, literally,

[3:59:55] [laughter] I there's no way the system

[3:59:58] we have could support something like

[3:59:59] this. Yeah.

[4:00:00] >> So, you you're going to be doing you're

[4:00:03] going to be doing different inspections

[4:00:05] and whatnot. I mean, that it says in

[4:00:06] here. So,

[4:00:07] >> let let's talk a little bit about the

[4:00:09] property and its current use being on

[4:00:12] the grid. I assume during construction

[4:00:14] phase, they're going to need to be on

[4:00:16] our grid as they do construction. What's

[4:00:18] the time frame? What What does that look

[4:00:20] like as far as the cut over?

[4:00:23] uh that I assume is going to be part of

[4:00:26] the development agreement kind of

[4:00:27] outline the connectivity to the power

[4:00:30] grid and uh obviously there's some

[4:00:33] capacity there today. That building is

[4:00:35] actually one of our large power users.

[4:00:37] So we're actually going to be losing

[4:00:39] some revenue from that building and

[4:00:42] we're going to be dialing that back for

[4:00:44] this operation because they are going to

[4:00:46] be a selfgen operation. So there is

[4:00:49] power there probably to support their

[4:00:50] construction. I don't know if I've seen

[4:00:52] how much they're going to need for the

[4:00:54] construction, but I think we have enough

[4:00:55] there to support it.

[4:00:56] >> Is the plan in the future to be entirely

[4:01:00] islanded, meaning office space, and

[4:01:02] everything?

[4:01:03] >> No. The last paragraph here specifically

[4:01:05] identifies uh the connections that they

[4:01:08] would maintain, office, maintenance,

[4:01:09] custodial, and those kinds of things. We

[4:01:12] would expect them and and frankly, I

[4:01:14] would strongly advise that we continue

[4:01:16] to have them be a customer. U

[4:01:19] >> Yeah. So to Jake's point, we will still

[4:01:21] be getting some revenue from that side

[4:01:23] of it, just not possibly the full

[4:01:26] potential that you would have.

[4:01:28] >> Yeah, we would differentiate the compute

[4:01:31] power and the infrastructure associated

[4:01:33] with that

[4:01:34] >> from the typical office.

[4:01:35] >> I think the question I want to ask

[4:01:36] there, Jake, there's other places for

[4:01:39] that power to go. There's other people

[4:01:41] that are wanting to use that power

[4:01:44] possibly in our community. So it's not

[4:01:46] like I could see us passing on saying,

[4:01:48] "Hey, we lost this power revenue, so all

[4:01:51] of our power rates are going up."

[4:01:53] >> Yeah, absolutely. So, uh,

[4:01:55] >> there's there's places for that power to

[4:01:56] go.

[4:01:57] >> Correct. Yep.

[4:02:01] » Question. In the first sentence under

[4:02:03] electrical isolation, the word unless,

[4:02:06] does that throw the whole sentence off?

[4:02:12] Does

[4:02:13] >> I I think it just means if the city were

[4:02:16] to approve it somehow someday in the

[4:02:18] future, right? Unless the city approves

[4:02:21] it,

[4:02:22] >> which we never would.

[4:02:24] >> We can't.

[4:02:26] >> And why would we?

[4:02:26] >> So why do we have it in there in there?

[4:02:29] >> I strike that sentence.

[4:02:31] >> That word

[4:02:32] >> or word is isn't that trying to go the

[4:02:36] other way? Isn't that trying to go like

[4:02:39] some of these

[4:02:41] places are being told the way you need

[4:02:43] to help a community and we don't

[4:02:45] necessarily need help this way because

[4:02:48] we have good power sources through UMPA

[4:02:50] but I think that's meaning going the

[4:02:52] other way. Yeah.

[4:02:53] >> Like them giving us power.

[4:02:54] >> Correct. They produce extra power and

[4:02:56] putting it on the grid for us to use. Is

[4:02:59] that how you guys look at it

[4:03:02] >> at at a future day? If the transmission

[4:03:05] network that is between Spanish Fork,

[4:03:07] the SUVPS network, and the Rocky

[4:03:09] Mountain power network, if it could

[4:03:10] handle this, we could absolutely see

[4:03:13] UMPA, our power provider, reaching out

[4:03:15] to them and saying, can we enter into a

[4:03:19] power purchase agreement and supply

[4:03:22] power to us in some quantity?

[4:03:25] Okay.

[4:03:26] >> In reality, there is the possibility

[4:03:28] that could be beneficial to the to the

[4:03:30] residents because if we're dependent now

[4:03:32] on hydro

[4:03:34] >> power coming out of Lake Pal and Lake

[4:03:36] Pal's is what it is, we're not

[4:03:38] generating as much. UMPA then has to go

[4:03:40] to the open market to purchase power,

[4:03:43] >> which could be much more than possibly

[4:03:45] what we could get from this scenario.

[4:03:47] Not saying that would ever happen,

[4:03:49] >> but it's a possibility.

[4:03:50] >> Yeah. And and what's the number, Jake?

[4:03:52] If we were to uh if if we were to

[4:03:55] entertain receiving some power at this

[4:03:57] kind of level, what what's the current

[4:03:58] estimate that Rocky Mountain Power has

[4:04:00] given us to be able to handle

[4:04:02] transmission of power like this?

[4:04:05] >> We have a pretty good idea that uh the

[4:04:09] local grid cannot handle this type of

[4:04:11] generation coming on let alone Spanish

[4:04:14] forest system the larger power grid

[4:04:17] can't come on. And so anything generated

[4:04:21] uh UMPA is under contracts to uh apply

[4:04:25] for an application for that interconnect

[4:04:27] generation through our transmission

[4:04:29] contracts. And so anything literally

[4:04:33] anything generation over a megawatt's

[4:04:35] got to go through that process.

[4:04:37] >> So this isn't the Spanish fork decision.

[4:04:41] >> Yeah, controls that. We're all

[4:04:43] requirements city that fall under the

[4:04:46] agreements. Okay. So

[4:04:49] >> yeah, I'm not as I think that unless

[4:04:52] means means that way.

[4:04:57] » Um

[4:05:00] » we've heard a little bit about noise and

[4:05:02] low frequenc. Okay,

[4:05:03] >> I don't want to go back to electric

[4:05:05] isolation, but Marie asked a question.

[4:05:08] Who polices the data center? Um back up

[4:05:11] under air quality, the state air quality

[4:05:13] DAQ does. As we move down, there'll be

[4:05:17] different different jurisdictions that

[4:05:19] would do the policing

[4:05:22] or the accountability, if you will. So,

[4:05:25] trying to answer your question in real

[4:05:27] time instead of typing it. Okay.

[4:05:33] Um

[4:05:35] I think this um this is what was an

[4:05:38] important section

[4:05:41] that I think the third paragraph

[4:05:43] captures of acoustic analysis prepared

[4:05:46] by a qualified professional. Again,

[4:05:49] these are these are con concerns that

[4:05:51] we've heard. We've heard the uh the

[4:05:55] emails and the the phone calls on uh

[4:05:59] it's not just one type of sound, but

[4:06:00] another type of sound. I I think it's

[4:06:02] important to read in this section that

[4:06:04] it's not

[4:06:06] some people have said, well, they'll

[4:06:07] just get somebody to do that and pass it

[4:06:09] off. Again, I'm not we're not asking you

[4:06:11] to trust somebody. uh there are

[4:06:13] independent people that would be hired

[4:06:16] to uh to measure that stuff and give us the readings of of what that is.

[4:06:22] Um both the high and the low

[4:06:24] frequencies. I think that's an important

[4:06:26] point to make in the title.

[4:06:28] >> I have some questions on this one.

[4:06:30] >> Okay. [clears throat] The original title

[4:06:32] 15 had a much lower limit. When we go to

[4:06:36] our municipal code of 9.32-050,

[4:06:42] industrial has a daytime limit of 80 dB

[4:06:45] and a nighttime decibel reading of 65.

[4:06:50] >> Do we want it that high?

[4:06:53] >> We

[4:06:53] >> So yeah, the next sentence continuing on

[4:06:58] it says the most restrictive limit

[4:06:59] applies. um they will always be subject

[4:07:02] to that law and so at a house it's 55

[4:07:08] at at any residential property it's 55

[4:07:11] and I think you guys um

[4:07:14] >> so you're saying because it's in the

[4:07:16] code with the noise limit on site it

[4:07:19] could get up to 80 because it's in the

[4:07:21] code

[4:07:22] >> right and then

[4:07:26] » but boundary it would have to be at that

[4:07:29] residential level because it's

[4:07:31] residential.

[4:07:32] >> Say that again, Von. I couldn't hear

[4:07:33] you.

[4:07:33] >> You whisper.

[4:07:34] >> I'm really sorry. I got to get closer.

[4:07:36] Yeah, they could be that high on-site on

[4:07:38] their industrial property, but at the

[4:07:39] boundary of the residential zone, they

[4:07:42] would have to be at the residential

[4:07:43] level.

[4:07:43] >> Gotcha.

[4:07:44] >> And in fairness to any applicant, I

[4:07:46] think they need to have the ability to

[4:07:47] operate within their industrial

[4:07:50] standard, right? If it was a trucking,

[4:07:52] if it was the trans uh

[4:07:57] >> distribution center, Yeah. uh I mean

[4:07:58] they they would be operating with that

[4:08:00] uh within that limit as well. So I think

[4:08:03] I and I think context matters to this

[4:08:05] because I wouldn't know before studying

[4:08:07] this issue what 85 and 55 and if how big

[4:08:10] that difference is you know

[4:08:12] >> huge

[4:08:13] >> but

[4:08:14] >> well 85

[4:08:17] you should know like I think 85 was

[4:08:19] being measured while we were by some

[4:08:22] pretty big fans up at that other data

[4:08:24] center. you could talk. It didn't

[4:08:26] require hear headphones or anything.

[4:08:28] You're you're talking and you're hearing

[4:08:31] each other. And uh I think when it

[4:08:35] pulled up on now I've downloaded the

[4:08:37] decibel app, it says uh street

[4:08:42] uh 85 dB is street uh talking or street

[4:08:46] walking like uh like a busy street that

[4:08:48] you're walking down. So just for context

[4:08:51] purposes, that's what 85 dB was up

[4:08:54] there. You could talk and hear it wasn't

[4:08:56] heard.

[4:08:57] >> Lawnmowers 85.

[4:08:58] >> So it is.

[4:08:59] >> Yeah.

[4:08:59] >> Okay.

[4:09:00] >> Yeah. And I I wouldn't disagree with

[4:09:01] you. I think that one at least partially

[4:09:04] I should say um because that same night

[4:09:06] when I went to to Nova, I had downloaded

[4:09:08] the same app as everyone else and and

[4:09:11] tried to see what that was. And I was in

[4:09:13] my backyard that night um and a train

[4:09:15] went by and I don't live too far from

[4:09:17] the train in Highway 6. And so that's a

[4:09:19] consistent uh not consistent, it's an up

[4:09:22] and down. And it was 55 in my backyard

[4:09:25] when the train goes by. What I think is

[4:09:27] one of the things that's hard for us to

[4:09:30] equate in this ordinance is consistent

[4:09:34] noise because if we're saying it's 55 at

[4:09:37] a residential

[4:09:39] uh the residential boundary

[4:09:41] consistently, they're going to notice

[4:09:43] that like and so I know that there's

[4:09:45] some protection.

[4:09:46] >> Yeah. 55 quiet office normal normal

[4:09:49] conversation heard from several feet

[4:09:51] away

[4:09:51] >> right

[4:09:52] >> so light background noise so it's

[4:09:54] something that yeah you probably will

[4:09:57] >> probably will hear I don't know if it's

[4:09:58] a hum I wouldn't describe it as a hum

[4:10:00] >> Jeff your with your initial studies of

[4:10:02] the site

[4:10:04] >> what's the what's the uh sound that's

[4:10:07] coming from the highway in this area

[4:10:09] what is that the ambient today

[4:10:10] >> initial study already had you know on

[4:10:12] property at the border of the property

[4:10:16] um you're

[4:10:19] in the mid50s

[4:10:22] anyway.

[4:10:23] >> Yeah, mid-50s. And so typically ambient

[4:10:26] at, you know, in somebody's yard or

[4:10:29] backyard, especially in this area when

[4:10:30] you have the highway, when you have

[4:10:33] existing ambient noise, you know, it's

[4:10:36] pretty much consistently sitting in the

[4:10:39] 50 to 60 dB as is. If we have sound that

[4:10:44] comes across at a certain time at 50 55

[4:10:48] dB, it's it's not going to increase

[4:10:51] sound. It's it's going to blend.

[4:10:54] >> So, what I like about

[4:10:57] this issue is probably my number one

[4:11:00] concern and has been based on resident

[4:11:02] input and emails that we've received. I

[4:11:05] don't know about each of you, but

[4:11:06] >> Yep. What I like about this compared to

[4:11:09] the the air the air quality this is

[4:11:12] something that we actually do have

[4:11:14] control over as a city and measuring and

[4:11:16] that we could hire somebody to come and

[4:11:19] do sound analysis.

[4:11:20] >> The other the other element about sound

[4:11:23] which is um a good thing is that there

[4:11:29] are a lot of things that we can then add

[4:11:33] to the property. So if it turns out that

[4:11:35] we're running five dB higher than we

[4:11:37] thought at the fence line and then

[4:11:39] that's moving sound into we we can we

[4:11:43] can increase you know a a burm we can

[4:11:46] put coverings actually that they make

[4:11:49] right now over certain equipment. The

[4:11:52] loudest is the is the cooling. Remember

[4:11:54] what's unique about us is that our

[4:11:56] cooling is indoors.

[4:11:58] So anyway, my point is that there are

[4:12:00] several things that we can engineer in

[4:12:02] it just, you know, we don't do it right

[4:12:05] out of the gate because we really

[4:12:07] believe we're going to be within the

[4:12:08] range. So that's a big expense to add.

[4:12:11] But if ultimately push comes to shove,

[4:12:13] we have to add barrier, we can,

[4:12:17] >> which based on our code, you would have

[4:12:19] to. If if it turns out that you're

[4:12:22] exceeding what the code states, then

[4:12:25] yeah, you're going to fall under

[4:12:26] requirements to to make adjustments.

[4:12:29] >> Yes. So, we we'll be able to

[4:12:32] >> we'll be able to solve for that. Well,

[4:12:34] >> yeah. I think we're not talking just

[4:12:35] about DVA. I think we're talking about

[4:12:37] vibration. I think it's all covered in

[4:12:39] our code. So,

[4:12:40] >> you think residents are going to want to

[4:12:41] know like how fast would that be fixed?

[4:12:44] Let's say something's reported, you go

[4:12:46] out, test it. How fast could our

[4:12:49] residents expect to have a fixed design?

[4:12:51] >> Just 24 hours fast enough. Just kidding.

[4:12:54] >> No. Yes. Uh I don't

[4:12:56] >> went like this.

[4:12:57] >> Yeah. I think um

[4:13:00] >> I mean I don't know the answer to it,

[4:13:02] CC, but I do think I 30 to 60 days out

[4:13:05] of depends what they have to build.

[4:13:07] >> Well, like for example, probably the the

[4:13:10] development agreement how long

[4:13:13] >> Oh yeah, though. Okay. See, this is why

[4:13:16] we don't just rely on me. we have cure

[4:13:18] period. So if we're in we're out of uh

[4:13:22] code, we'll have and it's cited, we'll

[4:13:25] have a period of time to cure that. Um

[4:13:28] but I think we won't have an issue with

[4:13:32] if there's something obvious happening.

[4:13:35] We don't need to wait to be cited. You

[4:13:37] know, if we know that, man, this is five

[4:13:40] decibb higher like consistently, then

[4:13:44] we'll we'll pull in engineering and

[4:13:46] we'll start to look at what do we need

[4:13:47] to do and how long does it take to get

[4:13:49] that equipment on site. One I was just

[4:13:51] going to say one of the things that can

[4:13:52] potentially delay solving for this

[4:13:54] sometimes is just how long does it take

[4:13:56] to get the equipment to us or if we have

[4:13:59] to have something custom fabricated to

[4:14:01] maybe go over something, you know, that could take some time. But, uh, if

[4:14:07] we see something's really out of whack,

[4:14:09] we will proactively work on that. We're

[4:14:11] not going to wait for a citation.

[4:14:14] >> So, so go ahead.

[4:14:17] >> While you're here,

[4:14:18] >> I think you're the one that told me, but

[4:14:19] you said like sound doesn't build on

[4:14:21] each other. For example, if Highway 6 is

[4:14:23] at 40 dB and and [clears throat] the

[4:14:26] data center is at 55 and then a train

[4:14:28] goes by, they're not building on top.

[4:14:31] They're

[4:14:32] >> going into one another. And that helped

[4:14:34] me understand

[4:14:35] >> all this because this is all new to me.

[4:14:37] >> Yeah. I think the an yeah the analogy I

[4:14:40] think the easy way to think about it is

[4:14:41] if we have boiling water

[4:14:44] and we have you know 70°ree water you

[4:14:49] blend those you're going to get lower

[4:14:51] than boiling. If we have um sound that

[4:14:55] comes through at 65 dB and is meeting 55

[4:14:59] dB you're going to be somewhere south of

[4:15:00] 65 dB.

[4:15:02] Um, but they certainly don't turn into

[4:15:05] 110 dB.

[4:15:06] >> Okay.

[4:15:06] >> Yeah. Thank you.

[4:15:07] >> Y

[4:15:12] » No, I think we're good.

[4:15:14] >> Third paragraph. Um, the applicant shall

[4:15:18] submit acoustic analysis prepared by an

[4:15:21] independent qualified professional.

[4:15:24] >> I like that.

[4:15:25] >> Okay.

[4:15:26] >> So,

[4:15:28] walk me through this a little bit. You

[4:15:30] have a model done that is

[4:15:33] preconstruction

[4:15:35] and it says we think the decibb the um

[4:15:40] tonal frequency is going to be x y and z

[4:15:43] from the site moving out

[4:15:46] then we use that as the measuring stick

[4:15:50] for future noise analysis is that how

[4:15:53] this is written

[4:15:57] just like this.

[4:16:06] » Yeah, there we go. Off the bench. Um,

[4:16:08] okay. So, the

[4:16:09] >> Did he tap you?

[4:16:10] >> Yeah, he did.

[4:16:11] >> All right. Okay.

[4:16:11] >> Um, the the modeling will be done before

[4:16:14] we do construction. And so, that will

[4:16:16] establish where the the engineering

[4:16:19] parameters, mitigations that we'll put

[4:16:21] in place so that we meet the city code.

[4:16:23] >> And then from there, we'll do testing to

[4:16:25] verify that that's working. So the

[4:16:28] testing won't be to the model, the

[4:16:30] testing will be to the code. Okay?

[4:16:32] >> And so as long as we meet the code, we

[4:16:35] stay in compliance. And if there's

[4:16:38] something that we find that's out of the

[4:16:40] code, then we'll need to to find

[4:16:42] additional mitigations to make that.

[4:16:43] >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. So the

[4:16:46] only number we have in the code is the

[4:16:48] decibb.

[4:16:49] >> Correct.

[4:16:51] >> What the concern we've heard

[4:16:53] >> Yeah.

[4:16:54] >> is low frequency. um the tonal sound and

[4:16:57] other things that we don't have a number

[4:17:00] in the code for.

[4:17:04] How do we I feel like I just ate that

[4:17:07] mic.

[4:17:08] >> There we go.

[4:17:09] >> Ryan Bazelli. Uh you'll see right there

[4:17:12] um it says the owner shall conduct sound

[4:17:16] verification testing required by the

[4:17:18] city demonstrating that sound sources

[4:17:20] and predicted sound levels identified in

[4:17:23] the acoustic analysis including tonal

[4:17:26] sound and low frequency sound are not

[4:17:30] exceeded at the property line nearest

[4:17:33] residential boundary boundary nearest

[4:17:35] existing residence or other sensitive

[4:17:38] receptors. So, we're covering that that

[4:17:42] analysis uh conducted at the uh at the

[4:17:48] site plan approval is in accordance to

[4:17:51] reality.

[4:17:53] >> So, there's no number. They're saying if

[4:17:54] it exists.

[4:17:57] >> So,

[4:17:57] >> it's a problem.

[4:17:58] >> So, yeah. So if we

[4:18:01] when you when this is approved at the

[4:18:04] site plan with that tonal and acou that

[4:18:07] acoustical analysis that includes the

[4:18:10] tonal sound and low frequency

[4:18:14] and that is not met in real

[4:18:17] >> which is established by the model the model uh then we need to address

[4:18:24] that. So, just back a second ago, John

[4:18:27] said, "No, that wasn't the case." But

[4:18:30] you just said that is the case. It reads

[4:18:32] to me like you do this model.

[4:18:34] >> Yeah.

[4:18:35] >> You measure it in the field and we hold

[4:18:37] you accountable to it.

[4:18:38] >> Yeah. When it talk about the

[4:18:40] >> I love when the attorney puts his

[4:18:41] glasses on. I love that part.

[4:18:43] >> When we talk about the tonal because

[4:18:46] this was this wasn't addressed in your

[4:18:48] current noise ordinance, correct?

[4:18:49] Because you just talk about DBA. So we

[4:18:52] went further and said okay the predict

[4:18:55] DBA is DBA in your ordinance and that

[4:18:58] will be uh enforced. This also is to

[4:19:02] show that we are in compliance with the

[4:19:04] model

[4:19:05] >> at the tonal level. Okay.

[4:19:08] >> And all levels of sound, right? Tonal,

[4:19:11] low frequency, high frequency, high

[4:19:13] frequency,

[4:19:14] >> all of them.

[4:19:14] >> Correct. So yeah, and these acoustic

[4:19:17] models are are super super accurate.

[4:19:21] I mean, we'll get to heat. The heat is

[4:19:24] also

[4:19:26] um

[4:19:27] very well modeled.

[4:19:28] >> And to Shane's point, this would be

[4:19:30] somebody that's independent that does

[4:19:32] this study. It's not

[4:19:33] >> the first study, but not the second one,

[4:19:34] right?

[4:19:36] >> The second study is measurements in the

[4:19:38] field,

[4:19:38] >> but the city, we could hire anybody.

[4:19:40] >> We could hire anybody to verify.

[4:19:42] >> We can hire anybody. They they have to

[4:19:43] do their studies. And I sometimes we

[4:19:45] might do like we've done with certain

[4:19:47] engineering issues in in a development.

[4:19:50] if it's a traffic study or if it's a a

[4:19:52] hillside issue, we they may submit a a

[4:19:55] report and we'll hire our own sound

[4:19:57] engineer or our own whatever to verify

[4:20:00] um and and look at the details. So, we have the flexibility to do that.

[4:20:04] >> And we have we have dealt with this in

[4:20:06] the city already. We've we've had issues

[4:20:08] with sound in certain places. We've

[4:20:10] reached out to the business and they've

[4:20:12] worked worked with the city and the

[4:20:14] residents to try and try and resolve it.

[4:20:16] Right.

[4:20:16] >> Because we didn't have anything to

[4:20:18] Exactly.

[4:20:20] Yeah. And that's a good point that we we

[4:20:23] didn't have it to hold it accountable

[4:20:25] and now we are in in this.

[4:20:29] >> It's a good point.

[4:20:29] >> Yep.

[4:20:32] >> Okay. Uh I think groundborn vibration is

[4:20:35] talking about that same sound ordinance

[4:20:37] heat

[4:20:39] uh and thermal effects. Um again

[4:20:43] >> Whoa, whoa, whoa.

[4:20:43] >> Go back up.

[4:20:45] >> Jack, don't get too excited.

[4:20:46] >> Come on, Jack. What the

[4:20:48] >> Yeah, sorry. Well, they're both on the

[4:20:49] page now.

[4:20:54] » Probably just add independent

[4:20:55] throughout.

[4:20:56] >> You want independent on on that number

[4:20:58] 10 too there, Shane? Analysis prepared

[4:21:01] by an independent qualified

[4:21:02] professional.

[4:21:02] >> Yes, I do.

[4:21:03] >> Independent.

[4:21:04] >> Thank you.

[4:21:07] » Got it.

[4:21:08] >> Yeah, for sure. if you make sense.

[4:21:11] >> I mean, these are all

[4:21:15] » the noise and ground vibration are

[4:21:18] pretty measurable after the fact. So,

[4:21:20] >> yeah, that's what's great about this one

[4:21:21] is these are

[4:21:23] >> Yeah,

[4:21:25] do this for a living can tell you

[4:21:27] >> if it's good or not.

[4:21:28] >> And I I think this is an important part

[4:21:30] to where we again an on-site visit was

[4:21:33] important to feel some heat. Um, it was

[4:21:36] 100° I think the day I was up there. I

[4:21:38] don't know about you guys. Was that what

[4:21:39] it was? It was hot. It was one of those

[4:21:40] summer days, but you could feel some

[4:21:44] heat that the wind was blowing through,

[4:21:47] right? And then you stood away and you

[4:21:49] couldn't feel that feel that heat. So,

[4:21:51] it it is

[4:21:53] >> it is a proximity thing. But still, your your elected officials were up

[4:21:58] there to to fill it for ourselves and

[4:22:01] get an idea. Um, it was a point where

[4:22:05] you where we asked uh I think the the guy

[4:22:10] that operates the place, maybe the CEO,

[4:22:12] whatever his label is, but uh um hey,

[4:22:16] how do you you know what does happen to

[4:22:19] the heat? If something's producing heat,

[4:22:21] where does it go? He had a one word

[4:22:23] response to us. Physics, you know,

[4:22:25] physics is what happens to the heat. Um,

[4:22:29] I think this is an important aspect of

[4:22:31] it that this is at the mouth of the

[4:22:33] canyon where the wind blows and it blows

[4:22:36] up the canyon sometimes and down the

[4:22:37] canyon most the time. And uh and so this

[4:22:41] is an important aspect to where uh

[4:22:46] it's it's really soon to be cold up

[4:22:48] there all the time anyway. But um but

[4:22:52] the heat uh is something that should be

[4:22:55] measured. I think uh I think an

[4:22:57] important independent part of it that

[4:22:59] weather station measuring heat too and

[4:23:00] see if see if there you know how hot it

[4:23:03] is on the on the uh property line's

[4:23:07] important too. I think that's a good

[4:23:09] some good questions coming from

[4:23:10] residents to to get to a point like

[4:23:12] that. on the third paragraph of heat and

[4:23:14] thermal effects the city I would I would

[4:23:16] propose that we have shell there if it's

[4:23:18] not already supposed to be there just

[4:23:20] because this is talking about where

[4:23:22] we're going to place equipment that is

[4:23:25] producing this heat

[4:23:27] >> it may because we don't know what those

[4:23:30] things will be like it later on the

[4:23:32] sentence it says other measures

[4:23:34] reasonably necessary to address

[4:23:37] but I don't I don't know what to impose

[4:23:40] at this

[4:23:49] There is a section later coming up. I

[4:23:52] definitely agree it may should be a

[4:23:54] shallow

[4:23:57] and

[4:23:59] may require financial assurance for

[4:24:01] decommissioning. I think that should be

[4:24:03] shall.

[4:24:06] The reason why I would say shall here is

[4:24:08] just because we're talking about the

[4:24:09] development agreement conditions. So

[4:24:11] this is going to dictate whether or not

[4:24:14] at least the way I read it I guess is

[4:24:16] and I'm not a lawyer so von you can

[4:24:17] always correct me please but the

[4:24:20] development agreement conditions

[4:24:21] addressing equipment location and then

[4:24:23] screening cooling design. Obviously,

[4:24:25] like you said, we aren't going to know

[4:24:27] that until we see the site plan, but I

[4:24:28] think that it's probably important that

[4:24:30] we have that listed that we're going to

[4:24:32] probably implement where we think that

[4:24:33] those need to be because oftent times

[4:24:36] with developments, we're

[4:24:39] given a site plan and the reasons why we

[4:24:41] can't do things a certain way.

[4:24:44] What if the second May with Shia?

[4:24:50] What we're worried about is the ongoing

[4:24:52] monitoring and that we will do that

[4:24:55] >> correct

[4:24:56] >> or they will be a condition. The

[4:24:58] location

[4:24:59] >> Yeah.

[4:25:00] >> is it can be made.

[4:25:01] >> Yeah. They got to do that. Yeah. Yeah.

[4:25:03] So you're talking about where it says

[4:25:05] these conditions

[4:25:06] >> shall include.

[4:25:08] >> What about that von?

[4:25:09] >> Okay.

[4:25:11] >> Yeah. Let's do that Jesse. Does that

[4:25:14] help?

[4:25:14] >> I think that makes sense.

[4:25:15] >> I think that's a good point because

[4:25:16] that's the ongoing things that we're

[4:25:18] talking about. be consistent with.

[4:25:23] [clears throat]

[4:25:24] >> So last sentence,

[4:25:28] these conditions shall include ongoing

[4:25:30] monitoring. That's

[4:25:32] >> Got it.

[4:25:33] >> Kevin, to your point earlier about

[4:25:35] noise, and I don't want to belabor this

[4:25:37] one, but you're right. We had a ton of

[4:25:39] feedback, tons of concerns about not

[4:25:41] just decibel, but the whole the whole

[4:25:43] gamut of noise. Um, I think that we have

[4:25:47] an email that asks like there's some

[4:25:50] folks that want to do a GoFundMe thing

[4:25:53] to monitor noise at their location. Um,

[4:25:58] do you think we have that covered in

[4:26:00] that text above?

[4:26:02] >> I think the city at any point can ask

[4:26:04] for

[4:26:06] >> So, we we we've got

[4:26:08] >> noise study.

[4:26:09] >> The noise study is in place. We're gonna

[4:26:12] we're going to know before we Maybe I

[4:26:14] should ask that question. Will we know

[4:26:16] the results of the noise study before

[4:26:18] the development agreement is finalized?

[4:26:19] Yes. Yes. Which is it? There's three of

[4:26:22] you shaking yes and two of you shaking

[4:26:24] no.

[4:26:28] » I mean, you got to get on the same page.

[4:26:34] » Yeah.

[4:26:36] >> Right. So, I'm I'm going with the lawyer

[4:26:39] on that one. No, I think he's Yeah,

[4:26:41] unfortunately correct. I want to go with

[4:26:43] the engineer, but

[4:26:45] >> the reality is you can't finish.

[4:26:47] >> The engineering is done.

[4:26:48] >> That's correct.

[4:26:49] >> All right. That being said,

[4:26:52] >> covers you, I believe.

[4:26:53] >> Yeah, I agree. I to your point, I think

[4:26:57] I don't think we need the development.

[4:26:58] It's in our code. It'll be in the

[4:27:00] development agreement.

[4:27:02] We're going to have a baseline study

[4:27:04] that'll be done and then we'll have

[4:27:05] continual study anytime we we ask for it

[4:27:08] or done.

[4:27:10] >> So what if what if now we're back on

[4:27:13] noise for now it's it's it would apply

[4:27:15] to heat I suppose but back on noise

[4:27:18] >> all of these studies.

[4:27:19] >> Yeah. So we have this model that says at

[4:27:21] this receptor

[4:27:23] the tonal noise is the however you

[4:27:26] measure tonal frequency sound says the

[4:27:30] model says X

[4:27:31] >> at the baseline

[4:27:34] >> I don't know if it'll be non-existent

[4:27:35] you would think it would be because

[4:27:36] there's nothing there now

[4:27:38] >> what if there's an impact according to

[4:27:39] the model

[4:27:41] >> according to the model there's an impact

[4:27:43] >> yep

[4:27:47] » so they do the So similar to the DAQ

[4:27:52] >> if for whatever reason it doesn't pass.

[4:27:55] >> So there's a what is there is a there is

[4:27:57] a limit there is a

[4:28:00] >> tonal sound low frequency sound at a

[4:28:03] receptor that that this site is

[4:28:05] generating and the model shows that

[4:28:07] >> then at that point even at the even at

[4:28:10] the baseline model then I think we need

[4:28:12] to start talking about how do we how

[4:28:14] would we fix that? How would they fix

[4:28:17] >> how do we cure that? after the fact.

[4:28:19] >> Well, after the fact

[4:28:21] >> the development agreements,

[4:28:22] >> I would I would have I whoever the sound

[4:28:24] engineer is, I'd say, okay, give us

[4:28:26] scenarios if there's a problem.

[4:28:28] >> There is I'm not I'm not arguing them

[4:28:31] the engineering side of it. We can

[4:28:33] >> it can be engineered away,

[4:28:35] >> right?

[4:28:35] >> I mean,

[4:28:37] >> yeah, of course.

[4:28:37] >> Of course, engineers are,

[4:28:39] >> right?

[4:28:40] >> Yeah, you could do sound.

[4:28:41] >> I'm not the attorney who's going to

[4:28:42] write the words away. the engine

[4:28:44] understand.

[4:28:45] >> So

[4:28:47] >> process-wise, timeline wise,

[4:28:49] >> yeah,

[4:28:49] >> we have a model that we have a

[4:28:52] development agreement that's going to

[4:28:53] say we're going to hold you accountable

[4:28:54] to the model

[4:28:56] >> and the model. We don't know what the

[4:28:57] model say.

[4:28:57] >> The model gets put in place before they

[4:28:59] even start construction. So

[4:29:00] >> the model comes after the development

[4:29:02] agreement's signed and it says there is

[4:29:05] an impact. The development agreement

[4:29:07] says we're going to hold you to that

[4:29:08] model that has an impact in it.

[4:29:11] [clears throat]

[4:29:11] >> Okay. How do we

[4:29:14] >> enforce the no impact

[4:29:17] >> because there's already an impact

[4:29:18] >> because it's already in the development

[4:29:19] agreement

[4:29:20] >> but I think you're I think your sound I

[4:29:21] think your stud is going to say

[4:29:23] >> what that impact is agree is that impact

[4:29:25] high enough that it is going to be

[4:29:29] >> detriment back to what Jeff had

[4:29:31] mentioned earlier they want but it comes

[4:29:33] after the fact

[4:29:34] >> they want to start without

[4:29:36] >> as as little as possible because they

[4:29:38] don't believe there's going to be an

[4:29:39] impact and so if the study comes back

[4:29:42] and says there is going to be an impact

[4:29:44] then now they're going to be required to

[4:29:47] >> how are they required

[4:29:49] >> say that though

[4:29:50] >> the code doesn't say that they are

[4:29:52] required

[4:29:52] >> because if they proceed then they're

[4:29:55] going to be out of compliance

[4:29:57] >> with what

[4:29:58] >> because that's the baseline

[4:30:00] >> the baseline is the model the model says

[4:30:03] there's an impact

[4:30:04] >> I'm with you

[4:30:04] >> as long as they are within the models

[4:30:07] >> I'm with you okay y that makes sense so

[4:30:09] how do we mitigate that

[4:30:10] >> I think that sound study is going to be

[4:30:12] something.

[4:30:13] >> I think I I I I agree. I think they're

[4:30:16] more than likely the sound study is

[4:30:18] going to not show an impact. But if it

[4:30:20] doesn't,

[4:30:20] >> what then?

[4:30:21] >> But it's going to show what what I'm

[4:30:23] saying is I think that sound study's

[4:30:25] more than that. It's going to be it's

[4:30:27] got to be

[4:30:28] >> Hey, so if it if it does create this,

[4:30:31] here's what that is. It's equal to a

[4:30:34] >> toaster being plugged in.

[4:30:36] >> Sure. Sure. you know, two miles away

[4:30:39] from you or or it's a toaster

[4:30:42] >> next to a fan right next to you that's

[4:30:44] vibrating the crap out of you.

[4:30:45] >> Yeah, they're gonna they're I I gotta

[4:30:48] think if we're asking for an independent

[4:30:49] sound study, it's going to have

[4:30:50] >> No, I think it's going to have the legit

[4:30:52] I I'm going to I'm going to because I'm

[4:30:54] the engineer, I'm going to say that

[4:30:57] whatever the sound study says is

[4:30:59] correct.

[4:31:00] >> It's any study that we're looking at. If it is correct, if the baseline comes

[4:31:03] back and says there's an impact, then we

[4:31:05] want that resolved before I would almost

[4:31:08] >> say that we have somewhere in the

[4:31:10] development agreement that if any of our

[4:31:12] baseline studies cause an impact, they

[4:31:16] can't proceed until we resolve what that

[4:31:18] impact would be.

[4:31:19] >> Would that be in the development

[4:31:20] agreement or in 2015?

[4:31:22] >> Help me understand that baseline like I

[4:31:24] mean like the site exists today and it

[4:31:27] has sound today. So you're

[4:31:30] >> so their studies are based on the

[4:31:31] equipment that's going to be there if

[4:31:33] I'm not mistaken. Right.

[4:31:34] >> Sorry, say that again. He was muttering

[4:31:35] and I couldn't.

[4:31:36] >> So we're talking about

[4:31:37] >> you're going to ask for a study for

[4:31:39] what's going to be there.

[4:31:40] >> So part of our requirement is that we

[4:31:42] need a study done on sound. Yeah.

[4:31:44] >> Based on what they're building.

[4:31:47] >> That study comes back and that study

[4:31:49] says there's an impact or there will be

[4:31:52] an impact.

[4:31:52] >> So Bon, is this a place where you can

[4:31:54] insert like reasonable person standard?

[4:31:57] Yeah, I think

[4:31:58] >> for example the first sentence

[4:32:00] >> because it really makes me nervous that

[4:32:02] you know the word impact then is open

[4:32:04] and nebulous and then anybody and

[4:32:05] anything I think you were kind of joking

[4:32:06] with the toaster but

[4:32:08] >> but so I think if there's some kind of

[4:32:10] reasonable standard reasonable person

[4:32:12] standard or something like that I think

[4:32:14] >> section 10 is on the heat is is pretty

[4:32:17] good. The third paragraph

[4:32:20] >> city may impose

[4:32:22] >> 10

[4:32:23] >> pay attention.

[4:32:24] >> So if we

[4:32:25] >> third paragraph city may proposed lawful

[4:32:27] site plan or development agreement

[4:32:30] conditions addressing equipment location

[4:32:33] reasonably necessary to address the

[4:32:35] demonstrated offsite thermal effects.

[4:32:39] So it has that reason standard built

[4:32:41] into us. We can pose reasonable

[4:32:43] conditions.

[4:32:46] >> Von, can you define what that word

[4:32:47] reasonably necessary means?

[4:32:51] >> I'm going to say that's a legal ter.

[4:32:54] >> Yeah, that's a legal term. I'm going to

[4:32:55] look at

[4:32:57] >> I mean it's an objective standard,

[4:32:58] right? It's not it's not a number. It's

[4:33:01] not something that's exact, but it's

[4:33:04] what is reasonable in the judgment of

[4:33:06] >> So, in essence, we could say we think

[4:33:08] this is reasonable. Well, we were just

[4:33:11] talking about sound a second ago to put

[4:33:12] up a sound wall. Let's say that is what

[4:33:13] we are saying is reasonable. But the

[4:33:16] applicant says, well, we don't think

[4:33:17] that's reasonable. Would that then have

[4:33:19] to go to court to decide what's

[4:33:21] reasonable in that?

[4:33:22] >> There's some some sort of dispute

[4:33:23] resolution. We could negotiate, confer,

[4:33:26] we could have a mediation

[4:33:30] All right. So I I

[4:33:32] >> Let me ask them if they have any

[4:33:33] solutions like do you guys have any

[4:33:35] solutions to this? Would you propose

[4:33:37] anything?

[4:33:39] >> Would you propose any solutions?

[4:33:41] >> I mean

[4:33:42] >> it's a timing issue.

[4:33:43] >> Yeah.

[4:33:43] >> The the solution is to wait until the

[4:33:46] sound study, the heat study and all

[4:33:47] those things are done before we approve

[4:33:49] the development agreement.

[4:33:51] >> So

[4:33:52] >> then we know exactly what we're getting

[4:33:53] into. if if sound is needs to be

[4:33:57] expounded um maybe expan expanding the

[4:34:00] noise ordinance that you currently have

[4:34:03] >> I don't think that's the address

[4:34:04] >> I don't think that's my concern I

[4:34:08] >> my concern is holding you accountable to

[4:34:10] the model

[4:34:12] >> but if the model

[4:34:13] >> but we don't know what the model says

[4:34:14] before you're holding accountable to it

[4:34:16] >> yeah so when the model comes that'll be

[4:34:19] a part of the site plan and then that is

[4:34:22] the opportunity to approve approve the

[4:34:24] site plan as it's modeled.

[4:34:26] >> So, so, so that is an approval that we

[4:34:29] might not, you know, if the site plan

[4:34:31] shows,

[4:34:32] >> what does this mean?

[4:34:33] >> If the site plan shows

[4:34:35] >> Yeah. So, if the site plan the site

[4:34:37] plan, they're going to say change the

[4:34:38] site plan because that's unacceptable.

[4:34:41] >> Correct. So let's say the site plan

[4:34:43] comes out with the acoustic study and

[4:34:46] says there's a large new low tonal

[4:34:50] frequency

[4:34:52] uh that's disclosed in that acoustic

[4:34:54] analysis.

[4:34:55] There's an opportunity to say this

[4:34:58] acoustical analysis is not

[4:35:02] u acceptable.

[4:35:05] >> So adjust the site plan. So adjust the

[4:35:07] site plan so that it would be

[4:35:08] >> right. Adjust the site plan. So then

[4:35:10] from a timing perspective it's

[4:35:13] >> development agreement the next little

[4:35:15] bit you work on site plan do all the

[4:35:20] modeling all that's available for review

[4:35:22] before the site plan is approved

[4:35:24] >> correct that's the point in time where

[4:35:27] whoever approves site plans these days

[4:35:29] can say nope change it

[4:35:31] >> correct

[4:35:32] >> okay

[4:35:33] >> so question that I got

[4:35:36] if we hire somebody or if we've got an

[4:35:39] engineer, sound engineer that comes does

[4:35:41] the does the study.

[4:35:44] How do we define impact? How do we know

[4:35:46] what an impact is?

[4:35:50] >> How do we know? Because you know from

[4:35:52] the emails we've received, some people

[4:35:54] may have a different sound may impact

[4:35:57] one person differently than it impacts

[4:35:59] somebody else.

[4:36:00] >> How is that determined,

[4:36:02] >> Mr. Mayor?

[4:36:03] >> Yes.

[4:36:04] >> Is that I mean, we've talked about

[4:36:05] material changes. Is that a material

[4:36:07] change from what exists today? Is that

[4:36:09] like some noticeable difference from

[4:36:11] >> That's what I was thinking about trying

[4:36:13] to get to is if there is a tonal impact

[4:36:17] today that only certain people can hear

[4:36:19] >> that's there as of now.

[4:36:21] >> Correct.

[4:36:22] and and you add to it,

[4:36:25] >> then there's an impact.

[4:36:26] And and

[4:36:29] why and why couldn't we call that a

[4:36:31] material change

[4:36:34] where that material change means you

[4:36:36] have to remedy that? You have to you

[4:36:38] have to figure that out. You can't you

[4:36:40] can't build it that way. Uh you you got

[4:36:43] to get a different study done that would

[4:36:45] show there is no there is no material

[4:36:48] impact. thought would the courts think

[4:36:51] that that's a material impact? I saw

[4:36:53] your fa you made some facial

[4:36:54] expressions.

[4:36:55] >> I was thinking of something else. I was

[4:36:56] just thinking that being approved

[4:36:58] through the site plan, not material

[4:37:00] change.

[4:37:01] >> And when we do baseline studies, are we

[4:37:04] content with a single study and saying,

[4:37:05] "Okay, we hire one person and whatever

[4:37:07] they come back with is good or does it

[4:37:10] make sense that we do

[4:37:13] two or three or more?" I don't know.

[4:37:16] This is spitballing right now. Just to

[4:37:18] >> It's just money.

[4:37:19] right? Uh are we we

[4:37:22] feel good about hiring one person to do

[4:37:24] it and whatever they come back with,

[4:37:26] okay, that's the number

[4:37:28] >> or would we take a few studies, multiple

[4:37:30] studies, put them together and say,

[4:37:32] "Okay, this is what we've come up with."

[4:37:33] >> I think if we I I think the applicant

[4:37:36] should and and

[4:37:39] I think the applicant shall give us a

[4:37:41] study and I think we're if we're

[4:37:42] uncomfortable with it, we

[4:37:43] >> as well. Yep.

[4:37:46] But the question you asked I don't think

[4:37:47] was answered. I think we have the timing

[4:37:50] down and the the process seems to work.

[4:37:53] There's opportunity for the city whether

[4:37:57] that's us or the planning commission or

[4:37:59] DRC to say you did not meet our

[4:38:02] expectation. What is our expectation

[4:38:04] though? What does impact mean? and and

[4:38:09] sort of chicken and egg because the we

[4:38:13] don't have a number to put in for

[4:38:16] vibration or low tonal whatever

[4:38:21] we don't have a number

[4:38:22] >> which but according to what we've been

[4:38:25] told we had two studies both studies

[4:38:28] came back and said yeah as of right now

[4:38:30] there's no low low frequency noise being

[4:38:33] emitted

[4:38:34] >> any they can't pick up any there's no

[4:38:37] vibration, whatever, then we know, okay,

[4:38:40] after we do the study again, once it's

[4:38:44] been put in there, now there's an

[4:38:45] impact.

[4:38:45] >> Sure. For sure. And then now they're on

[4:38:47] the hook to change it,

[4:38:48] >> right?

[4:38:48] >> Yep.

[4:38:49] >> Yeah. Once we get the the original model

[4:38:53] done with their all of their machinery

[4:38:56] in place or modeled, right? And it says

[4:39:00] this is the I wish I knew what how you

[4:39:02] measure low tonal

[4:39:06] deci

[4:39:07] >> that might be I should

[4:39:09] >> I would but never mind that would be

[4:39:11] sarcastic and it would not go.

[4:39:12] >> Is that what it is frequency? Yeah.

[4:39:14] >> The attorney came up with this

[4:39:16] >> and you're the engineer.

[4:39:17] >> I used to like car audio. I know about

[4:39:19] 20 hertz to 20,000

[4:39:23] >> hertz.

[4:39:24] >> No no no. So any

[4:39:29] standards for all these things you're

[4:39:31] talking about.

[4:39:31] >> Okay.

[4:39:32] >> There are accepted levels and curves

[4:39:36] for all of these things.

[4:39:37] >> Okay.

[4:39:40] >> And maybe we ask

[4:39:42] >> maybe we ask the

[4:39:44] >> the sound engineer to give us a

[4:39:46] definition of reasonable.

[4:39:47] >> Like if we put reasonable in here,

[4:39:49] >> we've got we've got the name of a great

[4:39:52] sound engineer that's done work around

[4:39:54] our community for other businesses. It's

[4:39:55] not the engineer that these guys have

[4:39:57] used. And so they're independent and I

[4:39:59] think we we can ask them help us

[4:40:01] understand give us some give us some as

[4:40:03] Brady was just suggesting some some

[4:40:04] reasonable

[4:40:07] >> uh some definitions to reasonable and I

[4:40:09] think

[4:40:09] >> I think that's probably a great place to

[4:40:11] start. I I genuinely worry about just

[4:40:13] the the blanket word impact because it

[4:40:15] it's so open

[4:40:17] >> for sure.

[4:40:19] >> Uh but also reasonable is inherently

[4:40:23] reasonable

[4:40:24] >> by definition. I don't know if you can

[4:40:26] use reasonable in the definition of

[4:40:27] reasonable.

[4:40:28] >> Yeah, it feels like it feels like if

[4:40:31] >> I feel like

[4:40:31] >> if you're just using the word impact

[4:40:33] without some language to it and and what

[4:40:35] that means,

[4:40:37] >> then we're Yeah, we're we're we might be

[4:40:39] a a hammer looking for a nail. But on

[4:40:42] the other aspect of it, if if they're a

[4:40:45] nail, then we need to be a hammer. I

[4:40:48] think it's I think you I hate when I

[4:40:53] have to say your analogy is correct, but

[4:40:54] I think that is the correct analogy%.

[4:40:56] >> Um the and I think it goes both ways. I

[4:40:59] think there's some protection in place

[4:41:00] for them as much as it is for the

[4:41:03] resident.

[4:41:03] >> Yeah.

[4:41:04] >> Right. If we have a standard that's

[4:41:06] reasonable.

[4:41:07] >> Yeah. Then every

[4:41:08] >> then we can measure it and say yes or no

[4:41:10] to it instead of arguing about is that

[4:41:12] reasonleness. So I think I think it does

[4:41:15] warrant some further

[4:41:18] anal not analysis but numbers in the

[4:41:21] code that we can hold everyone

[4:41:23] accountable to

[4:41:23] >> and if we put reasonable here we can

[4:41:26] catch the reasonleness in the

[4:41:27] development agreement.

[4:41:29] >> Yeah.

[4:41:29] >> And and that will help us and we can

[4:41:31] then change this later if we want to. We

[4:41:33] can put it back in there.

[4:41:34] >> Yeah.

[4:41:35] >> But there's a that's a that's a way we

[4:41:37] can develop and suspend. Right.

[4:41:39] >> Sure.

[4:41:39] >> Or we can add it to here and approve

[4:41:41] them at the same time in the future.

[4:41:46] Keep going. Let's keep going.

[4:41:48] That's That's

[4:41:50] >> okay. Uh we covered heat and thermal

[4:41:52] effects before Shane took us backwards a

[4:41:55] little bit.

[4:41:55] >> It's the same. It applies in both cases.

[4:41:57] >> That's true.

[4:41:58] >> Well, it's going to apply across a few

[4:41:59] processes. Yeah.

[4:42:00] >> Okay. Let's get back to

[4:42:02] >> I love teaching you all engineering.

[4:42:03] It's so fun.

[4:42:05] >> Step back, screening, lighting, and

[4:42:06] height. Um I think this is important.

[4:42:09] There's

[4:42:10] >> We've had some questions about lighting.

[4:42:12] >> Yeah, we have. We've had a few questions

[4:42:13] about dark sky.

[4:42:14] >> There's lights there now.

[4:42:16] >> Issues. There are lights there now. I

[4:42:18] don't know if any of Jeff if any of your

[4:42:21] team want to discuss any lighting

[4:42:23] changes. Um dark sky lighting. Is that

[4:42:26] something you brought up and discussed?

[4:42:28] >> Yeah. I mean everything we will engineer

[4:42:31] is going to be for low light. In fact, I

[4:42:34] think we also we already identified

[4:42:35] there's things we can do right now just

[4:42:37] with the existing lighting to improve

[4:42:38] it. Angling it down, for example. So, uh

[4:42:42] there's nothing um substantial about a

[4:42:46] lighting requirement for us and our

[4:42:48] equipment outside of the building. So,

[4:42:50] we uh we will have

[4:42:53] minimal impact possibly improve the way

[4:42:57] the lighting I mean there's been no

[4:42:59] consideration for lighting out there now

[4:43:01] and so you've got big big lights you

[4:43:04] know pointing wherever. We'll work on uh

[4:43:07] changing those angles.

[4:43:09] >> Outside of what we're looking at in this

[4:43:11] code, what else have we already got in

[4:43:13] city code that discusses?

[4:43:15] >> And I know we've been changing all of

[4:43:16] our street lights.

[4:43:17] >> Yeah, we've been doing our street

[4:43:18] lights. I think I think considering dark

[4:43:20] sky is is certainly something that we we

[4:43:22] can put in here. Um

[4:43:25] >> it might be different than our code,

[4:43:27] Jake. I don't know if you can remember

[4:43:28] what we've done with lighting in the

[4:43:30] code in terms of development or Dave, in

[4:43:32] terms of development, not just street

[4:43:34] lighting. Um and then I'll come back to

[4:43:36] another issue on their parking lot.

[4:43:38] >> Yeah, we as a city try to follow the

[4:43:41] dark sky lighting. As far as

[4:43:43] development, we encourage that through

[4:43:45] the development process that

[4:43:47] >> to try to follow those dark sky

[4:43:48] standards. So

[4:43:49] >> we do require a plan that identifies how

[4:43:53] lit a site would be based on a

[4:43:55] particular lighting design. And we work

[4:43:58] uh by way of the types of fixtures that

[4:44:00] people use, how tall they are, and how

[4:44:01] they're shielded to make sure that light

[4:44:03] as much as possible stays on site so

[4:44:06] there's not light spillover and that

[4:44:08] type of a thing. So that's that's a

[4:44:09] routine part of our review.

[4:44:11] >> So with that, I wouldn't I I think a

[4:44:13] dark sky compliant nature is is a great

[4:44:16] place to go, but our code doesn't

[4:44:19] require that in any other place. So,

[4:44:21] it's it's maybe a step too far um simply

[4:44:26] because of that, but I think we want to

[4:44:28] make sure that if they do build here and

[4:44:30] they do operate here that we give them

[4:44:32] the ability to create a secure space,

[4:44:36] you know, that they can light it in a

[4:44:37] way that is secure,

[4:44:38] >> right,

[4:44:39] >> for them?

[4:44:40] >> Do you foresee it the the untrained eye

[4:44:43] that goes up Spanish Fort Canyon? Do you

[4:44:45] see it? Uh I guess this is a question

[4:44:48] for the applicant. Do you see it more uh

[4:44:50] visible at night than it currently is or

[4:44:54] about the same or or or less? I mean, I

[4:44:57] know that's getting ahead of a site

[4:45:00] plan, too, but what what would be your

[4:45:02] wish?

[4:45:02] >> We want to improve anything that we're

[4:45:04] doing out there if we can. So, um, I

[4:45:07] know that we haven't taken a close look

[4:45:08] at what it looks like distinctly right

[4:45:11] now at night, but I do know that, you

[4:45:14] know, as we look at ways to create

[4:45:18] potential barriers, including trees and

[4:45:21] other

[4:45:23] uh, you know, additions from an

[4:45:26] aesthetic standpoint, also to help knock

[4:45:29] down noise and heat. Um, you know, our intention is to improve it.

[4:45:36] >> Okay.

[4:45:36] >> Aesthetically. And then lighting. Yeah.

[4:45:38] Lighting for us would be um low and

[4:45:43] typically in the evening just to allow

[4:45:46] like visibility near a fuel cell, you

[4:45:50] know, but we don't need, you know, like

[4:45:54] big lighting out there.

[4:45:56] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[4:45:57] >> Okay. Thank you.

[4:46:04] Okay. Um,

[4:46:08] water use and cooling.

[4:46:11] How much of that part do you want to go

[4:46:14] over? I think that was an important

[4:46:15] change. Is this where your um part of the water that you uh

[4:46:22] discussed there, Vaughn,

[4:46:25] was a different uh

[4:46:28] type of chemical in the water that I'm

[4:46:30] not I'm not going to be the first to

[4:46:32] drink

[4:46:33] >> section

[4:46:34] >> even Oh, that's coming up. Oh, yeah.

[4:46:36] Okay. So on this right during the

[4:46:40] presentation and in the former

[4:46:44] title 15 I believe it was 500,000 and

[4:46:47] 250 why did we go up to a million and

[4:46:49] 300

[4:46:50] >> I don't know the answer to that question

[4:46:51] that was Shane

[4:46:52] >> that was me

[4:46:53] >> not because Shane wanted it but I think you can explain

[4:46:57] >> it was in my it was in my recommendation

[4:47:02] » um a buffer

[4:47:05] >> I don't I don't see the

[4:47:08] I don't I don't understand this face

[4:47:10] that I'm getting either, but I don't see

[4:47:12] the

[4:47:12] >> You're not the type of person to just

[4:47:14] add buffers. So, that's what the

[4:47:15] >> I mean, it's 500,000 gallons a year is

[4:47:19] very very small.

[4:47:20] >> And is that for the entire property,

[4:47:22] right?

[4:47:23] >> No,

[4:47:24] >> I think that's what it was meant to say.

[4:47:26] >> No,

[4:47:26] >> it is right.

[4:47:28] >> The data center water used for initial

[4:47:30] filling, cooling systems,

[4:47:31] humidification, computers.

[4:47:33] So just the just the data center land

[4:47:36] use or landscaping would be a separate

[4:47:38] water

[4:47:39] >> let's say office use

[4:47:40] >> office use that would be included in

[4:47:44] what they've probably already got today.

[4:47:45] Right.

[4:47:45] >> Correct.

[4:47:48] >> Yeah. I think that's important to make

[4:47:49] sure that we understand that the water

[4:47:52] that that is talking about here and

[4:47:54] whether it's a million or 500,000 or

[4:47:56] 600,000 because you want a different

[4:47:57] buffer. I mean I think you they've said

[4:47:59] 500 and 250 fairly consistently for the

[4:48:01] last two months, right? not fairly very

[4:48:03] consistently for the last two months.

[4:48:05] So, I think this shouldn't be an issue

[4:48:08] that we get hung up on. Let's, you know,

[4:48:11] let's pick the best or right number. Um,

[4:48:14] I agree with Shane in terms of some kind

[4:48:16] of buffer. It's we're not talking about

[4:48:19] big numbers. Although 500,000 is a big

[4:48:22] number, when it comes to watering u my

[4:48:25] lawn or whatnot, it's

[4:48:27] not.

[4:48:28] >> But there are site

[4:48:31] >> Yeah. 23 acres under a roof is is

[4:48:34] massive, right? So I think there are

[4:48:36] three areas. I'm gonna say there's the

[4:48:38] compute infrastructure. So that's going

[4:48:40] to be the closed loop, the

[4:48:42] humidification.

[4:48:43] >> That's this number.

[4:48:46] >> Then there is office that will be

[4:48:49] drinking water. This will be drinking

[4:48:50] water too. This will be cleaned drinking

[4:48:52] water, right? And then and then then

[4:48:55] there is going to be outside water which

[4:48:58] today is part of our culinary system.

[4:49:01] But as the development comes in through

[4:49:03] the houses, we anticipate that would uh

[4:49:07] convert over to the PI system.

[4:49:08] >> Would we need to spell that out?

[4:49:10] >> Which part?

[4:49:11] >> That they're going to transfer over to

[4:49:12] PI.

[4:49:13] >> I don't think so. That's typical with

[4:49:14] development and and development would

[4:49:16] require that.

[4:49:16] >> I'm putting in the development

[4:49:18] agreement.

[4:49:18] >> Okay, there you go.

[4:49:19] >> Anyway,

[4:49:20] >> that doesn't worry me at all because

[4:49:21] that's normal. We we do that anyway.

[4:49:24] >> But we're covering it anyways. But so

[4:49:28] you guys you guys can debate this point.

[4:49:30] Um no business has a cap on water that

[4:49:33] they use. They just pay for the meter

[4:49:36] and get the water that they are entitled

[4:49:38] to. Um this limitation is specifically

[4:49:42] for what I would call the ugly part of

[4:49:44] data centers, right? They're going to

[4:49:46] waste water. And I think we know about

[4:49:48] that that reality of that through our

[4:49:51] research of many other facilities that

[4:49:54] old facilities do use excessive amounts

[4:49:57] of water. So for the compute

[4:50:00] infrastructure,

[4:50:02] that's what this is for. And so if we

[4:50:04] need to spell that out better, we can

[4:50:05] and we should.

[4:50:06] >> Is there Yeah. Is there a number that

[4:50:07] you're more comfortable with?

[4:50:09] >> I just don't I just didn't understand a

[4:50:10] million. Like

[4:50:11] >> if we're giving you a buffer, I don't

[4:50:13] know what difference between 750 and a

[4:50:15] million is at that 50.

[4:50:16] >> There's no difference. Yeah,

[4:50:18] >> there's no difference between a million

[4:50:20] and 6 million. It's a 23 acre site.

[4:50:22] >> A million gallons a year is

[4:50:25] >> insignificant to a 23 acre site.

[4:50:27] >> But I think the point to residents

[4:50:30] questions to us is we're assuming they

[4:50:32] should they should know that in in some

[4:50:35] way.

[4:50:36] >> The the paragraph above does.

[4:50:39] >> Well,

[4:50:41] not assuming them. I'm I'm assuming the

[4:50:45] >> them

[4:50:45] >> the resident.

[4:50:46] >> Okay.

[4:50:46] >> The resident

[4:50:48] >> the question of where's the water coming

[4:50:50] from?

[4:50:50] >> Sure.

[4:50:51] >> It's the same place mine and your water

[4:50:53] is coming from. We have rights to that

[4:50:56] water. And I guess my assurity to the

[4:50:59] residents in that vein is

[4:51:02] just like the example I gave of of of a

[4:51:05] little old lady having a leak and using

[4:51:07] too much water. We can find that stuff

[4:51:10] out as well. It's not like there's an

[4:51:13] unlimited source of water that someone

[4:51:16] can have, this applicant or you in your

[4:51:19] house. Uh you you you would be you could

[4:51:24] be shut off. And so I guess that's the

[4:51:26] fall back that I want to be on too. This

[4:51:31] is what they're saying. That's what we

[4:51:32] could hold them to. There could be more

[4:51:35] rights than that to it, but but we are

[4:51:38] the city that does provide that water

[4:51:40] >> and it is metered and so it is you don't

[4:51:44] pay your water bill, you'll find out you

[4:51:46] could get your water shut off as well.

[4:51:49] So it water can be shut off.

[4:51:52] I think the intent of this paragraph has

[4:51:54] been to specifically identify and limit

[4:51:57] data compute water which has a cap that

[4:52:00] I don't think any other

[4:52:01] >> water user in the city has a cap.

[4:52:04] >> So your industrial areas, industrial

[4:52:07] businesses.

[4:52:07] >> Yeah, we could we could name a number of

[4:52:09] businesses.

[4:52:10] >> They don't have a cap. They have

[4:52:11] >> they have a meter that's this big or that big

[4:52:13] >> and they pay for that water.

[4:52:14] >> Yep. And they consume the water that

[4:52:15] they pay for the water they consume.

[4:52:17] State law requires that they they

[4:52:20] publicly disclose and show what their

[4:52:22] water usage is every year.

[4:52:24] >> These guys

[4:52:24] >> any any large scale data center

[4:52:29] users

[4:52:29] >> the code and so would the development

[4:52:31] >> data center users have to show what

[4:52:33] their water usage is every year.

[4:52:35] >> So again you guys can debate this. So

[4:52:37] let me just finish with

[4:52:40] there are [clears throat] limits here

[4:52:41] and I think you need to you need to set

[4:52:43] those numbers. you know what they've

[4:52:45] said for compute infrastructure

[4:52:48] >> then make sure you're clear on

[4:52:49] >> that you're okay with these numbers

[4:52:51] being the code but we're not comfortable

[4:52:52] with putting air quality numbers in the

[4:52:54] code

[4:52:54] >> I understand water numbers

[4:52:56] >> there's still a number measure against

[4:52:59] >> I don't I are you below or above a Jesse

[4:53:04] >> it's so much easier to measure gallons

[4:53:05] than it is knocks in the air

[4:53:07] >> but if we're going to put one set of

[4:53:08] numbers why not put all of them

[4:53:10] >> because I can't measure knocks

[4:53:12] >> you don't have a meter there's no way to

[4:53:14] measure knocks like there is meters in a

[4:53:16] water glove.

[4:53:18] It's it's a it's a it's your argument.

[4:53:22] That's that's good enough.

[4:53:23] >> I I

[4:53:25] lean towards Jesse's suggestion of maybe

[4:53:27] let's drop the million down a little

[4:53:29] bit.

[4:53:30] >> I don't care. Whatever. Million is not

[4:53:32] enough. Million is not a lot.

[4:53:34] >> They are not proposing anything close to

[4:53:35] a million.

[4:53:36] >> 999 looks a lot better than 100.

[4:53:38] >> I would say 600 and 300.

[4:53:39] >> You buying it?

[4:53:40] >> Yeah. Why not 600 and 300? There you go.

[4:53:42] That's That's 300.

[4:53:44] >> Perfect.

[4:53:45] >> Two is six.

[4:53:46] >> Okay.

[4:53:49] » I guess the point I'm trying to get

[4:53:51] across is th this is uh if if if their

[4:53:56] system if their design if their project

[4:53:58] didn't prove out the water usage that

[4:54:01] they're saying we it will take. I guess

[4:54:04] I want the residents to know and be

[4:54:06] clear that that isn't that isn't a pipe

[4:54:10] we don't have control of. It is a pipe

[4:54:13] that we could say you've used it, it's

[4:54:16] off or you didn't pay it.

[4:54:17] >> Well, it's off.

[4:54:18] >> And

[4:54:19] >> your data center water use is very

[4:54:21] different than your exterior water use

[4:54:23] and that you're going to be able to know

[4:54:25] monthtomonth better what your use is

[4:54:26] than you are outside with. Yeah.

[4:54:29] >> And so if you're looking at your

[4:54:31] interior water use, you're looking at a

[4:54:33] rolling 12 months and you're going to

[4:54:36] know well in advance if you're going to

[4:54:38] be exceeding in six more months that limit that we've put in place. And

[4:54:43] so at that point you can start to

[4:54:45] address it and say, "Okay, we got six

[4:54:47] months to figure out how do we how do we

[4:54:50] remedy this?"

[4:54:53] >> And they're using a ton of water on that

[4:54:54] site right now for landscaping.

[4:54:57] >> Yeah. Get rid of that grass. Yeah. Yeah.

[4:54:59] Get to water wise

[4:55:01] >> because this is an existing site in the

[4:55:05] development agreement. We are proposing

[4:55:07] not to give them a meter specifically

[4:55:11] from the water system to the compute

[4:55:14] infrastructure but rather to have an

[4:55:17] internal or submeter

[4:55:19] after the after the main meter. So they

[4:55:22] have a 4-inch water meter that feeds the

[4:55:24] site. We we're proposing that they have

[4:55:26] a submeter on the inside and this pipe

[4:55:28] goes to the compute uh

[4:55:30] >> that would be measured all of the

[4:55:31] compute would be measurable

[4:55:33] >> totally and only measured by this meter.

[4:55:35] I think one of the reasons why we don't

[4:55:37] want to have a new meter is we don't

[4:55:39] want them to have a new connection.

[4:55:41] >> Yeah.

[4:55:41] >> Uh they've already got a connection and

[4:55:43] a new connection brings with it new

[4:55:45] water resources and we don't want from

[4:55:47] our perspective we don't want them to

[4:55:48] have new additional water resources.

[4:55:50] >> Yeah. I think the concern for me and

[4:55:52] probably most residents is the water

[4:55:55] being used for the community. Not the

[4:55:56] exterior, not the office water. It's how

[4:55:58] much water are they consuming for

[4:56:01] cooling.

[4:56:02] >> And what you just heard there, you're

[4:56:04] going to have a submeter.

[4:56:06] >> Yeah.

[4:56:07] >> Directly for that.

[4:56:08] >> For that,

[4:56:08] >> you're going to be able to know that.

[4:56:16] come a long way from the questions of

[4:56:20] some people thought the sleeve in the

[4:56:23] pipe coming down the canyon was for

[4:56:26] them. It's not. It's not.

[4:56:31] Um, okay. So, Vaughn talked about in 13.

[4:56:36] That's where the chemical part that I

[4:56:38] think I think is is an important part um

[4:56:43] of uh

[4:56:48] » eth not ethylene glycol.

[4:56:50] >> Yeah.

[4:56:51] >> It's uh the other glycol

[4:56:53] >> propyline.

[4:56:53] >> Propylene.

[4:56:54] >> Yeah. Which is biodegradable. Something

[4:56:56] I learned. Don't ask me about my

[4:56:59] glycols. I don't know.

[4:57:00] >> Yeah. Okay.

[4:57:01] >> But there was a question about um if it

[4:57:04] was needed to be drained. Uh, where does

[4:57:08] that stuff go? Um, somebody said up

[4:57:11] north, I guess. I don't know where those

[4:57:13] facilities are, but there's places.

[4:57:16] Um,

[4:57:16] >> I don't know who they called. They might

[4:57:18] have called the

[4:57:20] public works folks. I mean, there's

[4:57:24] >> It has to be handled according to

[4:57:25] federal, state, and federal regulations.

[4:57:27] >> I think that's an important part of that

[4:57:29] first uh boxes that we were looking at

[4:57:32] that had all the check marks. You guys

[4:57:34] are heavily regulated. uh by federal

[4:57:37] regulations too and that stuff can't go

[4:57:40] in places except to where it can go.

[4:57:44] >> Yeah, there's I mean there's really two

[4:57:45] scenes. First of all, it's it will be

[4:57:47] very infrequent.

[4:57:49] Um second, it is uh pumped out and into

[4:57:54] an on-site

[4:57:56] um truck effectively with large tank. So

[4:58:01] some of you know if we're ever having to

[4:58:03] treat or

[4:58:05] um clean water in some way in some cases

[4:58:09] we're just taking it out. We are we are

[4:58:12] pumping it and we're replacing it. So

[4:58:15] scenario where we're disposing of it

[4:58:18] would be even more rare. But in that

[4:58:21] case, it would be pumped. It would be

[4:58:22] trucked to wherever we're supposed to

[4:58:23] take it and follow whatever kind of

[4:58:26] disposal requirement, whether it's a I

[4:58:28] don't know where the facility is, but

[4:58:31] we'll go to where it is and we'll do,

[4:58:34] you know, we'll dispose per state

[4:58:36] requirements.

[4:58:39] [snorts]

[4:58:40] >> Questions about that?

[4:58:43] >> I'm just reading what's in the code. I

[4:58:45] feel like it covers

[4:58:47] any concerns that I've seen here with

[4:58:49] the type of glycol that's being used.

[4:58:53] Um, facility shall develop a spill

[4:58:56] response plan that employs active 247

[4:58:58] containment, leak detection, spill

[4:59:01] prevention, shut off, control drainage,

[4:59:03] and emergency response measures required

[4:59:06] by applicable city, state, and federal

[4:59:08] law and permits. I mean,

[4:59:10] >> now I guess the part that I'll add in

[4:59:12] there really quick because this is something we know too.

[4:59:16] Our our technology at our waste transfer

[4:59:19] station

[4:59:21] uh could give it gave us uh COVID traces

[4:59:26] of where how much of that we knew,

[4:59:29] right? I mean, that's some of the best

[4:59:30] technology ever. So again, I guess the

[4:59:32] assurance to residents is is that if

[4:59:35] something was ever put in our treatment

[4:59:38] plant that shouldn't be there,

[4:59:41] >> um our engineer isn't here that loves

[4:59:43] the sewer treatment plant, but Seth does

[4:59:45] and we can find out where that is. Not

[4:59:48] again accusing anybody of being bad

[4:59:51] actors, but trust and verify there. We

[4:59:54] do have the most up-to-date sewer

[4:59:55] treatment plant that if wastewater and

[4:59:58] storm water wasn't compliant, we would

[5:00:00] know that if it's not compliant.

[5:00:03] >> Makes sense.

[5:00:07] » Okay. Uh emergency response and public

[5:00:10] safety. Um

[5:00:13] >> Mike, back up to that one a little bit.

[5:00:16] the the backs stop of 13 is the fact

[5:00:20] that we've limit them to an amount of

[5:00:23] water a year.

[5:00:25] >> So if they're discharging

[5:00:28] all of their

[5:00:30] coolant

[5:00:31] >> into the storm drain,

[5:00:32] >> they're using their

[5:00:33] >> use more.

[5:00:34] >> Yeah. So it there's many cases in the in

[5:00:38] the code that it doesn't specifically

[5:00:40] say X, but it's backs stop by Y and you

[5:00:43] can't comply with air quality if you

[5:00:45] have if you're generating 600 megawatts

[5:00:47] of power. Great.

[5:00:48] >> So I mean it's just

[5:00:49] >> there's several of those spots that are

[5:00:51] redundant in here.

[5:00:52] >> That's a good point, but catches it in

[5:00:54] multiple ways.

[5:00:56] >> Can I ask about water in the exhaust

[5:00:58] stream on behalf of

[5:01:00] >> resident

[5:01:02] >> meaning steam?

[5:01:03] >> Yes. vented into atmosphere not

[5:01:05] condensed and discharged. So exhaust

[5:01:09] >> yeah in the exhaust stream.

[5:01:13] >> Does that make sense? What about the

[5:01:15] water in the exhaust stream vented into

[5:01:18] atmosphere not condensed and discharged

[5:01:20] >> and water creates? So this is one of the

[5:01:23] um outputs of the bloom technology is

[5:01:26] that it does have create water or has

[5:01:30] excess water and it vents it out through

[5:01:32] the exhaust system and then that just is

[5:01:35] condensation that goes into the air and

[5:01:38] turns into clouds and becomes rain.

[5:01:41] >> So we're going to get more water

[5:01:43] >> potentially. So yeah, it's just it's

[5:01:46] just part of the chemical reaction with

[5:01:48] the fuel cell. So that doesn't and that

[5:01:51] does yeah it has nothing to do with the

[5:01:53] coolant. So that's just speaking about

[5:01:54] the chemical reaction with bloom and

[5:01:57] that that that water is evaporated.

[5:02:00] >> So is it visible?

[5:02:02] >> No.

[5:02:02] >> Okay.

[5:02:03] >> It could be. I mean steam freezes in the

[5:02:06] winter time.

[5:02:06] >> In the winter time it might be a

[5:02:08] >> might have a little steam.

[5:02:10] >> Just steam.

[5:02:11] >> Yeah. drive down the freeway in the

[5:02:12] winter time and and pay attention next

[5:02:14] time uh to the the large power plant

[5:02:18] that's there and you'll see you'll see

[5:02:20] steam rising uh from the power plant

[5:02:23] that's generating Rocky Mountain Power

[5:02:27] uh Rocky Mountain Power Facility and

[5:02:28] Vineyard and you'll just you'll see

[5:02:30] steam a lot of people look at that and

[5:02:31] think it's smoke. It's just water and it

[5:02:35] just rises.

[5:02:37] >> But that's an important point that I

[5:02:39] think John just said there.

[5:02:41] which I didn't make that distinction.

[5:02:43] It's not the coolant part of that. The

[5:02:45] coolant is in the lines. That's that's

[5:02:47] staying in the lines. That is the

[5:02:49] chemical reaction and water vapor coming

[5:02:52] up and out, not mixed with that coolant.

[5:02:55] >> That's an important point.

[5:02:57] >> I mean, we could get we could get our

[5:02:58] OKM hats on, right? And talk about the

[5:03:01] separating of molecules between

[5:03:04] >> who's we.

[5:03:06] >> Look, you can't just be the only nerd

[5:03:07] here. Like, I can get my OEM hat on.

[5:03:09] >> Okay. What did you get open though?

[5:03:12] >> I got a grade well enough to pass.

[5:03:14] >> Let me just ask.

[5:03:15] >> Everyone did.

[5:03:16] >> There's two different systems. So you

[5:03:18] have the bloom cells taking in natural

[5:03:20] gas and creating energy. And then the

[5:03:23] chips are going to need cooling because

[5:03:25] they're creating heat. And so we have

[5:03:27] this

[5:03:28] >> closed loop cooling system that's much

[5:03:30] like a radiator in your car that's doing

[5:03:31] this function. Those two systems are not

[5:03:34] interchanged. That water is not

[5:03:35] interchange. Those are two separate um

[5:03:38] processes where water is used and then

[5:03:42] exported from the bloom units.

[5:03:44] >> And the emissions from the bloom units

[5:03:47] if there was any NOx or PM 2.5 or

[5:03:50] whatever is accounted for in the air

[5:03:52] quality permit.

[5:03:53] >> There would be

[5:03:54] >> that's what's being measured.

[5:03:57] >> Even if it's in the water vapor,

[5:03:58] >> right?

[5:03:59] >> Do we see any reason emergency response

[5:04:01] public safety? Is it any different?

[5:04:03] Seth, would you say we've lost our

[5:04:05] chiefs?

[5:04:06] >> We had them review that today and um

[5:04:10] they had no concerns with that. The only

[5:04:13] thing that they did ask for I think we

[5:04:15] put in back in 13

[5:04:18] um and and so that was that was the the

[5:04:23] only issue that they raised. They

[5:04:24] appreciated the thoughtful review that

[5:04:28] went in there. So, no issues from public

[5:04:29] safety on on these everywhere that it

[5:04:33] says fire marshall or fire code. They reviewed that and and gave it a

[5:04:37] thumbs up.

[5:04:38] >> Okay.

[5:04:41] Safety personnel.

[5:04:42] >> Yeah. Both Jason and Chief Hails.

[5:04:45] >> Okay. Perfect. Again, decommissioning

[5:04:47] and financial assurance. I think this

[5:04:49] has been a good question coming from

[5:04:50] residents as well. Any

[5:04:52] >> Jack is way behind here.

[5:04:53] >> Oh, sorry. Come on.

[5:04:57] 16.

[5:04:58] >> Yeah. I think um in the last paragraph

[5:05:00] of 16 that we changed that may to a

[5:05:02] shall. So city shall require financial

[5:05:05] assurance.

[5:05:07] >> So the city shall require financial

[5:05:09] assurance instead of may.

[5:05:11] >> So we get a bond basically.

[5:05:13] >> Okay. Yeah.

[5:05:14] >> We get what bond? Sorry, can I hear you?

[5:05:16] >> A bond.

[5:05:17] >> So we get a bond to cover the

[5:05:19] decommissioning.

[5:05:20] >> There would be a bond.

[5:05:21] >> That's what that's saying. Yeah. I I

[5:05:23] believe that originated from Valition to

[5:05:25] begin with if I'm not mistaken. Is that

[5:05:27] right?

[5:05:29] >> Well, they set a plan before the

[5:05:31] decommissioning plan.

[5:05:32] >> Do we know how much that bond will be

[5:05:34] for the decommission?

[5:05:37] >> I don't know what it would have to be

[5:05:39] based on the plan. Um

[5:05:40] >> yeah,

[5:05:41] >> we typically do 100% plus another

[5:05:44] percent, right? like 110% or 125%

[5:05:49] whatever that estimated cost is.

[5:05:57] » Okay. So, you can't that basically says

[5:06:00] puts it in our code that you can't leave

[5:06:02] it worse than you found it. You'd have

[5:06:05] to decommission and take everything away

[5:06:07] and

[5:06:08] >> leave no trace.

[5:06:08] >> Leave [clears throat] no trace. Boy

[5:06:10] Scouts

[5:06:12] >> or we call the bond and do it ourselves

[5:06:15] >> or Yeah. or there's the money there to

[5:06:17] do it.

[5:06:18] >> I think it's worth noting this is not

[5:06:20] something we do anywhere else.

[5:06:22] >> Right.

[5:06:23] Like there is no

[5:06:25] >> if if so it's the property owner

[5:06:28] typically whoever owns the property

[5:06:30] after it's abandoned or whatever that

[5:06:32] does the cleanup. And

[5:06:34] >> this is very target stops being target

[5:06:37] like Stacy turned her head towards me.

[5:06:40] orth the building there before it

[5:06:42] >> or the Target like Seth mentioned

[5:06:44] earlier. Food food for Less. How long

[5:06:46] was Food for Less there?

[5:06:47] >> 10 or 15 years. Roller Derby rink,

[5:06:49] >> right?

[5:06:50] >> That one.

[5:06:51] >> Oh, yeah.

[5:06:52] >> Um, Springdale just went through the

[5:06:54] same issue with that one.

[5:06:55] >> Yeah. And and that happens that happens

[5:06:57] regularly. Right. So, this is this is

[5:06:59] extremely unique.

[5:07:00] >> Unique and I would say an improvement. I

[5:07:02] don't know when the sugar beat plant was

[5:07:04] built, but a decommissioning would make

[5:07:06] that so it's not vandalized and in yeah

[5:07:12] right now

[5:07:12] >> this goes directly to

[5:07:14] >> responding

[5:07:15] >> what happens if they're unsuccessful

[5:07:18] >> yep this is open that question

[5:07:21] >> why are we the guinea pig well here are

[5:07:24] the protections in place and if they

[5:07:26] aren't successful because of whatever

[5:07:27] reason

[5:07:28] >> the city's not on the hook

[5:07:29] >> we're not on the hook the citizen is not

[5:07:31] on the hook to decommission it

[5:07:33] >> right

[5:07:33] >> and this group I think the plan is to

[5:07:36] buy it right and the purchase price

[5:07:38] isn't in a small amount. So, they're

[5:07:40] going to be motivated to do something

[5:07:41] else with the site.

[5:07:43] >> So, if the data center doesn't work to

[5:07:45] >> they're not going to show up one day.

[5:07:48] >> They're just not going to show up one

[5:07:50] day and and leave $4 billion worth of

[5:07:52] equipment there. No, they're going to do

[5:07:53] something with it.

[5:07:54] >> Yeah. Yeah. But but that said,

[5:07:58] the the shinsters that is that a word

[5:08:00] the folks that they sell this to in the

[5:08:02] future may not that you're going to sell

[5:08:04] it.

[5:08:05] >> Shinster.

[5:08:06] >> There's a bad word. You mean like that's

[5:08:09] the word?

[5:08:09] >> Oh,

[5:08:10] >> I almost said

[5:08:11] >> I know what you almost said which is why

[5:08:13] I was like

[5:08:15] >> that camera would not have been fine. Um

[5:08:17] >> cable cable rules do apply after

[5:08:20] >> that's true. Thank you very much.

[5:08:21] >> And we're a quarter after 11.

[5:08:23] >> Yeah,

[5:08:24] >> specifically concerned

[5:08:26] >> chain

[5:08:29] » and addressed. Next 17

[5:08:33] >> successor owners and operators. I think

[5:08:35] this has been discussed. This is good to codify I think as well.

[5:08:40] >> Yeah. Everything stays on the property.

[5:08:42] >> Whe whether whether it's a different

[5:08:44] company they sell to that the agreement

[5:08:47] is staying with the property.

[5:08:48] >> Yeah.

[5:08:50] >> Independent verification. We've added

[5:08:52] some independence language. Fawn alluded

[5:08:56] to this was coming up uh here, but I I

[5:09:00] like that it's uh that it's its own

[5:09:01] section, too. But we've added some

[5:09:03] independent words in other places as far

[5:09:06] as testing. Um but here here's where you

[5:09:11] can hope you you have some level of of

[5:09:14] trust, but verify again here that uh

[5:09:16] that these are independent people, not

[5:09:19] >> it's a third party. It's not hired by

[5:09:21] us. It's not hired by you,

[5:09:23] >> but it's somebody that looks at this

[5:09:24] stuff

[5:09:24] >> or or both. I mean, the more tests, the

[5:09:27] marrier. If we have them [clears throat]

[5:09:29] hire somebody and that person runs the

[5:09:31] test and the city hires somebody,

[5:09:32] >> you want to get one

[5:09:33] >> and then you two tests to to review.

[5:09:36] >> Not not something we we could not do. We

[5:09:40] could we could certainly do that.

[5:09:42] >> Material modifications,

[5:09:44] uh, trying to to to encompass that, I

[5:09:47] think, is an important thing here.

[5:09:49] Again, some of these things aren't complete um on uh you know, on on

[5:09:56] some of the the permits and different

[5:09:58] things. Uh those material modifications

[5:10:02] uh especially if after the fact they're

[5:10:04] needing to change some of those things,

[5:10:06] bring it back, bring it back here uh to

[5:10:10] discuss if we're comfortable at all with

[5:10:13] those material modifications. I got an

[5:10:15] idea it might be the most

[5:10:18] uh studied material modification ever if

[5:10:22] it was if one was ever brought back. You

[5:10:24] guys probably don't anticipate it, but

[5:10:26] if it was, I think it would be in the

[5:10:29] complete You think it will?

[5:10:31] >> I think they're I think the Bloom

[5:10:32] technology fuel will change over time

[5:10:35] and they'll come back with a material

[5:10:36] modification

[5:10:38] >> possibly.

[5:10:38] >> I agree.

[5:10:39] >> Possibly.

[5:10:39] >> Oh, yeah. Over time.

[5:10:40] >> Or or Bloom goes away and it's an SMR. I

[5:10:44] mean, it could be anything.

[5:10:46] >> Yeah.

[5:10:46] >> Oh, dare you, Kevin.

[5:10:47] >> I think whatever it'll be will be a

[5:10:50] under a magnifying glass is what the

[5:10:52] material modification would say.

[5:10:54] >> Um, that first sentence, can we change

[5:10:57] that to city council?

[5:11:04] » No material modification may be

[5:11:06] implemented without prior written city

[5:11:09] council review and approval.

[5:11:11] >> Yeah. What does any city council know

[5:11:13] about

[5:11:15] >> materials? It's not what we know. It's

[5:11:17] the process. It's just making sure that

[5:11:19] it's

[5:11:20] >> that we a little offensive.

[5:11:23] >> Yeah. It's trans it's transparency

[5:11:24] thing.

[5:11:25] >> That's all I'm

[5:11:26] >> vy any concerns with that?

[5:11:28] >> No. Do you guys want to be in the

[5:11:29] business of doing that?

[5:11:30] >> Well, that's what I just said. Said yes.

[5:11:32] >> It's probably infrequent, right? It

[5:11:34] would be I think but it's

[5:11:36] >> we have we've defined it in a way to

[5:11:39] capture

[5:11:41] a lot of comments a lot of questions

[5:11:43] that we've gotten right what if this what if this what if this

[5:11:47] and we've said that falls under material

[5:11:49] modifications

[5:11:52] and I think it's at least right now it's

[5:11:56] to to to continue that

[5:11:59] try to build that faith with it with our

[5:12:01] constituency that we will be the ones

[5:12:04] reviewing that and approving that

[5:12:06] >> publicly.

[5:12:07] It could be a at some point everything's

[5:12:10] working great. We don't need to, but I

[5:12:12] think for now

[5:12:14] >> it makes sense.

[5:12:16] >> I like it.

[5:12:19] >> We're hanging our hat on material

[5:12:20] modifications for quite a few answers to

[5:12:23] questions. Yeah, I think it goes to your

[5:12:26] first question that you brought up at

[5:12:28] the very first of this when however long

[5:12:29] ago that was we started this process,

[5:12:32] but is can this stand up against

[5:12:36] whomever?

[5:12:36] >> Sure.

[5:12:37] >> Right. And

[5:12:38] >> to your point right there is we're

[5:12:39] hanging our hat a lot on that material

[5:12:41] modifications.

[5:12:42] >> I think the question becomes is can that

[5:12:44] stand up?

[5:12:47] >> Yeah. And I I believe from what I've

[5:12:49] seen and I guess we'll get there. We're

[5:12:51] not there yet, but we'll talk about it

[5:12:52] soon. Well, I think it I think it's just

[5:12:54] a it's another sunlight. It's another thing that if if a

[5:12:59] modification happens, it is it's it's in

[5:13:01] the sunlight here.

[5:13:02] >> Yeah.

[5:13:05] >> Uh development agreements.

[5:13:08] Feel like we've discussed that. Um,

[5:13:11] >> one one thing with this though, mayor,

[5:13:13] real quick, with the development

[5:13:15] agreement, a lot of people compare or

[5:13:17] have thrown out the comparison of of

[5:13:19] Eagle Mountain and what's happened in

[5:13:21] Eagle Mountain with some of their data

[5:13:23] centers. Just to be clear, I don't know

[5:13:25] that any of those agreements or any of

[5:13:27] those data centers came within a

[5:13:30] development with a development agreement

[5:13:32] with the city prior to construction. So

[5:13:34] I I think this is just one more

[5:13:37] protection, one more step that we're

[5:13:39] putting in place to make sure that

[5:13:41] things happen the way we're expecting

[5:13:44] them to happen.

[5:13:45] I think that's an important point and

[5:13:47] while you mentioned it, I think the

[5:13:49] distinction that I I will try to to make

[5:13:53] the point home again is

[5:13:57] uh we're still getting questions today

[5:14:00] about how much tax increment involvement

[5:14:04] do we have in this?

[5:14:07] >> The answer is zero. incentivizing

[5:14:10] >> as far as incentivizing

[5:14:12] if if we're going back to to buildings

[5:14:14] that we it's already been mentioned

[5:14:16] here, but buildings that we have been

[5:14:19] approached and the taxpayer money has

[5:14:22] been used that has happened in Spanish

[5:14:25] Fork and it's at Target that you shop at

[5:14:28] and some other places. It's not it's not

[5:14:31] happening here. Uh there is not tax

[5:14:34] increment financed and uh and it's it's

[5:14:37] not involved. So that's an important

[5:14:38] distinction there as well.

[5:14:43] Um

[5:14:45] annual compliance reports.

[5:14:48] Um yeah, those those 14 things are are

[5:14:52] stuff that are going to be uh uh

[5:14:57] part of of the development agreement.

[5:14:59] >> I did have a question on this one.

[5:15:01] >> Sure.

[5:15:01] >> On five [clears throat] and on 12, why

[5:15:03] would we put if required?

[5:15:06] Yeah, because we're

[5:15:07] >> we've required it throughout the whole

[5:15:09] process.

[5:15:09] >> I agree. Let's let's strike

[5:15:12] >> 12. We just barely required, right? We

[5:15:15] changed the May to a sha.

[5:15:17] >> Yeah, I would think five for sure.

[5:15:19] >> Five. Yeah.

[5:15:20] >> Yeah. Strike that one. Good catch.

[5:15:22] >> And then the other one in Kevin's

[5:15:25] original proposal, there was a

[5:15:27] wastewater permit monitoring results and

[5:15:29] material exceed I don't know what he

[5:15:32] said there. wastewater permits and

[5:15:34] monitoring results. Um, do we know why

[5:15:37] we is that just encompassed in number

[5:15:39] six, wastewater compliance information?

[5:15:43] >> Does that cover that?

[5:15:46] >> Which which which sir are you saying

[5:15:48] six? Uh,

[5:15:49] >> so number six on here it says wastewater

[5:15:51] and on on the one on the screen and

[5:15:53] storm water compliance information

[5:15:55] >> in Kevin's it had just said wastewater

[5:15:57] permit and monitoring results. I'm just

[5:15:59] making sure does that cover what? You're

[5:16:01] just wondering about the verbiage change

[5:16:03] and if it

[5:16:04] >> Yeah. Does it cover what we're

[5:16:04] >> cover?

[5:16:06] Throw Kevin's away.

[5:16:09] >> Well, I'm using both to make sure I'm

[5:16:11] encompassing everything here.

[5:16:12] >> Yeah, I think it does. I think your

[5:16:14] information is the same as your results.

[5:16:16] >> Okay.

[5:16:17] That was a question.

[5:16:18] >> And is the zoning administrator Dave?

[5:16:22] >> It's actually Chief Johnson.

[5:16:25] >> Yes,

[5:16:27] >> Chief Johnson.

[5:16:29] Okay. Just confirming

[5:16:34] » [laughter]

[5:16:38] » start over.

[5:16:40] >> I like the the last sentence there

[5:16:42] obviously of what we've what we've

[5:16:43] already said, but the city uh I don't

[5:16:47] know the city may make they shall.

[5:16:49] >> So on this one I I want it to be first

[5:16:53] and foremost on theirs. I I would ask

[5:16:56] that it be on them.

[5:16:58] We're not in the business of publishing

[5:17:00] other people's reports and so that's not

[5:17:03] something that we commonly do. I don't

[5:17:05] want to get ourselves in trouble because

[5:17:06] we miss a shallow and do it. But I

[5:17:09] definitely want them this is their

[5:17:10] information. I I would suggest we say

[5:17:13] they will publish it

[5:17:16] >> and then we can make it available to

[5:17:19] >> is the proper word applicant instead of

[5:17:21] city

[5:17:21] >> and then shall.

[5:17:25] Why would we not make it? It is their

[5:17:27] report. Yeah, that's covered in the

[5:17:29] first sentence. They are going to submit

[5:17:32] an annual compliance report to David.

[5:17:36] >> Yep.

[5:17:36] >> Why would we not make that available?

[5:17:38] >> I am so comfortable making it available.

[5:17:41] I'm uncomfortable with SHA because we we

[5:17:43] just aren't in the business of

[5:17:44] publishing other people's reports and so

[5:17:47] it's it's just not what we do and and so

[5:17:51] >> and they're gonna have to figure it out

[5:17:52] anyway. I don't want to miss it and then

[5:17:54] all of a sudden we're in we're we're the

[5:17:56] problem. It's not our problem.

[5:17:58] >> I think we're going to miss the annual

[5:18:00] compliance review of the data center.

[5:18:03] >> I think in 10 20 years. Yeah.

[5:18:06] >> I you worked in an organization that had

[5:18:08] left arms and right arms.

[5:18:10] >> We never missed anything.

[5:18:11] >> And never missed a thing. Yeah. You know

[5:18:14] what? You probably are right because you

[5:18:16] had 4,000 engineers working on that

[5:18:20] point. Shane, to Jesse's point, they're

[5:18:22] going to have to legally by state law

[5:18:24] disclose their water report. So,

[5:18:25] >> and I'm not saying we shouldn't post it.

[5:18:27] That's not at all what I'm saying.

[5:18:28] >> Yeah. But put everything in the same

[5:18:31] place and put it on them

[5:18:33] >> because they're already having to do it

[5:18:34] with their water. So, we just say,

[5:18:36] "Okay, the applicant shall

[5:18:39] >> it I I don't disagree with you're

[5:18:41] saying. My my concern is that the

[5:18:45] biggest thing that we've talked about in

[5:18:46] a fairly long time, we don't think we

[5:18:50] can handle pushing print.

[5:18:52] >> But my question is, would our report be

[5:18:54] any different than theirs?

[5:18:55] >> It's the same report. It's

[5:18:57] >> it's taking that report and saying

[5:18:59] >> their report,

[5:18:59] >> that's what that says.

[5:19:00] >> But I here's where I think we'd be

[5:19:04] >> better at it and and I don't think we

[5:19:06] miss it. Again, I think this is under a

[5:19:08] magnifying glass. the I if we said the

[5:19:12] applicant make it available to the

[5:19:14] public that leaves

[5:19:17] >> how are they going to make it available

[5:19:18] to the public? They say we printed it in

[5:19:20] the Herald. It was public. You know,

[5:19:23] >> it just be on their website.

[5:19:24] >> I mean, right now we send out an annual

[5:19:26] water report on the Spanish Fork

[5:19:28] drinking water. Is that what we're

[5:19:29] asking for?

[5:19:30] >> But I also think that some of these

[5:19:32] things are probably best now that like

[5:19:34] looking through it a little bit maybe

[5:19:36] closer like regular number nine

[5:19:37] regulatory and city notices of

[5:19:39] violation. That's an us thing, not a

[5:19:40] them thing.

[5:19:42] >> So, we might going to do it.

[5:19:44] >> What was that? I don't know who said

[5:19:45] that.

[5:19:47] I said it's not necessarily an us thing.

[5:19:50] It's them.

[5:19:51] >> We have given them a notice of

[5:19:53] violation.

[5:19:54] >> They have to report.

[5:19:54] >> We need to they need to include that in

[5:19:56] their report.

[5:19:58] >> I think I think I think us releasing it

[5:20:01] to the public. [snorts]

[5:20:04] Sounds sounds like we'd do that in a way

[5:20:09] more than a a private company releasing

[5:20:11] it to the public.

[5:20:14] How do we how do we confirm that it's

[5:20:16] been released and it has all 14?

[5:20:18] >> I guess that's where Seth's getting

[5:20:20] scared is releasing it to the public

[5:20:22] like we have standards of here here's

[5:20:26] our public meetings and here's the what

[5:20:28] we follow to release those things.

[5:20:30] >> Yeah.

[5:20:31] >> Would we make sure we'd be in

[5:20:33] >> well measured the same way releasing

[5:20:36] that report annually?

[5:20:37] >> Right. So state requires that they do a

[5:20:40] water. Now, us as a city, we're

[5:20:42] requiring that they do 14 different

[5:20:44] things. Seth already mentioned that if

[5:20:46] the city's supposed to do it, we're

[5:20:48] gonna forget over 10 years to do it. How

[5:20:51] do we

[5:20:51] >> How do we make sure we remember or how

[5:20:53] do we validate that that report gets

[5:20:56] released even by them?

[5:20:57] >> The the way you just said that though,

[5:20:58] Kevin, you made it sound like we are

[5:21:00] doing an annual compliance report. We

[5:21:02] are not.

[5:21:03] >> We're ask We're asking for these.

[5:21:05] >> The report is being done. There's 14

[5:21:07] chapters in it. They they put it

[5:21:09] together.

[5:21:09] >> How do we make sure? or how do we

[5:21:11] remember

[5:21:11] >> Jack make sure when they submit it you

[5:21:14] publish it

[5:21:15] >> 10 years from now how like what's

[5:21:18] >> if we get 10 years from now when we have

[5:21:19] had 10 successful years of this

[5:21:22] >> and it's so good that we forget to do it

[5:21:24] I would take that risk

[5:21:26] >> so who's who's responsible

[5:21:28] super transparent for us to

[5:21:30] >> the zoning administrator

[5:21:31] >> so the zoning administrator does that

[5:21:34] >> threw it up in your fire

[5:21:35] >> it to the zoning admin

[5:21:36] >> put it in your calendar

[5:21:37] >> we're having this argument

[5:21:38] >> sorry I'm not trying to make an argument

[5:21:40] out of this. I'm just simply saying I

[5:21:41] from my perspective if you can put it on

[5:21:43] them that's where it should be. They

[5:21:45] shall publish it.

[5:21:46] >> So then why would we say the applicant

[5:21:49] makes and then the city posts it or

[5:21:51] makes it public?

[5:21:52] >> That's what it says.

[5:21:54] >> Sounds great.

[5:21:56] >> People may start getting hon. We're

[5:21:58] tired.

[5:21:59] >> No, we're not.

[5:22:00] >> What Shane? Where do you

[5:22:01] >> So where do you envision the city making

[5:22:04] that public?

[5:22:05] >> We'll put it on our website.

[5:22:06] >> Great. It'll it's a shall we'll put it

[5:22:08] on the website

[5:22:09] >> next to the municipal code.

[5:22:11] >> I don't know where we're going to put

[5:22:12] that yet. I have a year.

[5:22:13] >> They just changed the website today. So,

[5:22:15] I don't even know where anything is.

[5:22:17] >> Look, we if if we are not super

[5:22:21] transparent on this report every single

[5:22:23] year for the next few years,

[5:22:25] >> we have not done our job.

[5:22:27] >> I'm not saying Yeah. But like I'm the

[5:22:30] report will be available. You're just

[5:22:31] saying let's make let's get more eyes on

[5:22:34] the report.

[5:22:35] >> Yes. Okay, I let's leave it with the

[5:22:38] >> Was I honory about that? I guess so.

[5:22:40] Sorry.

[5:22:40] >> Little bit late. I don't care.

[5:22:42] >> I need another five hour.

[5:22:43] >> If you scroll up,

[5:22:44] >> the report is submitted by the owner.

[5:22:49] >> You the city is saying their their

[5:22:52] responsibility to make it public.

[5:22:54] >> So, we provide it to the city

[5:22:56] >> and we make it public

[5:22:57] >> and we push print public. Yeah.

[5:22:59] >> Yeah.

[5:23:00] >> You don't have to you don't have to

[5:23:01] publish it. You provide your public.

[5:23:03] It's through your public uh you know

[5:23:06] conduit sources.

[5:23:07] >> So you provide it to the city and the

[5:23:09] city publishes it.

[5:23:10] >> Yeah.

[5:23:13] » Okay. Citywide limitation. This has been

[5:23:17] discussed but uh Jack will scroll down.

[5:23:21] >> Don't sleep over there on us. We're not

[5:23:23] done yet. Me too.

[5:23:24] >> We're not even close. No more than one.

[5:23:29] Any

[5:23:35] questions on that?

[5:23:36] >> That's a good line at the end there that

[5:23:39] Vaughn already touched on. Uh the

[5:23:41] limitation may not be avoided by

[5:23:42] separating a data center and its

[5:23:44] associated generation facility into

[5:23:45] separate parcels or approvals within the

[5:23:47] same unified development. I think that's

[5:23:50] good language there. Um did we discussed

[5:23:52] earlier if you get a [snorts] property

[5:23:56] data center purchases piece of property

[5:23:58] they build to capacity or whatever they buy

[5:24:03] the parcel next door

[5:24:05] >> a new one

[5:24:06] >> that's a new one right if they decide to

[5:24:08] add on to what they currently have or

[5:24:10] what if they've not met their 393 or 450

[5:24:15] or whatever we decide let's say they

[5:24:17] build one and the development agreement

[5:24:20] or whatever we go through says, "Okay,

[5:24:22] this one's going to be at 200." They buy

[5:24:24] the property next door. They decide they

[5:24:26] want to add on

[5:24:29] and make it larger. Is it still

[5:24:32] considered one or does that now become

[5:24:34] two?

[5:24:34] >> I think it's a material change. If

[5:24:36] they're expanding, they're existing one.

[5:24:39] Uh if they're doing a separate one,

[5:24:42] >> that would be

[5:24:43] >> But if they're expanding or growing,

[5:24:44] it's falls under the material change.

[5:24:46] >> I think so.

[5:24:47] >> They're going to need a new air quality

[5:24:48] permit, which is also a material change.

[5:24:50] All that all of that change same as if

[5:24:52] they changed equipment.

[5:24:53] >> I think you're catching that in the

[5:24:55] material change.

[5:25:00] » Now the big one.

[5:25:03] >> Yeah. So, so 23 and 24 here. Um

[5:25:08] enforcement.

[5:25:10] This this has been asked by residents

[5:25:12] and I think it's a valid concern. What

[5:25:14] teeth do you really have? Right.

[5:25:16] >> Yeah. Uh Von, this is where we look to

[5:25:19] teeth

[5:25:20] >> in your your professional area for uh

[5:25:25] because we don't want to get something

[5:25:26] like this wrong. What's your obviously

[5:25:29] you help you you you've written this.

[5:25:31] You believe it's the teeth that we need

[5:25:34] in something like this to protect

[5:25:37] >> like I called it before. It's a menu of remedies that we can choose from

[5:25:41] among um we can test, we can inspect, we

[5:25:45] can give them notices to cure. Um we can

[5:25:50] even do a shorter cure period where

[5:25:52] that's necessary for public health

[5:25:55] safety and the environment.

[5:25:57] Um operational restrictions and

[5:26:00] suspension.

[5:26:04] Yeah. um

[5:26:07] additional remedies or are and this is

[5:26:10] important D the remedies are cumulative

[5:26:12] so we can do them all if we want if we

[5:26:15] needed to not just one or the other

[5:26:20] and then cost of enforcement is is also

[5:26:23] there but again the the development

[5:26:25] agreement will have its own like I

[5:26:27] mentioned the specific performance and

[5:26:28] the injunction

[5:26:31] remedies

[5:26:37] Yeah, I think the the the paragraph

[5:26:39] right above D of where immediate action

[5:26:43] is authorized because of an imminent

[5:26:44] threat, an operational restriction or

[5:26:46] suspension shall be imposed subject to

[5:26:48] applicable notice, hearing and appeal

[5:26:50] requirements. Obviously, there's laws

[5:26:52] that business and governments need to play by, but the question that

[5:26:57] people have asked this, if it got

[5:27:01] so blatant, you know, you're you're

[5:27:03] reading there

[5:27:05] uh from imminent threat, a restriction

[5:27:09] or suspension shall be imposed.

[5:27:14] Those are usually pretty black and white words.

[5:27:22] Yeah.

[5:27:23] >> Um, I think the cost of enforcement's

[5:27:25] important too to to finish that

[5:27:27] paragraph up. Uh, that it's not on us

[5:27:30] for that. That's the owner.

[5:27:34] » Yeah. One of the concerns a lot of

[5:27:36] residents say is, "What if you get

[5:27:38] somebody like Elon Musk that's got

[5:27:40] unlimited funds? You can just throw

[5:27:42] money at a problem. How do you address

[5:27:44] that?" Well, in section C it says

[5:27:49] or pursue any other available remedy.

[5:27:52] So, let's say we do all of the financial

[5:27:55] stuff, the fines. We give them time to

[5:27:57] try and fix it first. Then we throw

[5:27:59] start throwing the money at it. That's

[5:28:01] not working. They just keep paying the

[5:28:03] fines. Then you get to this where it

[5:28:05] says pursue any other available remedy

[5:28:08] up to and including revocation of the

[5:28:10] business license to operate the data

[5:28:13] center or on-site power generation. So

[5:28:15] city has the power if it gets to that

[5:28:17] point which hopefully it never would but

[5:28:19] they could revoke their business

[5:28:21] license.

[5:28:22] >> That was under C right

[5:28:25] >> that's under C.

[5:28:27] [clears throat]

[5:28:29] This one is this is extremely important

[5:28:31] section. It feels like it's

[5:28:35] here are the generalities

[5:28:38] of what we can do and we're going to get

[5:28:41] real specific in a development

[5:28:42] agreement.

[5:28:46] Is that basically

[5:28:53] » we're going to talk more about what the

[5:28:54] cure period is? What?

[5:28:58] >> Yeah.

[5:29:00] What imminent threat might be?

[5:29:05] » I can't believe you bring up Elon Musk.

[5:29:08] I mean, I would think that the the MAGA

[5:29:10] crowd would prevent him from doing

[5:29:12] >> more money.

[5:29:12] >> He brought it in.

[5:29:13] >> I don't know. MAGA

[5:29:17] » Okay, I agree.

[5:29:18] >> This one is this one's tough for me.

[5:29:20] like

[5:29:22] not it is a it is a very very important

[5:29:26] part of this overall code text

[5:29:28] amendment. The the enforcement part um

[5:29:32] is where the proof is in the pudding.

[5:29:35] >> Right.

[5:29:35] We've developed this long list of

[5:29:37] requirements they have to meet. We

[5:29:39] believe they're going to meet them. Now

[5:29:42] we need to hold them accountable when it

[5:29:43] doesn't if they don't.

[5:29:45] Um,

[5:29:47] we've had this since 4 I guess

[5:29:52] yesterday. You sent us a a draft of this

[5:29:54] yesterday.

[5:29:56] This is the this is the place where if I

[5:29:59] had more time, I would take it here. So,

[5:30:01] >> well, it's changed since the one that we

[5:30:03] got yesterday, though, too.

[5:30:05] >> Has it has it materially materially

[5:30:08] changed? What is the right

[5:30:09] >> Well, the the business license part was

[5:30:12] added since

[5:30:13] >> Yeah, we're trying to get more teeth to

[5:30:14] it, right? But we're trying to get

[5:30:16] better, right? We're trying to get more.

[5:30:17] I think that's important.

[5:30:19] >> There's some there. It's not I'm not

[5:30:21] saying it's bad. I'm just saying that

[5:30:23] >> it's one place that I could spend more

[5:30:27] time on.

[5:30:28] >> Yeah. Looking at it though, I can't I

[5:30:30] can't think of what else outside of

[5:30:32] what's here and what would be in a

[5:30:34] development agreement you would include

[5:30:36] that would have more teeth than taking

[5:30:38] away their business license.

[5:30:39] >> The development agreement will have the

[5:30:40] liquidated damages, too. like if there's

[5:30:44] an exceedence of any one of those areas

[5:30:45] of concern, there'll just be an

[5:30:47] automatic,

[5:30:49] you know,

[5:30:51] fee, not a fee, but it's liquidated

[5:30:53] damages,

[5:30:54] >> which is saying what those damages are

[5:30:56] hard to quantify. So, we're just going

[5:30:57] to agree what they are going to be.

[5:30:59] You're going to pay this.

[5:31:01] >> So, there's those as well. That's not

[5:31:03] really spelled out.

[5:31:04] >> And the curing period is in there as

[5:31:05] well. Yeah.

[5:31:06] >> Cure periods are in the development

[5:31:07] agreement.

[5:31:11] » Yeah. And I get I guess where I get to a

[5:31:13] place with this, it start it starts to

[5:31:15] go into

[5:31:17] for somebody uh a business to live up to

[5:31:22] this

[5:31:24] must believe within the teeth of this

[5:31:27] that I that I that they're not going to

[5:31:28] have any problems. That doesn't mean we

[5:31:30] don't plan

[5:31:32] >> that we're not planning for the worst to

[5:31:33] happen. We're hoping for the best and here's here's the worst.

[5:31:38] Um,

[5:31:42] but I think I think the the fixes that

[5:31:46] would need to happen if something got

[5:31:49] sideways with this is an important

[5:31:51] aspect in in this agreement and the code

[5:31:56] to say, hey, you could lose your

[5:31:59] business license and not operate a

[5:32:00] business. you know, and

[5:32:03] I know it's not apples to apples, you

[5:32:05] know, my when they come and inspect me

[5:32:09] and there's some carpet tiles in where

[5:32:13] the furnace sits in my place, they said,

[5:32:16] "You take those out or else we'll pull

[5:32:18] your business license." I mean, it's

[5:32:19] pretty pretty quick. But, uh, here's

[5:32:23] some much bigger and faster liquidated

[5:32:25] damages and to including suspension and

[5:32:28] revocation.

[5:32:30] I think that's an important point to

[5:32:31] make.

[5:32:36] » I think it's all there. I just

[5:32:39] >> If I was going to spend more time, it

[5:32:41] would be here.

[5:32:41] >> Okay.

[5:32:44] Um the last one, codes and permits. So,

[5:32:48] the unaffected things that are already

[5:32:51] in law. I think that's an important

[5:32:52] thing, too. So again, uh if if this was

[5:32:57] to move forward and and this site be

[5:33:00] repurposed for this,

[5:33:02] just like other construction things

[5:33:04] happen around the community, um the

[5:33:08] noise, dust, mud, surface water, all

[5:33:10] that stuff has to be up to SWIP

[5:33:12] standards, which which is regularly

[5:33:15] inspected. Um

[5:33:20] anything else?

[5:33:26] Seth, maybe this is the part where uh

[5:33:30] where I'd like uh the city manager's

[5:33:34] take on this. You've been you've been

[5:33:36] intimately involved for a bit now here.

[5:33:40] Um you know a thing or two about other

[5:33:42] cities across the state, some of your

[5:33:44] colleagues and everything else. I guess

[5:33:48] uh from an aspect everybody has our

[5:33:50] email and has been asking us as elected

[5:33:52] officials who have a period of time

[5:33:55] serving here it's we do consult

[5:33:58] obviously with the professionals like

[5:34:00] yourself and Vaughn and Dave and uh Jake

[5:34:05] and everybody else that's involved in

[5:34:06] this stuff. So, I don't mean to put you

[5:34:09] on the spot by any means, but in your

[5:34:12] professional

[5:34:14] uh space, we are we we do know you love

[5:34:17] the city that you're the manager of,

[5:34:19] too. So, we would never question your

[5:34:21] love, but tell us in a in a professional

[5:34:26] space as well what your feelings are

[5:34:29] uh with where we're at on this project

[5:34:32] and proposal.

[5:34:33] >> Thanks, Mayor. I um

[5:34:37] we've spent a lot of time studying this

[5:34:39] topic and

[5:34:41] um we get we get a handful of calls

[5:34:46] u every couple of weeks

[5:34:49] from groups wanting us to wanting to

[5:34:51] consider de data centers. And we've had

[5:34:55] just [clears throat] this week a couple

[5:34:56] of data center groups reach out to us uh

[5:35:00] some multiple times a day saying don't

[5:35:03] change Title 15.

[5:35:06] It's too restrictive.

[5:35:09] Uh they don't want it to pass because

[5:35:11] they can't meet it. Um, so this is

[5:35:14] certainly something that everybody's

[5:35:15] watching, I think, because

[5:35:17] um, some want

[5:35:20] less standards and and some want more

[5:35:23] standards. We've studied specific

[5:35:26] places. I I've as I've chatted with a

[5:35:28] few people, I've talked about things

[5:35:30] that they're afraid of and and one thing

[5:35:32] that I try to do when I find I'm I'm

[5:35:34] afraid of something is I try to dig into

[5:35:36] it and I try to try to talk to it or or

[5:35:40] study it or go research it, whatever

[5:35:42] that that fear might be. So, we've gone

[5:35:45] to different places, we've seen the

[5:35:46] technology, we've touched it, we've

[5:35:47] smelled it, we've heard it, heard it,

[5:35:49] we've we've felt it. Um

[5:35:53] and and uh I've chatted with my

[5:35:55] colleague in a city that has um at least

[5:35:59] two large data centers to gather a lot

[5:36:03] of information. We've chatted with the

[5:36:04] state um a few different individuals at

[5:36:07] the state

[5:36:08] um a couple of different attorneys and all in an effort to understand you

[5:36:13] know as much as we can and even with

[5:36:15] that I'm sure we don't understand

[5:36:16] everything right but I wanted to share

[5:36:19] with with your question um as I've

[5:36:22] looked at the the information and the

[5:36:24] technology it's been it's been

[5:36:26] wonderfully eye openening um I know that

[5:36:29] there are bad actor data centers out

[5:36:31] there and wonderfully I think for the

[5:36:34] world they're getting better and better

[5:36:37] and and uh I don't know who the judge is

[5:36:41] that says we do or don't need data

[5:36:43] centers but it seems like the

[5:36:46] marketplace is telling us we do because

[5:36:48] we get phone calls every other day it

[5:36:50] seems every week wanting another data

[5:36:53] center. So the need for technology

[5:36:56] compute technology seems to be out

[5:36:58] there. And so if we can if we can do a

[5:37:00] data center, if we need to do a data

[5:37:02] center, if data centers need to exist,

[5:37:04] we I think we have to figure out how to

[5:37:05] do it better. Um,

[5:37:08] this this Nova site that we went to, um,

[5:37:11] I think is you could describe as a

[5:37:13] cousin to this facility, but it's a it's

[5:37:16] like an iPhone 16 compared to an iPhone

[5:37:20] 18. I'm an Android guy, so I don't even

[5:37:22] know what that means, but

[5:37:25] it's an older version, right? and and

[5:37:27] you know the the Facebook site that's in

[5:37:29] Eagle Mountain probably is an an Apple

[5:37:32] 7, you know, in terms of of how its

[5:37:35] technology has been used.

[5:37:38] And so this is one evolution or two

[5:37:40] evolutions better and in terms of this

[5:37:43] some of the issues. Um I think

[5:37:46] specifically there this group has tried

[5:37:49] to solve for sound even more than than

[5:37:52] that Nova site. chatting with my

[5:37:54] counterpart in in West Jordan, um he

[5:37:57] said that that that particular site is a

[5:38:01] fantastic neighbor. Um as they describe

[5:38:05] different uh industrial uses out there,

[5:38:08] u Jack, would you mind pulling up that

[5:38:10] image of of the area? Um

[5:38:14] in 2015, there was a a subdivision. If

[5:38:18] you you can use Google Maps and go back

[5:38:20] in time and Jack, if you'd circle around

[5:38:22] the houses. Yeah, that subdivision right

[5:38:24] there existed in 2015. It started to be

[5:38:27] constructed in 20 2015 and everything

[5:38:29] else around it wasn't there. It was a

[5:38:31] large field. Um and then in the ensuing

[5:38:36] years more development occurred and in

[5:38:39] 2020

[5:38:41] where that red pin is that that building

[5:38:44] and the two others on either side those

[5:38:47] started to be constructed one at a time.

[5:38:50] Those homes had been there for five

[5:38:51] years. And um in this area you've got an

[5:38:56] Amazon fulfillment center. You've got a

[5:38:58] Cisco

[5:39:00] uh a Cisco distribution center, Cisco

[5:39:04] SYSCO, the food type, not computer type.

[5:39:08] You've got another data center that's

[5:39:09] off this image and down a little bit. I

[5:39:12] think we saw a sheetrock. I don't know

[5:39:14] what they do with sheetrock, but they

[5:39:15] have a lot of sheetrock there, right?

[5:39:16] Just a bunch of different industrial

[5:39:17] facilities. And my counterpart in this

[5:39:20] community said, "This is the quietest

[5:39:24] business in the area." Um, they pay

[5:39:30] their bills on time. They use the little

[5:39:33] water that they said they use is exactly

[5:39:35] what they use.

[5:39:37] Um, they pay their taxes and and

[5:39:40] continued on and said, "If I could have

[5:39:42] 10 of them in my community, I would take

[5:39:45] 10 because they're they're doing exactly

[5:39:48] what they said and they're a great

[5:39:50] community

[5:39:52] benefit and partner. They're not a

[5:39:55] worry."

[5:39:56] um in terms of how that city operates

[5:39:58] and that that has been I think really

[5:40:00] helpful for me. So, as we've worked

[5:40:03] through a lot of the issues, I think the

[5:40:05] title that we've talked about

[5:40:06] extensively tonight is is an excellent

[5:40:08] draft and made better with with the

[5:40:11] commentary that we've had tonight. Um,

[5:40:14] we collectively, and when I say we, I'm

[5:40:16] not saying just staff. You specifically

[5:40:18] as mayor and counsel,

[5:40:21] we have collectively heard the comments

[5:40:23] and have tried to address every type.

[5:40:27] And I'm confident that we have we've uh

[5:40:32] we've heard. Um, I'm sure that for

[5:40:35] somebody out there, this isn't

[5:40:36] addressed, you know, to the the degree

[5:40:38] that they want, [clears throat] but I'm

[5:40:40] really confident that we've gotten it to

[5:40:41] a place that is is great and and frankly

[5:40:45] is more extensive than,

[5:40:48] excuse me, than any other community that has dealt with this. So, I I've

[5:40:53] leaned a lot on uh Dave and Vaughn in

[5:40:57] this process and and you know, I think

[5:41:00] they would they certainly could share

[5:41:01] their own thoughts, but we feel like

[5:41:03] we've gotten this to a a good place and

[5:41:05] you've made it better and uh I don't

[5:41:08] have any concerns anymore. I think

[5:41:10] they've been mitigated. I think they've

[5:41:12] been addressed and I know that there are

[5:41:15] people that do have concerns and I'm

[5:41:18] confident that when if this if this

[5:41:21] passes and if it gets constructed that those concerns either won't

[5:41:24] materialize because they aren't um what the fear says it is, you know, that

[5:41:32] it won't be as loud or it won't be as

[5:41:34] hot, right? Because again, I've I've

[5:41:35] felt it in in actual application. So, I

[5:41:38] don't think those fears will materialize

[5:41:40] or if they do, I'm confident that we

[5:41:42] have the ability to mitigate and that

[5:41:44] they can be mitigated.

[5:41:48] I think that's those are my sentiments.

[5:41:50] >> Thanks. I appreciate that.

[5:41:52] [clears throat] That's helpful. Do you

[5:41:54] have any questions for manager parents

[5:41:58] or or or

[5:42:00] Dave or or Von? I don't want to limit

[5:42:03] you from speaking either since he

[5:42:05] mentioned you, but

[5:42:08] anything that you wanted to add?

[5:42:10] >> I'll just I'll just say I don't I'm not

[5:42:12] going to comment on the public policy of data centers or AI or anything like

[5:42:17] that. My role I think has been limited

[5:42:20] to trying to make this legal and make it

[5:42:23] possible in this title 15 with

[5:42:25] appropriate guard rails and regulations

[5:42:27] and with the forthcoming development

[5:42:29] agreement. Um I think we've done that.

[5:42:34] So

[5:42:36] I guess from that aspect I'm proud proud

[5:42:39] of the work and it's been a lot of work

[5:42:40] the last

[5:42:42] while

[5:42:44] but I'm proud of the product.

[5:42:50] » My only ad would be that even though we

[5:42:53] met uh the folks from Valition just

[5:42:55] either late last year or early this year

[5:42:58] this has been in the works for a lot

[5:43:00] longer than that. we've been talking

[5:43:02] about this is a land use and is how to

[5:43:04] deal with it and the potential to have

[5:43:06] something like this operating in Spanish

[5:43:08] Fork. Um all with a different model than

[5:43:11] what Valition has presented. But these

[5:43:14] are at least many of the questions that

[5:43:16] you guys have have worked through are

[5:43:18] things that have been on our minds for

[5:43:20] quite some time.

[5:43:24] » Thanks for that as well. Um

[5:43:28] any any thoughts you guys have that you

[5:43:32] have any further issues that you you

[5:43:35] wanted to bring up or discuss that you

[5:43:37] don't think we discussed

[5:43:40] >> today tonight uh or any statements you

[5:43:43] want to make before

[5:43:45] uh possibly entertaining a motion on

[5:43:47] this?

[5:43:48] >> Yeah, Mayor got a few things and I know

[5:43:51] we're getting [clears throat] late so

[5:43:51] I'll try and

[5:43:53] >> try and keep it short. Von talked about

[5:43:55] his role or what his what his role in

[5:43:59] this whole thing was. I feel like it's

[5:44:01] important as a city council member to

[5:44:04] kind of walk through my thinking and my

[5:44:08] role um as I've come to this decision.

[5:44:11] This is without a doubt the biggest

[5:44:13] decision I think I will make as a member

[5:44:15] of the city council. I've I'm on my

[5:44:17] fifth year and I don't think there will

[5:44:20] be anything that will come before me

[5:44:21] that'll be more more impactful to the

[5:44:24] community or more important than this.

[5:44:26] And so I feel like I owe it to the

[5:44:29] community to explain how I came to my

[5:44:33] decision and how I came through this

[5:44:35] process. Um

[5:44:38] we're either voting yes or we're voting

[5:44:39] no. for voting yes. I need to be

[5:44:41] comfortable with saying that I feel like

[5:44:44] I've looked at all of the impact or

[5:44:46] potential impact that could come to the

[5:44:49] city and I'm comfortable with that. If I

[5:44:52] vote no, I need to be able to

[5:44:57] also consider what happens by not

[5:44:59] allowing this youth to come into the

[5:45:01] city. And a lot of people say, well,

[5:45:03] what's the benefit of even letting these

[5:45:05] guys come? Why do we want a data center

[5:45:08] as

[5:45:10] a member of the city council, one of my

[5:45:11] main responsibilities is the city

[5:45:13] budget. And I cannot ignore the

[5:45:17] potential of adding revenue from one

[5:45:20] industry, from one business to the city

[5:45:22] budget. when they talk about $4 million.

[5:45:26] Currently, as a city, we bring in, if

[5:45:28] you look at our current budget for 2027,

[5:45:31] we're projecting to bring in $6.3

[5:45:33] million in property taxes for everything

[5:45:37] inside Spanish Fork. I don't know if

[5:45:40] it's going to be $4 million, if that's

[5:45:42] conservative or not, but that's the

[5:45:44] number we've been given. So, you're

[5:45:45] taking six million and you're adding

[5:45:47] another four from from one business.

[5:45:51] Um, as a board member of our senior

[5:45:54] board where they're on fixed incomes and

[5:45:58] they talk about property tax increases,

[5:46:00] we've all had the experience of having

[5:46:03] to go through a truth in taxation,

[5:46:05] excuse me, truth and taxation and and we

[5:46:08] did that a few years ago. That was not

[5:46:10] pleasant.

[5:46:12] If you take $4 million and you calculate

[5:46:15] what that would look like in a truth and

[5:46:17] taxation to bring in an additional $4

[5:46:21] million revenue to the city, you're

[5:46:23] looking at about $19 a month on every

[5:46:25] household. Those those are real dollars,

[5:46:28] real potential. Um will the city be fine

[5:46:32] without this? Yeah, we've already

[5:46:33] budgeted. We're going to we're going to

[5:46:35] get by. um that's not a concern, but

[5:46:39] we've been in meetings where we've

[5:46:41] talked about future needs that this

[5:46:43] growing city has, including our fire

[5:46:46] department. And how long we'll be able

[5:46:48] to continue to not do a truth in

[5:46:50] taxation, I don't know. And so there is

[5:46:54] that potential. So if I'm voting no, I

[5:46:56] have to consider the fact that I am

[5:46:58] saying no to a potential

[5:47:01] property tax revenue to our city. And so

[5:47:03] those are my two thoughts there. Um,

[5:47:06] [clears throat]

[5:47:09] one of the concerns that we're going to

[5:47:10] get is that,

[5:47:12] you know, why not more time? Why not

[5:47:14] take more time and just, you know, think

[5:47:16] this through a little bit longer?

[5:47:20] I want to maybe Jack, do you have my

[5:47:22] link that I sent you with the

[5:47:24] spreadsheet?

[5:47:25] So Dave mentioned this. We've not just

[5:47:28] over the past two weeks been trying to

[5:47:31] figure this out. We go to annual water

[5:47:33] or power conferences where we've talked

[5:47:35] about self-generation for a long time.

[5:47:39] And so if somebody says, well, you

[5:47:42] rushed into this, you didn't take time

[5:47:44] to actually think about it. We've been

[5:47:46] looking at this for a very long time.

[5:47:49] We as a council received

[5:47:54] 223

[5:47:57] emails from the residents with concerns.

[5:48:00] We've read through every single email.

[5:48:02] Those came from 187 unique individuals

[5:48:05] that sent us an email. I've read every

[5:48:08] single comment and watched every real on

[5:48:10] Facebook regarding data centers. I know

[5:48:12] it's being shared and I know what's

[5:48:14] being said. I take this serious. Um,

[5:48:18] this is a big deal to me. I took every

[5:48:20] single email that we received from every

[5:48:23] resident and I dissect. This is what I

[5:48:24] do for work. I'm a business intelligence

[5:48:27] analyst. I gather data. I analyze it and

[5:48:30] I deliver it to upper management so they

[5:48:33] can make important decisions for the

[5:48:35] company I work for.

[5:48:37] I dissected every single issue that

[5:48:39] every resident brought before us and I

[5:48:42] listed those concerns and those

[5:48:44] questions. Um, you can go through every

[5:48:46] single one of them. You got water,

[5:48:48] you've got water chemicals. If you

[5:48:49] scroll to the right a little bit, Jack,

[5:48:52] you'll see who submitted that concern.

[5:48:54] Those are all listed. After I gathered

[5:48:57] that information of what are the

[5:48:59] concerns the residents have, my next

[5:49:02] concern or my next issue was how do we

[5:49:05] make sure that we're addressing these

[5:49:07] concerns in title 15 in the in the DA?

[5:49:12] Um, and if there's a concern that we can

[5:49:14] address, why not? I went through every

[5:49:17] single question and I analyzed and

[5:49:20] basically it goes back to that matrix

[5:49:21] that we had before where I made sure

[5:49:26] that in my mind every every base has

[5:49:29] been covered and I I feel like we've

[5:49:32] done that. Um

[5:49:34] the title 15 that we're looking at today

[5:49:38] is much better and much improved from

[5:49:40] what we saw two weeks ago. And that's

[5:49:42] because of not us. It's because of the

[5:49:45] residents that submitted their concerns

[5:49:47] that we were able to analyze and say,

[5:49:49] "How do we mitigate this? How do we fix

[5:49:51] this?" And so to everybody that sent an

[5:49:53] email, Shane, you mentioned this

[5:49:56] earlier, some of the emails were just

[5:49:57] don't do it or do it. Some had actual

[5:50:01] concerns that we were able to then

[5:50:02] analyze. Some of them were not great.

[5:50:05] Some of them said, "If you do this, we

[5:50:08] will unelect you." Um, after the hours

[5:50:11] of time that I put into this, that's

[5:50:13] probably not the threat that you think

[5:50:14] it is. So, um, but I am very comfortable

[5:50:21] with the decision that I'm going to make

[5:50:23] tonight because of the time that I've

[5:50:25] put into this. And so, I just wanted to

[5:50:27] make that clear.

[5:50:29] >> Thank you, Councilman Oiler. Anybody

[5:50:31] else want to

[5:50:33] >> I don't want to follow, Kevin.

[5:50:35] point.

[5:50:36] >> Um

[5:50:39] Kevin has done [snorts] a great great

[5:50:40] amount of work and I appreciate that

[5:50:42] effort immensely. Um I think everyone up

[5:50:46] here today has reviewed this more than

[5:50:53] any other item that we've ever come

[5:50:54] across.

[5:50:56] Um, some of us talk a lot up here and

[5:50:59] some of us talk less, but I know for

[5:51:01] sure that each one of us has put in a

[5:51:03] ton of time to get to a point where

[5:51:05] we're at today.

[5:51:07] Um,

[5:51:08] [clears throat]

[5:51:10] I think we've come a long way from where

[5:51:13] we were a month ago and I think we're

[5:51:15] getting I feel like the code is getting

[5:51:18] very close to a point where

[5:51:21] whether or not the development agreement

[5:51:23] gets there or not, I think the code is

[5:51:25] getting to a point where it makes some

[5:51:26] sense.

[5:51:28] Um,

[5:51:30] I'm not ready to say yes or no tonight.

[5:51:34] I would prefer that now that we've heard

[5:51:37] again from the community

[5:51:39] heard from us the changes that Von's

[5:51:43] going to make, which I know that we all

[5:51:45] can see, um I would rather have that do

[5:51:49] another two weeks of it. In the

[5:51:50] meantime, put the development agreement

[5:51:52] together so I can compare the two side

[5:51:54] by side. Um

[5:51:58] and then make a more informed decision.

[5:52:00] But we are close. We are close to a code

[5:52:05] that would make some sense if this is

[5:52:07] something we want to do. I'm

[5:52:09] [clears throat] not convinced this is

[5:52:11] something we want to do, but I believe

[5:52:12] that the code would protect the

[5:52:15] citizenry if in fact we did say yes or

[5:52:19] it's getting very close. So for me

[5:52:21] tonight, I am I'm not ready to make a a

[5:52:25] decision.

[5:52:27] I [clears throat] want to take another

[5:52:28] two weeks to take this this document

[5:52:31] that we've had now for two days. Take

[5:52:34] the changes that we've made tonight and

[5:52:36] really internalize it before I made a

[5:52:38] decision.

[5:52:40] >> Document the development agreement or

[5:52:42] the title 15

[5:52:44] >> both. Well, I have never seen the

[5:52:46] development agreement. I don't think any

[5:52:47] of us have.

[5:52:49] >> We've seen a rough draft.

[5:52:50] >> So, I would

[5:52:52] I want to take some time. I wanna

[5:52:56] there's some questions that that I got

[5:52:58] posed to me today that I can't answer

[5:53:00] yet because I haven't I mean I was a on

[5:53:02] a plane for most of the day today. So I

[5:53:04] apologize. I didn't have a chance to

[5:53:05] review it in the depth that I wanted to.

[5:53:07] But I want to take some of the questions

[5:53:08] that were posed to me from citizens, see

[5:53:10] if if they've been addressed in this

[5:53:12] current draft. I think they have.

[5:53:15] Um be methodical about it. In the two

[5:53:18] weeks between now and then work on the

[5:53:20] development agreement

[5:53:22] and have a conversation about that next

[5:53:24] time.

[5:53:27] Thank you, Councilman Marshall.

[5:53:30] Council men and women,

[5:53:32] >> I guess just to maybe go from there. I I

[5:53:35] do appreciate all the time and effort

[5:53:37] Kevin Shane did a lot to

[5:53:40] um take what our title 15 was and then

[5:53:46] change it. And then we now have a new

[5:53:48] title 15 today that was posted last

[5:53:50] yesterday. Um and then there were some

[5:53:52] updates today. Um, so thank you for the

[5:53:54] time, effort in that because it helped,

[5:53:56] I don't know, saved me some time. So,

[5:53:58] thank you for that side of it. Um, I

[5:54:01] don't know that two weeks necessarily

[5:54:03] would change where I'm at. I do think

[5:54:06] that this new version of Title 15, I

[5:54:09] would like time to digest and to see. I

[5:54:11] don't know that it changes where I would

[5:54:12] vote, but I do think that it's something

[5:54:15] that we should take the time to really

[5:54:17] digest and make sure that we understand

[5:54:19] and know the changes that have been made

[5:54:21] and the changes that we went over

[5:54:22] tonight to make sure that they've all

[5:54:24] been encapsulated. I I trust that Van

[5:54:26] has been furiously taking notes over

[5:54:28] there, but also I think that it's

[5:54:30] important that we get this right. I also

[5:54:32] think that there might be an

[5:54:33] opportunity. Do we um and I think this

[5:54:36] goes to Shane's uh comment earlier this

[5:54:38] evening is does it have the teeth that

[5:54:41] we need it to have? Does it stand up

[5:54:42] against anybody? And I'm not saying that

[5:54:45] Vaughn can't figure that out, but I do

[5:54:47] think that this is as we've every time

[5:54:49] we've done something with this, it's

[5:54:51] gotten better. And so I think that if we

[5:54:53] can have outside eyes look at it, it

[5:54:54] could be helpful. Um I think there's an

[5:54:56] opportunity there.

[5:54:57] >> Who Sorry. Who when you say outside

[5:55:00] eyes? We use outside attorneys for

[5:55:03] things all the time. We have we have the

[5:55:05] uh League of City and Towns. We have um

[5:55:08] other council that could help. I

[5:55:10] >> there's others that have done this.

[5:55:12] Yeah, I'm not Again, I'm not saying that

[5:55:13] Von can't see that. I just think that

[5:55:15] there's probably an opportunity there.

[5:55:17] >> I do still struggle with the the zoning

[5:55:19] stuff. I I'm not going to lie about

[5:55:21] that. That is still something that is

[5:55:23] that plays in the back of my mind and

[5:55:24] still a part of my decision- making. I

[5:55:26] don't know that I'm there yet. And

[5:55:28] that's kind of where I'm at.

[5:55:30] I'd like to just kind of piggyback on

[5:55:32] Councilman Carden. I haven't said a

[5:55:33] whole lot this evening because I've been

[5:55:34] uh I've been actually pretty impressed

[5:55:36] with the title 15 changes and I I feel

[5:55:39] like this is moving in a an excellent

[5:55:41] direction. Uh excited about the

[5:55:43] development agreement to see what comes

[5:55:46] about of that. Now that said, I'm just

[5:55:47] going to go back and forth a little bit

[5:55:49] to give you some context on where I'm

[5:55:50] at. Um, you know, I've, as was mentioned

[5:55:54] earlier by Jeff, I was able to travel

[5:55:56] and and experience Bloom Cells in person

[5:55:59] and I've been on this journey for a

[5:56:01] while and I don't have any concerns with

[5:56:03] the Bloom Cell technology. I feel like

[5:56:06] the residents of Spanish Fork though,

[5:56:08] they are still trying to get that

[5:56:10] confidence and trust with Valition and

[5:56:12] you guys being newer at doing this. So,

[5:56:15] I feel like there's a little bit of a

[5:56:16] and I'm again a little bit of a pause

[5:56:19] with with them in that. So that's what

[5:56:21] I'm trying to work through. Um getting

[5:56:24] them more comfortable. So that's that's

[5:56:26] something. But um I also recognize

[5:56:29] there's a sense of urgency, right? And

[5:56:31] there, you know, it would be nice to

[5:56:33] have a vote tonight and and I completely

[5:56:34] understand and get that as well. Um, so

[5:56:38] it's definitely a back and forth and

[5:56:40] like I said, I'm [clears throat] I'm

[5:56:41] much like Councilman Cardon kind of

[5:56:42] where I fall at the moment, but I feel

[5:56:45] like, you know, we're on a great path

[5:56:48] here with the Title 15 and I I think it

[5:56:51] is a good direction. It's just a it's a

[5:56:53] tricky it's a tricky balancing act,

[5:56:54] right? I know there's that that uh rush

[5:56:56] sense, but also uh what what do we do?

[5:56:59] So, I'm not quite sure what the answer

[5:57:01] is, you know, but that's in a nutshell

[5:57:04] where I am at this evening.

[5:57:09] >> Well, it sounds to me like three for

[5:57:11] sure don't want to vote tonight, but

[5:57:13] I'll at least kind of put my two cents

[5:57:15] out there. Um, I think we've come a long

[5:57:18] way. I've appreciated Valition. I think

[5:57:20] you guys have been great to work with.

[5:57:22] Staff appreciates you. I appreciate

[5:57:24] staff. I trust staff. I appreciate Kevin

[5:57:28] and Shane. all of us at our

[5:57:30] conversations and honestly one day I'm

[5:57:33] voting this way and the next day I'm

[5:57:36] voting this way

[5:57:38] even even right now I'm like what what

[5:57:40] would I do I know I can't convince

[5:57:42] people to love data centers that are

[5:57:44] forever going to hate them giving it two

[5:57:47] more weeks will that change a whole

[5:57:49] entire community's mind about AI and

[5:57:51] data centers so I think the residents in

[5:57:54] my head there's a group that there's a

[5:57:57] hell no Then there's a group that's Yes.

[5:58:00] And there's a big portion in the middle

[5:58:04] that

[5:58:06] want to be educated. They're not they're not being ignorant or

[5:58:11] uneducated. They're just like they're

[5:58:12] still learning. And I think if we give

[5:58:14] them more time, they'll get there. But I

[5:58:16] also know that doesn't meet your

[5:58:18] timelines. Um I don't think it's really

[5:58:22] up to us to say data centers are good,

[5:58:24] data centers are bad. that I think we're

[5:58:26] trying to implement the policy and after

[5:58:29] discussing everything tonight and

[5:58:30] reading everything after we received it

[5:58:33] yesterday I I feel good about where we

[5:58:36] are. Um

[5:58:38] >> yeah I guess and that that would be my

[5:58:40] question is

[5:58:42] this gets tabled pushed off two weeks we

[5:58:46] come back two weeks and we go through it

[5:58:47] line by line again.

[5:58:49] >> No what are we looking at?

[5:58:51] >> Nope. That's that's not what I would

[5:58:54] propose. I mean, if it took that, I

[5:58:56] would be fine with it.

[5:58:56] >> Do we do we find more changes next time

[5:58:58] and we do another two weeks?

[5:59:01] >> Potentially,

[5:59:02] >> maybe.

[5:59:04] >> So, you'll get there when you're when

[5:59:06] you're comfortable. You're just not

[5:59:07] comfortable right now, correct? Because

[5:59:09] you've not seen the actual changes put

[5:59:10] into law.

[5:59:11] >> I mean, I know what they're going to be.

[5:59:12] They're not they're not very

[5:59:14] >> substantial to right now.

[5:59:16] >> I guess that's my question.

[5:59:17] >> It's a fair question, Kevin. I I think

[5:59:19] >> when will I be ready and how what's the

[5:59:21] process look like? Fair question.

[5:59:22] resolved tonight that we've not not

[5:59:25] discussed, I guess, is my question. What

[5:59:26] are we still if we're going to continue

[5:59:29] to do this? What I guess what's the

[5:59:32] expectation? What are we trying to get

[5:59:33] to that we didn't get to tonight?

[5:59:37] >> I I can't tell you the the changes that

[5:59:39] I would make if I had more time because

[5:59:41] I haven't had more time to dive into it.

[5:59:44] So, I I don't know how how to answer

[5:59:45] that question. I would come prepared

[5:59:48] next week or two weeks from now. Well,

[5:59:51] first of all, I would give these guys

[5:59:53] feedback on on what changes I would want

[5:59:56] to see.

[5:59:57] >> I think that that over the course of

[5:59:59] this um

[6:00:02] I've historically given the feedback

[6:00:04] fairly quickly and I would commit to

[6:00:07] doing that as well. They're getting

[6:00:08] smaller and smaller. We went from a we

[6:00:10] went from a complete rewrite, right? We

[6:00:12] went from this is a completely different

[6:00:15] >> text amendment than it was. So, is it

[6:00:17] possible two weeks from now you've had

[6:00:19] time to look at it and you're like,

[6:00:20] "Yeah, I'm I'm good."

[6:00:21] >> Absolutely, that could be the

[6:00:22] possibility. It could be

[6:00:25] >> that I'm not good and would vote no for

[6:00:28] it next time, right? But it's But

[6:00:31] this is, we've all said it, the biggest

[6:00:33] thing we've done in a long time,

[6:00:35] probably the biggest thing we're going

[6:00:36] to do for a long time after that. I want

[6:00:38] to get it right. Plain and simple. I

[6:00:40] think this what we're doing tonight can

[6:00:42] set the stage or over the last several

[6:00:44] weeks, months could set the stage for

[6:00:47] not just our community, but for

[6:00:48] communities across Utah. I think there

[6:00:50] was a lady tonight that said um the

[6:00:53] federal government's trying to override

[6:00:54] states and local control. Um I don't I think she's correct. Um clearly

[6:01:01] from how the how data centers have been

[6:01:04] implemented across the country, they're

[6:01:05] not not in good spots, right? Or we

[6:01:07] wouldn't be getting this kind of

[6:01:08] feedback. this might be the place where

[6:01:10] we have some reasonable regulations

[6:01:13] to be implemented across the state of

[6:01:15] Utah, not just in Spanish Fork, right?

[6:01:17] And not that not that that should weigh

[6:01:19] on us that we're going to set the

[6:01:20] standard. Um, but the state of Utah is

[6:01:23] debating on

[6:01:24] >> the data centers as we speak, right?

[6:01:26] They're going to put some language at

[6:01:28] the state level together. Maybe they can

[6:01:30] use some of ours. My my point is I I

[6:01:33] appreciate the urgency that they've had

[6:01:35] and and they've been very good about

[6:01:37] responding to our needs has and I

[6:01:40] appreciate that immensely.

[6:01:42] Um that their urgency does not create

[6:01:45] urgency on my part though and I want to

[6:01:47] make sure that I walk through this

[6:01:49] methodically and get it as right as

[6:01:51] possible because we're going to live

[6:01:53] with this for a very long time. I think

[6:01:56] that we're at a point now that it's a

[6:01:58] better use in that location than the

[6:02:00] existing use

[6:02:01] >> for sure.

[6:02:02] >> I still don't know if I want it in our

[6:02:04] community. That said, right? So, I have some time to think about I want

[6:02:09] some time to think about it. I want some

[6:02:11] time to think to to review this code

[6:02:13] more in depth and and give it the the due diligence that it that it

[6:02:20] needs. So, I can't tell you if I'll be

[6:02:22] ready in two weeks. I will have my

[6:02:25] comments ready to be discussed in two

[6:02:26] weeks and they won't be complete

[6:02:27] rewrite. So those are my extremes.

[6:02:30] >> But to your to one of the things that we

[6:02:32] said right is at least what Jeff said

[6:02:36] and maybe I heard you wrong so you can

[6:02:37] correct me is if a no vote is

[6:02:40] essentially a vote the valition might be

[6:02:42] out because of the fact of timing. Is

[6:02:43] that correct? Did I hear that right

[6:02:45] earlier?

[6:02:49] Can I ask a a separate question just so

[6:02:52] that we understand because I don't think

[6:02:54] we understand this. If there's no vote

[6:02:56] tonight,

[6:02:57] what is our process if we choose to

[6:02:59] withdraw? Is that something that we

[6:03:02] would we have to formally request that?

[6:03:05] How how would we if we chose that the

[6:03:10] timing because here here's how we see

[6:03:12] this. I don't see a 50 unanimous vote

[6:03:17] here at any time. So, if we go two more

[6:03:20] weeks and we get a uh majority vote,

[6:03:25] then that will trigger, as I mentioned

[6:03:27] earlier, a process for a referendum.

[6:03:30] There probably will be enough momentum

[6:03:32] for folks to file for that. then they

[6:03:37] will have this

[6:03:39] 45ish day window to go get 8,000

[6:03:42] signatures. Ultimately, we don't think

[6:03:45] that they would accomplish that just on

[6:03:48] the research that we have done. But what

[6:03:51] this does, it puts us out into late

[6:03:54] October

[6:03:56] um at a point where the referendum

[6:04:00] um movement

[6:04:03] will have likely exhausted that that

[6:04:06] process.

[6:04:08] and o late October between now and late

[6:04:12] October we we will have to make a

[6:04:15] different decision about keeping our

[6:04:18] team in place and going somewhere where

[6:04:21] we know that we will be able to

[6:04:23] successfully build.

[6:04:25] So, I just want to be sure that I

[6:04:28] understand if there's no vote tonight up

[6:04:31] or down,

[6:04:34] what requirement do we have to

[6:04:36] participate in another meeting in two

[6:04:40] weeks? Or if we choose not to, what's

[6:04:42] the formal process for that?

[6:04:45] >> There's any

[6:04:47] >> I think you can imagine there's any land

[6:04:49] use application.

[6:04:50] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think you you just

[6:04:52] withdraw your application and I think

[6:04:54] the council then chooses whether or not

[6:04:56] they want to continue discussing it on

[6:04:57] their own.

[6:04:58] >> Yeah.

[6:05:00] >> So, [snorts] that's just what we'll have

[6:05:01] to decide um

[6:05:03] >> based based on no vote.

[6:05:05] >> Not a fee, not a cost to withdraw an

[6:05:07] application like there is to make an

[6:05:09] application. It's just a statement

[6:05:11] >> $4 million to withdraw.

[6:05:14] >> Yeah. So, yeah, that that's will it's

[6:05:18] just something without a vote tonight.

[6:05:20] one way. Then we we have a a very short

[6:05:24] window to decide um if we move to a a

[6:05:28] location that is asking us to be there

[6:05:30] now.

[6:05:30] >> Sure.

[6:05:31] >> Um or not.

[6:05:33] >> And we respect that.

[6:05:34] >> Of course. Yeah.

[6:05:36] >> I guess the alternative to that though

[6:05:37] is we call for a vote, it's no, it's 32

[6:05:41] no

[6:05:42] >> and there isn't another meeting.

[6:05:44] then we would then we would know and we

[6:05:48] would have we would have that extra

[6:05:50] month or so which is actually at this

[6:05:53] point valuable to us. Ultimately we will

[6:05:56] be standing up these facilities. Um we

[6:05:59] really wanted to do this here. We think

[6:06:02] it's an ideal scenario. I don't I know

[6:06:05] that there's nothing that's going to

[6:06:07] come up in the next two weeks that is

[6:06:10] going to be a fundamental

[6:06:12] shift that this group has not explored

[6:06:17] or somehow has overlooked.

[6:06:20] Um and

[6:06:23] so it seems as though it just it's going

[6:06:27] to be a

[6:06:29] um

[6:06:31] really an unnecessary exercise in

[6:06:34] allowing additional time. I don't know

[6:06:36] if that's for, you know, having

[6:06:39] constituents feel better. I don't know

[6:06:41] if it helps you feel better on a

[6:06:43] reelection that you're able to say we

[6:06:45] gave it this extra time. you know there have been um

[6:06:51] there has been no lack of exhausting

[6:06:54] every every possible aspect of this. Um

[6:07:00] so um that will just we we will just

[6:07:04] have to quickly make a decision if we

[6:07:09] proceed in the process and I know and I know that you respect that and we

[6:07:12] respect your process.

[6:07:14] >> Thank you. I appreciate that Jeff. I

[6:07:17] think your company has shown respect of

[6:07:20] the process with this availability and uh and the things that go into that.

[6:07:26] Um

[6:07:28] yeah, I guess my statements here is is

[6:07:31] that I will second that the the council

[6:07:36] here does their uh does their homework

[6:07:40] um looks into these things. Um this is

[6:07:44] local government. local government that

[6:07:46] is that is lay government in in taking

[6:07:51] considerable time

[6:07:53] and and effort away from things and and

[6:07:56] um and looking into this uh for the

[6:08:00] importance that it is and and and it it

[6:08:02] shouldn't be lost that it's uh the same

[6:08:05] way with our city staff. And and just

[6:08:08] again to the public in case you don't

[6:08:10] know already, our city staff is second

[6:08:13] to absolutely none. Um, if if you don't

[6:08:17] need to take the mayor's word for that,

[6:08:19] just go ask another city what they think

[6:08:21] about Spanish Fork and our ability to

[6:08:25] look at things, to contemplate things,

[6:08:28] and to arrive at decisions that time and

[6:08:33] time again, year after year,

[6:08:36] result in positive movements forward for

[6:08:40] our city. And uh, they don't have to

[6:08:44] tell you that. they will just tell you

[6:08:46] that. And I know us as a council should

[6:08:48] not discount that because we hear that

[6:08:50] probably more than anybody. But if you

[6:08:53] want to go ask, you should you as the

[6:08:54] public should go ask the professionals

[6:08:56] that we that we have here. So I I can't

[6:09:00] overstate that time, that effort, and

[6:09:02] that research. And and also again on the

[6:09:05] human side, the the care and uh and the

[6:09:09] love that they they have for this

[6:09:11] community just as much as us. and and

[6:09:14] just as much as all of you do as well.

[6:09:17] Doesn't mean we can't have differences

[6:09:19] of opinions. I'm I'm not I'm not getting

[6:09:20] to that. But um I will tell you the

[6:09:24] financial part of this opportunity. I

[6:09:27] would certainly call it an opportunity

[6:09:31] uh to move this forward and still have

[6:09:34] the things that have to be met. uh I

[6:09:38] think are are are certainly these

[6:09:41] hurdles that would still have to be met

[6:09:43] if this was moved forward by us that I

[6:09:46] think those guard rails those

[6:09:48] protections have been put in place. If

[6:09:52] the tradeoff of what this funding type

[6:09:55] of funding would mean to our city that Kevin touched on um is you know is

[6:10:02] substantial. It's not worth if I thought

[6:10:05] it was trading off any health aspects,

[6:10:09] any quality of life aspects to our

[6:10:11] community. I would be against it and I

[6:10:15] would be against it from the outset. I

[6:10:17] think the solution

[6:10:19] discussion that's that's been here and

[6:10:22] present in meetings is an important one

[6:10:25] and uh and I'm I'm thankful I'm thankful

[6:10:29] that there's been more discussions of

[6:10:30] solutions. Um

[6:10:33] but again

[6:10:36] that financial impact that could happen

[6:10:38] to our community more so I would say to

[6:10:40] our school district that most of us pay

[6:10:43] our taxes too heavily is a opportunity.

[6:10:48] Uh and again if I thought that

[6:10:50] opportunity had trade-offs of our public

[6:10:52] health I would not be for it but

[6:10:55] I don't see that it does. Um so that's

[6:10:58] where I'm at. I think I've made my uh

[6:11:01] statement uh tonight, but I've made my

[6:11:05] statement uh on social media, too. And uh and and and that's that's fine.

[6:11:11] Um, it's not it's not to say that we

[6:11:15] haven't taken all information received here tonight,

[6:11:19] information received in the previous

[6:11:21] weeks and days and months and and that's

[6:11:25] what's got us to a better point, which I

[6:11:27] think all of us have have alluded to is

[6:11:30] getting to a better point. So, that's

[6:11:32] where I stand as mayor. Um,

[6:11:35] any other discussions or questions that

[6:11:37] you would have as as council members

[6:11:39] that vote on this? I'm happy to hear

[6:11:41] them or I'm happy to hear a motion.

[6:11:52] » I was waiting for Jesse. I'll make a

[6:11:55] motion and we'll just go from there. I

[6:11:57] don't no big deal for me. I move that we

[6:11:59] continue this for two weeks.

[6:12:03] >> Motion made by Councilman Marshall.

[6:12:06] Second by Councilman Carden. A roll call

[6:12:08] vote here. Councilman Carden.

[6:12:10] >> Yes. Councilman Oiler,

[6:12:11] >> no.

[6:12:12] >> Council,

[6:12:13] >> can I explain my vote?

[6:12:14] >> Yes, please.

[6:12:15] >> We're asked when we vote no to explain

[6:12:17] our votes.

[6:12:18] >> Yes.

[6:12:18] >> The applicant requested an up or down

[6:12:20] vote. Yes or no. Uh he's explained why.

[6:12:25] I think tableabling this knowing that the applicant is likely to withdraw

[6:12:30] is the easy way out knowing that we

[6:12:32] won't have to vote in the future. And as

[6:12:35] elected officials, I don't think we were

[6:12:37] elected to take the easy way out. So

[6:12:39] that's why I'm voting no.

[6:12:41] >> Thank you, Councilman Oiler. Uh,

[6:12:44] Councilwoman Beck,

[6:12:45] >> yes.

[6:12:46] >> Councilman Marshall,

[6:12:47] >> yes.

[6:12:48] >> Councilman Tuk,

[6:12:49] >> yes.

[6:12:49] >> And where'd it go, Council Garden? You

[6:12:51] don't want to do it again?

[6:12:54] >> Okay. Uh, that motion passes 4 to one uh

[6:12:57] to table this item uh for two weeks. Uh,

[6:13:00] so appreciate that discussion. Um,

[6:13:03] appreciate the questions and again

[6:13:05] appreciate the public's involvement

[6:13:08] tonight. uh and in previous meetings as

[6:13:10] well. Uh we've got one more item on the

[6:13:13] agenda.

[6:13:16] >> Four.

[6:13:17] >> We have like four more items.

[6:13:18] >> We have four more.

[6:13:19] >> At least three. Yeah.

[6:13:20] >> But no closed session.

[6:13:22] >> Kevin, that was a that was a good

[6:13:24] justification for the no vote. Man, I

[6:13:28] genuinely like

[6:13:30] >> like that was good.

[6:13:32] >> That's very fair.

[6:13:34] >> That was 10. Let's see.

[6:13:37] That was 101. Uh 10 two

[6:13:42] >> tableabling that as well. I guess that

[6:13:44] would be a motion. Uh 10 two is kind of

[6:13:48] hand and glove with 101 if somebody

[6:13:50] wants to make a motion there.

[6:13:53] >> I move that we table 10 two.

[6:13:56] >> Motion made by Councilman Carden.

[6:13:58] >> Second.

[6:13:58] by Councilwoman Beck. A roll call

[6:14:00] vote here. Councilwoman Beck. Yes.

[6:14:02] Councilman Marshall. Yes.

[6:14:03] >> Councilman Tuk. Yes. Councilman Carden.

[6:14:05] Yes. Councilman Oiler.

[6:14:07] >> No. Same reason as before.

[6:14:08] >> Thank you. 102's table. 103 SF Youth

[6:14:11] Theater Separation Agreement.

[6:14:14] >> Spanish Fork Youth Theater.

[6:14:17] >> Bronco.

[6:14:20] >> Good morning, Mayor and Council. I

[6:14:22] didn't mean to clear the room.

[6:14:24] [laughter] Uh

[6:14:25] so back in July uh Youth Theater,

[6:14:28] Smashburg Youth Theater approached us uh

[6:14:31] with a desire to separate from the city

[6:14:33] and uh the arts council

[6:14:36] uh due to the lack of availability in

[6:14:39] facilities and time in the schools. Uh

[6:14:43] which I completely understand. uh they

[6:14:46] it's gotten harder and uh and with all

[6:14:49] due respect and but credit to you

[6:14:51] theaters, I believe some of it's their

[6:14:53] fault because they have ran such a good

[6:14:56] program since they've joined the city

[6:14:57] umbrella or has come under the city

[6:14:59] umbrella in 2007. Those kids are now

[6:15:02] participating in high school programs.

[6:15:04] They've stayed with them and they're

[6:15:05] filling it up and so it's been a

[6:15:06] challenge for them. So they uh they

[6:15:08] would like to venture out on their own

[6:15:10] and and try to seek out other

[6:15:12] facilities. And so we've uh created a

[6:15:15] separation agreement and one thing that

[6:15:17] we we desire to do is to help them get a

[6:15:20] start uh in their independence. And

[6:15:23] we've listed in this agreement uh some

[6:15:26] assets we'd like to give them. Uh one is

[6:15:29] a one set rem one set mover. Uh three

[6:15:33] pressure zone microphones, six labier

[6:15:35] microphones, 39 uh mic pouches and

[6:15:38] clips. Uh all the current set props and

[6:15:43] costumes that they've used uh since 2007

[6:15:46] that are in our storage units, the

[6:15:48] rights to the show performances. Uh so

[6:15:51] the MTI agreement uh to perform Lion

[6:15:55] King Jr. and beauty and the prints and

[6:15:59] their contracts and their and their uh

[6:16:02] and their show kit. And then the last

[6:16:04] thing is to um allow them to use the

[6:16:07] storage units and then place them in

[6:16:09] their names uh January 1st so we pay

[6:16:12] through the through the end of this

[6:16:14] year. And uh with that said, we wish

[6:16:16] them the best in their future endeavors

[6:16:18] and hope that they're very successful in their in their new way. So

[6:16:24] >> that's great. Any questions?

[6:16:25] >> Questions for Bronco about this

[6:16:27] separation agreement?

[6:16:30] >> No, Bronco, I appreciate it. I know you

[6:16:31] and I have talked about this quite at

[6:16:32] length and I appreciate the time and

[6:16:34] effort that you and the rest of the

[6:16:35] parks group and Emily or whomever has

[6:16:38] been helping with that to figure out how

[6:16:40] we can best help them as they get going

[6:16:42] because I know that it's going to be,

[6:16:44] you know, that especially the

[6:16:45] productions that we've had already paid

[6:16:47] for to to give those is is a good good

[6:16:50] effort to try to hey, you know, hey, we

[6:16:52] want you to be successful. So, thank

[6:16:54] you.

[6:16:54] >> Yeah. Thank you.

[6:16:56] >> Thank you.

[6:16:57] >> No other questions for Bronco. I'd

[6:16:59] entertain a motion on 10.3.

[6:17:06] » And the motion.

[6:17:06] >> I don't see it.

[6:17:08] >> I move that we approve the Spanish Fork

[6:17:10] Youth Theater separation agreement.

[6:17:12] >> Motion made by Councilman Carden.

[6:17:14] Second.

[6:17:14] >> Second by Councilman Oiler. Roll call

[6:17:16] vote here. Councilwoman Beck. Yes.

[6:17:18] >> Councilman Marshall? Yes.

[6:17:19] >> Councilman Tuk? Yes.

[6:17:20] >> Councilman Carden?

[6:17:21] >> Yes.

[6:17:22] >> Councilman Oiler? Yes.

[6:17:24] >> Item 10.3

[6:17:26] is approved. Takes us to 11, a

[6:17:28] discussion item. This is Highway 6 and

[6:17:33] Center Street.

[6:17:36] Manager Paring

[6:17:39] [clears throat]

[6:17:43] a little stiff like he's been sitting

[6:17:44] for a long time.

[6:17:45] >> It's tomorrow. My body's like it's

[6:17:47] tired.

[6:17:48] Um,

[6:17:52] so tonight this is just a a discussion

[6:17:54] item for you or want to let you know.

[6:17:58] Um,

[6:18:00] sorry I've lost my notes as I was

[6:18:01] walking down here.

[6:18:04] Um,

[6:18:05] a couple of months ago, probably two

[6:18:08] months ago, I in my conversations that I

[6:18:11] regularly have with my directors, this

[6:18:13] particular conversation was with Chief

[6:18:15] Hails, not the chief financial officer

[6:18:18] Hails, but the fire chief Hails.

[6:18:21] And

[6:18:23] I asked him, if you could wave a magic

[6:18:25] wand and solve any challenge in our

[6:18:28] community, uh, what would you do? And he

[6:18:33] said, "Highway six and center." He

[6:18:34] didn't even think about it. I was

[6:18:36] expecting, you know, thoughtful

[6:18:37] whatever. He said, "Highway six and

[6:18:39] center." So, what would you do about

[6:18:41] Highway six and center?

[6:18:43] >> He said he would remove the pass

[6:18:46] permissive left turn

[6:18:50] that is there. Now,

[6:18:52] >> one east

[6:18:54] >> going into the subdivision.

[6:18:56] Remove the

[6:18:58] permissive left.

[6:19:00] So, coming up the hill,

[6:19:03] >> coming up the hill and turning left into

[6:19:06] the subdivision.

[6:19:08] >> Let me restate that.

[6:19:11] >> Which one is that?

[6:19:11] >> There we go. So, coming up the hill

[6:19:15] >> on the bridge.

[6:19:16] >> Yeah, right there.

[6:19:17] >> Coming across the bridge.

[6:19:18] >> Okay. Okay.

[6:19:19] >> Coming home to go home.

[6:19:21] >> Coming up the hill on Highway six.

[6:19:23] >> Yep.

[6:19:24] >> Okay.

[6:19:24] >> It's It's actually super important that

[6:19:26] we're all on the same page here.

[6:19:27] >> It's important for some of us who live

[6:19:29] right there. It's I'm not joking. This

[6:19:31] is super important. So, coming up

[6:19:33] Highway six from McDonald's,

[6:19:36] In-N-Out Burger, coming up the hill,

[6:19:40] getting into the lefthand turn lane,

[6:19:43] and turning left to go over the Cut

[6:19:45] Bridge and into the Sunny Ridge

[6:19:48] subdivision.

[6:19:50] There is a permissive left turn here off

[6:19:53] peak hours. in peak hours during the

[6:19:57] morning and afternoon or evening times.

[6:20:00] There is not a permissive left there. Uh

[6:20:03] but there is a permissive left there

[6:20:06] right now. If when Landon goes home, if

[6:20:09] he was coming up center street, he would

[6:20:10] have a blinking yellow light that would

[6:20:12] allow him to make his a judgment whether

[6:20:15] or not he felt he could turn left there.

[6:20:18] Chief Hail's request was that we ask UD

[6:20:21] do to change that removing the

[6:20:23] permissive left and making it so it is a

[6:20:27] left turn on green arrow only

[6:20:32] restricting that movement. It will

[6:20:33] restrict movements.

[6:20:36] We did this a couple of years ago.

[6:20:38] residents reached out to UD do after we

[6:20:41] did that and UD do [clears throat] said

[6:20:45] Spanish work said they wanted it.

[6:20:48] We said no we don't really it's okay and

[6:20:52] they put it back to how it is now. So I

[6:20:55] wanted to make sure that you're

[6:20:56] comfortable. If you are not tell me

[6:21:00] Chief Hell's request, Chief Johnson, I

[6:21:03] know you've looked at this as well. Our traffic uh engineer has looked at

[6:21:06] it. Um, there are

[6:21:09] there's no silver bullet here. It will

[6:21:12] make people frustrated. If we put a

[6:21:14] permissive left, if we remove the

[6:21:16] permissive left at two o'clock at

[6:21:19] >> Yeah.

[6:21:19] >> 12:27 at night, somebody's going to be

[6:21:21] sitting there on a red arrow,

[6:21:23] >> they'll go anyway,

[6:21:24] >> saying, "I'm not waiting." And then

[6:21:25] they're going to go. So, there will be

[6:21:26] somebody who will

[6:21:28] >> run that red light. And there may be

[6:21:30] somebody that runs that red light and

[6:21:32] gets in an accident.

[6:21:35] what Chief Hail's experiences uh we had

[6:21:38] 20 roughly 20 accidents at this location

[6:21:42] uh on average the last four years um

[6:21:45] some years 23 some years 18 right but

[6:21:48] roughly 20 accidents that's about one

[6:21:51] and a half a month

[6:21:54] um not all of them have happened you

[6:21:57] know with the exact same movement but

[6:21:59] what Chief Hail's experience what the

[6:22:00] crews report is that when there is a

[6:22:04] left and turn in this location

[6:22:07] specifically. Uh they're always really

[6:22:09] bad and the crews go and they're using

[6:22:12] the jaws of life to cut people out. It's

[6:22:13] traumatic uh for the crews. It's awful

[6:22:17] for those certainly those involved and

[6:22:20] um and every once in a while one of

[6:22:22] those accidents is extremely serious and some have been fatal.

[6:22:28] So

[6:22:30] staff is not totally um

[6:22:34] I don't think anyone on staff believes

[6:22:36] this is the perfect answer, but

[6:22:38] considering the circumstances, I think

[6:22:40] everyone on staff believes that this is

[6:22:42] a better answer to remove the permissive

[6:22:45] left and and have a red

[6:22:49] arrow

[6:22:51] and a red arrow and green arrows only

[6:22:54] that you don't have permissive left off

[6:22:55] peak. Um,

[6:22:59] >> that's our recommendation.

[6:23:00] >> Is the idea why that's better because it

[6:23:03] doesn't allow for people to pull out

[6:23:04] into lane and be there like vulnerable

[6:23:07] to turn? Is that like the idea behind

[6:23:09] traffic?

[6:23:09] >> So, they're misjudging a left turn.

[6:23:11] >> It just means that they're Yeah. I for

[6:23:14] whatever reason, I'm either not seeing

[6:23:16] that you're coming as fast as you're

[6:23:18] coming at me. So, I turn and I get hit

[6:23:20] by you. You don't see me. I don't see

[6:23:23] you because the sun is coming up.

[6:23:25] >> Yeah. or going down.

[6:23:26] >> I also think there's a little bit of the

[6:23:27] fact that the speed is when they're

[6:23:29] coming down Highway 6, it's going from

[6:23:31] 60 to 55 to 50 right within that period

[6:23:34] of time.

[6:23:35] >> The people coming up the hill are going

[6:23:37] 50 and I don't think they realize

[6:23:39] >> not everybody is going it has hit the

[6:23:41] speed limit correctly at that point.

[6:23:42] >> It's just fast.

[6:23:43] >> It is fast.

[6:23:45] >> So that's that's the idea. There will be

[6:23:47] residents in this area that will

[6:23:49] complain that they have to wait

[6:23:52] >> for sure

[6:23:53] >> coming home from work at 8:00. It's not

[6:23:55] that busy. I can judge it. Let me go.

[6:23:57] Don't give me a ticket. Don't cause me

[6:23:59] to do that.

[6:24:01] >> One thing, Seth, that they did, so at

[6:24:03] the street by my house, it's always been

[6:24:05] the restrictive red, but they have done

[6:24:07] a good job. And I don't know what UD do

[6:24:08] with their timing, but they have done a

[6:24:10] good job at since they added in the

[6:24:13] second Walmart lane. I don't remember

[6:24:15] which lane it was, but one of those

[6:24:16] lanes when they got added in, the timing

[6:24:18] is a lot faster.

[6:24:19] >> Yeah.

[6:24:19] >> I mean, that's probably something that

[6:24:20] we could do with UD do.

[6:24:21] >> We've adjusted timing. We've shortened

[6:24:23] gaps. Um, there's a better term for that I'm

[6:24:27] >> Yeah, I'm not into Shane helped me with

[6:24:29] >> there's a you know how a car goes

[6:24:32] through and then there's another gap and

[6:24:33] then there's another car.

[6:24:35] >> Yeah. So, and we've done a lot of that

[6:24:37] tweaking on on those intersections. We

[6:24:39] can employ all of those here.

[6:24:41] >> It'll add probably 15 to 20 seconds in a cycle. Uh,

[6:24:47] >> so anyway, staff staff proposes that we

[6:24:49] don't want to do anything that you're

[6:24:51] going to as you get any feedback, you

[6:24:53] say, "Hey, let's undo it." That whiplash

[6:24:55] is not, I don't think, good. Um, so if

[6:24:59] you have any concerns,

[6:25:01] please share those with us.

[6:25:03] >> Not to blabber this meeting, but like

[6:25:04] that along with the flashing yellows

[6:25:06] that have been added there to let people

[6:25:08] know that there's a stop coming. I feel

[6:25:11] like living in the area has helped.

[6:25:12] Yeah.

[6:25:13] >> So, I think anything that we can do to

[6:25:14] because there's when there's a wreck

[6:25:15] there, they're they're usually not great

[6:25:17] wrecks either.

[6:25:18] >> They're bad. Yeah. Yeah. The AWS has

[6:25:20] really helped in all locations at ETH

[6:25:23] here at center and at Spanishport.

[6:25:25] >> Yeah.

[6:25:26] >> I'm I'm still fully supported.

[6:25:29] >> Any concerns?

[6:25:30] >> Nope.

[6:25:31] >> Other concerns?

[6:25:32] >> This is how it should be. I mean it

[6:25:36] the

[6:25:37] to rely on a judgment call at speeds

[6:25:42] greater than 65

[6:25:45] is just is not a good solution. I'll

[6:25:48] take the heat for someone having to wait

[6:25:50] 30 more seconds to turn left.

[6:25:53] >> That's fine.

[6:25:54] >> They can make it up by speeding.

[6:25:56] >> Oh, wait. No, you say stop.

[6:25:57] >> They've sped to get to this point.

[6:26:00] >> They can wait a minute to turn left.

[6:26:02] Thank you.

[6:26:03] >> It may sound simple, but would it be

[6:26:04] possible in addition to making this

[6:26:06] change to work with Jack's team to do

[6:26:08] like a little even a social media like

[6:26:10] info, hey, we're making this change and

[6:26:13] this is what it is. Some basic

[6:26:15] >> we were hoping that we could just simply

[6:26:19] >> or that

[6:26:20] >> just I mean we're fair game at this

[6:26:22] point everything

[6:26:25] [laughter]

[6:26:26] >> this is Travis's department anyway,

[6:26:27] right? Public works

[6:26:28] >> probably.

[6:26:30] >> No action here. You're just looking for

[6:26:32] discussion.

[6:26:33] >> Yeah. If you have any concerns, I want

[6:26:34] to hear them and and you know, throw

[6:26:36] them back, but we'll

[6:26:39] hearing none or or or not hearing any in

[6:26:42] the relative future.

[6:26:44] >> Bring it up. That's your neighborhood.

[6:26:45] >> Put it in concerns with you. You can

[6:26:47] bring it up.

[6:26:49] >> Thank you.

[6:26:49] manager. No close session.

[6:26:52] >> Thank you.

[6:26:53] >> That it would entertain.

[6:26:54] >> Was that a statement or a fact?

[6:26:56] >> I move that we adjourn.

[6:26:58] >> Motion made by Councilman Carden. Second

[6:27:00] by Councilman Tuk. All in favor say yes.

[6:27:03] We're ajourned.

Spanish Fork City Council - September 1, 2026

Transcript